Action learning set 3

Feedback on summative assessment

Presentation outline

John Cocksedge – Using a Hybrid approach to feedback and summative assessment

Tahira Majothi – The impracticalities of summative assessment in careers guidance and planning

Jaime Pardo – Investigating feedback on summative assessment within MMP and exploring possible alternate approaches to provide better

feedback to students

Monica Casey – Using Clickers for feedback on summative assessment in library sessions

Product design deptThe Hybrid approach to feedback on summative assessment

John Cocksedge

“Summative contrasts with formative assessment in that [the former] is concerned with summing up or summarizing the

achievement status of a student, and is geared towards reporting at the end of a course of study especially for purposes

of certification; it is essentially passive and does not normally have immediate impact on learning, although it often influences decisions which may have profound educational and personal

consequences for the student” (Sadler 1989)

The nature of product design students

Designers

• Produce novel, unexpected solutions

• Tolerate uncertainty, working with incomplete information

• Apply imagination and constructive forethought to practical problems

• Modelling media as means of problem solving

• Resolve ill-defined problems

• Adopt solution-focussing strategies

• Employ abductive/productive/appositional thinking

• Use non verbal graphical/spatial modelling media

‘The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability’, (Cross 1990)

So how do we assess & feedback to product designers

“Whilst the value of process, personality traits and the social environment, is clearly important, creative output is the final

benchmark on which judgments' are made and upon which consensus is achieved or disputed regarding the merit of the work”. (Karl K

Jeffries, 2007)

We do feedback on summative assessment - BUT

• Outgoing method is time consuming and produces assessment/feedback fatigue

• Does not capture the individual learning journey

• Does not capture/identify student diversity

• Does not identify deep learning

• Danger of influencing teaching methods/material

• Could motivate students to only pass and not to learn

We use a hybrid approach of formative (feed forward) and summative assessment to produce feedback

Why?

• To facilitate learning

• To monitor learning in progress

• Provide feedback/feed forward to learners

• Provide feedback to colleagues

• Diagnose learners needs or obstacles to learning

The hybrid approach and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle

Concrete experiences

Forming abstract concepts

Observation & reflection

Testing in new situations

The hybrid approach and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle

Concrete experiences

Forming abstract concepts

Observation & reflection

Testing in new situations

Formative feedback / feed forward

Feedback & observation – the learner considers the formative feedback received and decides what next

The learner tries out the

new approach

Tutor activity

Student activity

“Formative assessment must be pursued for its main purpose of feedback into the learning process; it can also produce

information which can be used to meet summative purposes” (Black 1995, cited in Brown 2007)

How do we do this in product design

• Align our ILO’s with the Module plan and the assessable tasks (Constructive alignment, Biggs 1999)

• Atelier model of learning (Design Council, Creative and Cultural Skills, 2006) – Personalise the curriculum

• Sequence the modules, tasks and ILO’s along a consistent design process framework – Research, Ideation & verification

• Weight the assessment tasks in relation to the ILO’s – Focus

• Sustained frequency of one to one feedback

• Capture and record formative feedback – ‘Doctors notes’, consistency

• Criterion referencing – ‘Detailed module maps’

• Encourage Ipsative assessment – Self awareness

• Encourage Diagnostic self assessment - Motivation

No#

Su

b-t

ota

l

Su

b-t

ota

l

Su

b-t

ota

l

Su

b-t

ota

l

Su

b-t

ota

l

Su

b-t

ota

l

Su

b-t

ota

l

To

tal

Per

cen

tag

e

10 10 10 10 10 50 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 10 40 10 10 10 10 40 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 350 100

1 Najiya Akhtar 5 8 4 0 0 17 10 6 5 21 10 5 6 5 26 10 8 8 8 34 5 0 0 3 0 0 8 7 5 5 3 10 5 0 35 10 10 6 10 6 5 47 188 53.712 Michael Beaney 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 7 5 22 5 5 5 5 20 10 4 4 0 18 5 0 10 10 0 0 25 9 8 10 4 10 8 10 59 5 10 5 9 6 5 40 198 56.573 Alexander Bridge 8 8 4 0 4 24 10 0 0 10 9 6 10 5 30 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 15 6 6 5 5 10 5 7 44 10 10 5 10 10 5 50 173 49.434 Daniel Doyle 9 5 10 0 4 28 5 6 5 16 9 8 7 5 29 5 5 5 0 15 7 0 10 10 3 0 30 10 8 9 7 10 8 8 60 10 10 8 9 7 5 49 227 64.865 Laura Ferns 10 10 10 0 7 37 10 9 7 26 5 5 5 5 20 10 7 7 8 32 8 9 8 10 5 6 46 9 8 9 9 10 5 10 60 10 10 8 10 10 10 58 279 79.716 David Gallagher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 Ryan Healey 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 4 0 14 8 4 5 4 21 10 4 4 5 23 4 0 10 0 2 0 16 6 4 8 2 10 10 5 45 10 10 0 0 4 0 24 157 44.868 Richard Jones 9 10 10 5 7 41 5 8 10 23 10 9 6 8 33 10 6 6 8 30 9 0 5 4 0 6 24 10 8 10 10 10 5 10 63 10 10 10 10 5 10 55 269 76.869 Stuart Kellett 5 6 5 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 0 17 10 4 5 5 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 5 4 5 0 0 5 25 10 10 10 9 5 0 44 134 38.2910 Wincey Lam 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 6 5 21 7 6 5 5 23 10 5 6 5 26 4 0 0 5 0 0 9 6 5 5 4 10 5 5 40 5 10 5 10 6 0 36 169 48.2911 Ellie McCormick 5 7 4 0 0 16 10 6 7 23 5 5 5 5 20 10 7 5 5 27 5 0 4 8 5 0 22 8 5 5 0 10 0 5 33 10 10 5 0 5 0 30 171 48.8612 Ross Miller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 5 17 5 3 0 0 8 4 0 0 6 0 0 10 10 2 4 0 0 0 5 21 10 10 5 0 2 0 27 83 23.7113 Ashish Patel 10 10 7 0 5 32 10 8 5 23 10 8 5 5 28 10 6 5 0 21 6 0 5 4 4 0 19 8 8 8 8 10 8 7 57 10 10 5 10 10 5 50 230 65.7114 Andrew Taylor 5 4 4 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 4 0 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11.4315 Christopher Walker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 Robert Warren 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 7 5 22 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 5 5 25 7 0 5 5 0 0 17 7 6 5 4 10 5 5 42 10 10 6 5 5 5 41 161 4617 Richard Worswick 6 6 4 0 0 16 5 5 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 6 5 4 10 5 6 43 10 10 10 0 0 5 35 128 36.5718 Jordi Molina 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 5 21 10 6 7 0 23 10 6 6 5 27 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 6 5 5 10 6 7 45 10 10 10 0 6 5 41 162 46.2919 Cheryl Battlebury 6 6 10 0 0 22 10 4 0 14 5 4 5 0 14 5 4 4 0 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 2 5 10 0 0 29 10 10 5 3 4 0 32 131 37.4320 Matthew Bowman 5 10 8 0 0 23 10 8 5 23 10 5 5 0 20 10 5 5 5 25 8 0 10 8 9 6 41 8 9 8 8 10 8 7 58 10 10 5 10 8 5 48 238 6821 Jordan Cooper 8 7 4 0 4 23 10 6 8 24 8 8 5 6 27 10 8 6 5 29 8 0 10 10 8 6 42 8 8 9 7 10 5 8 55 10 10 9 9 9 5 52 252 7222 Daniel Fairhurst 10 9 4 5 7 35 10 8 7 25 7 5 5 7 24 10 4 0 5 19 8 10 10 5 0 4 37 8 6 5 0 10 7 8 44 10 10 5 10 9 7 51 235 67.1423 Neill Ford 5 5 4 0 0 14 5 4 0 9 5 6 5 0 16 5 5 5 5 20 5 0 10 5 0 0 20 8 8 7 8 10 8 5 54 10 10 5 5 6 5 41 174 49.7124 Thomas Grant 5 6 4 0 0 15 10 4 5 19 10 5 6 5 26 10 5 4 5 24 5 0 5 4 0 0 14 7 4 8 2 0 0 5 26 10 10 5 10 7 5 47 171 48.8625 William Holland-Leavens 10 8 10 0 7 35 5 6 0 11 8 6 9 5 28 10 6 6 5 27 5 0 10 9 5 0 29 7 6 5 2 10 5 7 42 10 10 10 10 10 5 55 227 64.8626 Alim Karmali 5 5 5 0 0 15 10 7 5 22 5 5 5 5 20 10 4 4 0 18 4 0 5 0 0 0 9 8 8 8 8 10 7 5 54 5 10 5 10 9 0 39 177 50.5727 Barzin Keywankhosrow 5 8 4 0 4 21 10 6 0 16 5 4 4 0 13 10 7 7 5 29 7 5 5 10 8 6 41 8 8 9 0 5 10 10 50 10 10 5 10 6 5 46 216 61.7128 Jack Makin 5 8 4 0 5 22 10 9 10 29 10 5 9 5 29 10 10 10 10 40 7 0 10 10 10 9 46 8 8 6 8 10 10 10 60 10 10 6 10 7 7 50 276 78.8629 Nathan McDonald 10 10 10 5 8 43 10 6 5 21 5 5 5 5 20 10 7 7 6 30 9 0 5 5 0 6 25 7 3 4 0 10 8 10 42 10 10 5 10 9 5 49 230 65.7130 Simon Poki 5 8 4 0 4 21 10 9 7 26 10 8 6 7 31 10 6 6 6 28 10 5 8 9 4 10 46 8 2 4 4 0 0 0 18 10 10 8 10 9 5 52 222 63.4331 Mariya Todorova 9 8 10 0 5 32 0 0 0 0 10 8 7 8 33 10 6 6 10 32 6 0 5 0 0 0 11 8 6 4 3 10 0 7 38 10 10 5 8 6 5 44 190 54.2932 Becky Wareing 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 10 29 8 6 5 5 24 10 6 6 5 27 8 0 0 4 9 8 29 8 8 4 8 10 5 8 51 10 10 5 8 7 5 45 205 58.5733 Rowan Westwell McGeoch 5 4 4 0 0 13 10 7 7 24 8 6 5 5 24 10 6 3 0 19 4 0 10 3 5 0 22 6 2 4 2 10 5 5 34 10 10 5 10 7 5 47 183 52.2934 Tina Wahle 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 6 7 29 5 0 2 0 0 0 7 7 6 5 8 10 5 5 46 10 10 8 0 6 8 42 143 40.8635 Romain Nicoloso 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 16 4 0 0 0 4 10 6 6 6 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 2 5 2 8 5 5 33 10 10 8 0 5 8 41 127 36.2936 Mike Power 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 4 17 10 7 5 6 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 8 4 10 0 5 38 10 10 5 0 2 5 32 120 34.29

Pro

gres

sive

ly m

aint

aine

d

Com

pre

hens

ive

iden

tific

atio

n of

ta

sks

and

sub

task

s

Evi

denc

e of

con

curr

ent

plan

ning

Evi

denc

e of

sel

f in

itiat

ed d

eadl

ines

X f

acto

r

17.61

Pre

sent

ed o

n A

3 fo

rmat

Use

r ac

tivity

def

ined

, an

alys

ed a

nd

repr

esen

ted

in a

vis

ual m

anne

r

X F

acto

r

16.222

Cle

ar c

oher

ent

cons

truc

tion

of t

he

brie

f

Pro

ject

bac

kgro

und,

obj

ectiv

es &

ta

rget

aud

ienc

e cl

early

det

aile

d

Spe

cific

atio

n co

mpr

ehen

sive

and

in

form

ativ

e

X f

acto

r

18.81

A3

layo

ut

Goo

d co

llect

ion

of im

ages

ref

lect

ing

the

rang

e of

exi

stin

g pr

oduc

ts

Goo

d co

llect

ion

of im

ages

ref

lect

ing

the

user

life

styl

e an

d cu

lture

X f

acto

r

22.5C

once

pt d

evel

opm

ent

- sk

etch

qu

ality

, ex

plor

atio

n &

pro

gres

sion

of

idea

sIn

divi

dual

tec

hnic

al D

wg'

s of

the

as

sem

bly

mod

el

Sol

id w

orks

ass

embl

y m

odel

of

the

desi

gn w

ith e

xplo

ded

Dw

g &

ful

l 'B

ill

of M

ater

ials

' tab

le2D

/3D

sof

t pr

otot

ype

of t

he d

esig

n pr

opos

al f

or d

irect

use

r ev

alua

tion

A3

boar

d -

Pro

toty

pe u

ser

eval

uatio

n se

ssio

n, is

sues

sho

wn

& a

nnot

ated

X f

acto

r

19.25

A3

Pre

sent

atio

n bo

ards

- I

mag

e,

com

posi

tion

& a

nnot

atio

n qu

ality

Vis

ual n

arra

tive

of u

ser

expe

rienc

e -

mod

es a

nd s

tage

s of

use

Vis

ual r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

se

man

tics

- F

orm

, m

ater

ials

, co

lour

, te

xtur

e et

cV

isua

l rep

rese

ntat

ion

of t

he

sem

iotic

s -

Sig

ns,

syst

em lo

gic,

us

er p

roto

cols

3D a

ppea

ranc

e m

odel

- F

ull o

r pa

rtia

l mod

el w

ith in

terf

ace

elem

ents

3D m

odel

with

- M

ater

ial,

phys

ical

, fu

nctio

nal &

sym

bolic

att

ribut

es

X f

acto

r

40.22

Bou

nd A

4 ha

rd c

opy

Dig

ital s

ubm

itted

cop

y

Cov

er s

heet

Tab

le o

f co

nten

ts w

ith s

ub s

ectio

ns

deta

iled

in a

chr

onol

ogic

al m

anne

r

Com

preh

ensi

ve r

epre

sent

atio

n of

m

odul

e ac

tivity

X f

acto

r

40 174.6111 49.89

Design development & 2D/3D soft prototype for user evaluation study

Final design proposal and 3D appearance model

Interface design module - 2010-11 Mark sheet

Student name Task analysis boardMood board, lifestyle board &

design culture boardsGantt chart

Design requirements - written brief

Project document

The formative and summative assessment engine – the Module Map

A consistent framework and point of reference for student feedback

How does this help us with feedback

• It allows us to assess work on the fly

• It allows us to monitor the flow of the module and adjust accordingly

• It allows students to have full sight of and plan for assessable tasks

• It allows us to develop/plan for appropriate resources

• It allows us to develop timely feedback

• It allows us to give very specific feedback

• It is non threatening to students

• It encourages students to ask questions / seek guidance

• It allows students to experience success

• It allows us to improve

Development in response to student feedback

What next ?

‘As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’

What next ?

• Task mapping ‘power bulge’

• Module maps

• Exemplars

• Feedback groups

• Peer to peer

• Self assessment (pre and post module)

• Dynamic online self report diagnostics

• Statement banks

• Personalised development plans

‘As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’

“The indispensable conditions for improvement are that the student comes to hold a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher, is able to monitor continuously the quality of

what is being produced during the act of production itself, and has a repertoire of alternative moves or strategies from which to draw

at any given point. In other words students have to be able to judge the quality of what they are producing and be able to

regulate what they are doing during the doing of it ” (Sadler 1989)

Tahira

Challenges of Summative Assessment in a Careers Context

• Stand alone careers workshops

• Singular interactions

• Diversity and the diverse range of students

• Limited input into formal assessments

© mylot.com, Google images

Self awareness: Gain knowledge and understanding about your career-related interests, skills, aptitudes, preferences and goals.

Transition learning:Implement your career decisions and put your plans into effect. Produce CVs, apply for jobs and gain work experience.

Decision-making: Evaluate opportunities, make decisions, action plan and set goals.

Opportunity awareness:Identify sources of information and opportunities in training, education and work.

SODT Model: Career Planning

Assessment activities within Careers

• Salford Student Life Award

• 1:1 QQ or long appointments

• Workshops

• Filmed mock interviews

• Graduate Gateway

• Career planning exercises

• MBTI/Belbin

How does this meet UK Professional StandardsFramework (Areas of activity, Core Knowledge

and Professional values) ?

© Salford Careers and Employability Service

Fluidity of assessments

• Associative perspective (acquiring competence) – voting pads

• Constructivist (learning as achieving understanding)– construct own learning, self reflection – SSLA, Graduate Gateway

• Social constructivist (learning as achieving understanding) – workshops, peer learning

• Situative (learning as social practice) – ‘learning as arising from participation in communities of practice’ e.g. GG placements, SIFE, employer-led assessments etc

JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age. (p9-11)

© elated.com Google Images.

Future Plans: Patchwork Text (Winter 2003) Methodology

Employability modules/Bespoke delivery:• Blackboard/Elluminate/VDS• Camtasia/Meebo• YouTube• Peer reviews/student observations• Case studies• Work experience• Specific support for care leaver graduates

This will involve:• Variety of assessments• Small working groups• Little and often – assessments

“…online tools can support peer and self-assessment in any location and at times to suit learners – the value of peer and self-assessment in developing learners’ ability to regulate their own learning is increasingly recognised.” JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age.

© Flickr. Nicky Perryman

Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy

• Remembering – recalling relevant knowledge

• Understanding – constructing meaning

• Applying – implementing

• Analyzing – differentiating

• Evaluating – critiquing, self reflection

• Creating – putting elements together in coherent steps

Revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) cited in Forehand 2010)

© boohewerdinesblogthing.blogspot.com

Working towards Constructive Alignment: Biggs (1999)

Biggs, J (1999). The chapter above was taken from Houghton, Warren (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre. http://www.engsc.ac.uk/learning-and-teaching-theory-guide/constructive-alignment

References

• Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.

• Forehand, M. (2010) Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. University of Georgia website http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy [Accessed 20/03/11]

• JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age, A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. JISC pp9-11.

• Law, B. and Watts, A.G. (1977) DOTS Model. London: Schools, Careers and Community. Church Information Office.

• The Higher Education Academy (2006) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education.

• Winter, R. (2003) ‘Alternative to the Essay’, on Guardian Education website http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/10/highereducation.uk [Accessed 23/03/11]

Jaime

“Feedback on paper is the most dangerous, most widely-used, yet least effective way of helping students to learn from their triumphs and disasters. Face-to-face feedback helps students to make sense of their thinking, aided by tone of voice, facial expression, body language, encouraging smiles, speed of speech, emphasis on particular words, and the ability to fine-tune the feedback on the basis of how it is being received. Paper-based feedback allows for none of these.”

http://phil-race.co.uk/if-i-were-in-charge/

Equality & Diversity

According to the Subject benchmark Statements from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education:

“Research indicates that dyslexia is more prevalent amongst students of art and design than in other subjects…”

Umran Ali, Equality and Diversity Coordinator for School of MMP:

“The percentage of students on support plans within the school of MMP has been as high as 30% but is usually somewhere around the 10% mark. Compared to an average of a round 4% across the University as a whole.”

Group: Students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia

Measures:

• Use of a variety of different teaching methods, including workshops and one on one tutorials

• Use of staged handouts to support verbal delivery (handouts throughout the lecture instead of one big clump at the end)

• Blackboard & other electronic resources used for notes and exercises

• One on one tutorials for support & guidance

Group: Students with physical difficulties

Measures:

• One on one tutorials for support & guidance • Careful choice of room/access

• Use of a variety of audio/visual/text based content (for visually/hearing impaired students)

• Pre planning for external visits to ensure disabled access/support.

Group: Students with mental health/personality disorders

Measures:

• ‘Opt out’ option for presentations, alternative provided(private or other form

of assessment)

• Small group presentations & gradual introduction of potentially difficult tasks (i.e. weekly practise of presentations building up to final formatively assessed task)

• Sensitivity to personal needs: Not drawing accidental undue attention to student by asking questions to individual students during lectures/seminars.

We know from week 6:

“The dialogic feedback system puts the students at the centre of learning, providing them with a series of opportunities to act on feedback.” (Duhs, 2010, 5)

Underlying my account is the view that:

“The single, strongest influence on learning is surely the assessment procedures …even the form of an examination question or essay topics set can affect how students study … It is also important to remember that entrenched attitudes which support traditional methods of teaching and assessment are hard to change.” (Entwistle,1996, pp. 111–12)

Student Feedback

What was most useful?

“Tutor support, comments and information on handouts was provided nice and early on.”

“The tutor and peer help.”

“The group discussions, well organised.”

“The guidance throughout assignments.”

Are there any changes you would recommend making to the module?

“To be longer, the whole year perhaps?”

“Emphasis is placed on active rather than passive uses of the tool to encourage an ethos of independent learning: students set up their own blog, invite others to join, and upload images and other digital resources to support one another in research activities.” (p3.)

“…now marks recorded in Turnitin are only visible to the individual student and his or her tutor. Students are also more likely to return to the feedback they have been given: grades and feedback remain stored in the system and are not lost by the time of the next assignment.” (p3.)

JISC Case study 3: Supporting The Transition To Degree Level Study, Loughborough College.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_supportingtrans.pdf

“While it is difficult to establish that oral feedback has a greater impact on students’ cognitive development than written feedback, students on the MSc Occupational Psychology course appear to be more attentive to spoken feedback; most respond positively to the intimacy of the spoken word and perceive tutors’ advice as being clearer and more detailed. Audio-recorded feedback is also helping to reduce the isolation of learning remotely; early evidence from course data suggests that there may have been a positive impact on retention rates, although this has yet to be empirically evaluated:

‘Podcasts made me feel closer to my tutors and I think they help you to build a relationship with them.’ Student, MSc Occupational Psychology, University of Leicester” (p3.)

JISC Case study 6: Enhancing The Experience of Feedback, University of Leicesterhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_enhancingfeedbk.pdf

Conclusion

• “Feedback is a worthy focus of academic effort since it focuses students on what they need to improve.” ( Blayney and Freeman, 2004:2)

• Written Feedback on Summative Assessment is widely used yet ineffective.

• Technology can enhance the experience of feedback

• Audio Feedback – podcasting

• Use of blogs and e-portfolios

Monica

Using Clickers for summative assessment and feedback

What are Clickers?

Clickers* are similar to the technology used on the TV program “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire” during ‘ask the audience’. A teacher asks questions in-class and students use a ‘clicker’ to respond. The students’ responses can be viewed immediately on projector screen and/or scores can be captured then reports generated for further analysis.

* Clickers are also known as Personal Response Systems (PRS), Audience Response Systems (ARS), Electronic Response Systems (ERS), Student Response Systems (SRS), Interactive Response Systems (IRS), Electronic Voting Systems (EVS), Classroom Response Systems (CRS), Zappers, Voting Pads …. and more.

Taken from Dunleavy, C (no date)

Using Clickers in Library Inductions

• Context: – Information Literacy strategy aims to provide

students with transferable skills – Wide range of students– ‘One shot’ sessions

• Inductions:– Student centred– Clickers used for immediate summative

assessment and feedback(links with UK PSF Core Knowledge 4, ‘Use of

appropriate learning technologies’)

What are the benefits for the learners?

• Anonymous– Caldwell (2007) indicates they like to know

they are not alone in their thinking

• Responding to questions ‘encourages all students to think actively’ (McCune, no date)

• Immediate face to face feedback• Enables feedback to be accessible and

inclusive

Student Feedback

“The voting pods were awesome”“Enjoyed the session with the interactive key pad

and made me engage and learn more from the session”

“Who knew being in a library could be so much fun!”

“Overall, clickers have the potential to improve classroom learning, especially in large classes. Students and instructors find their use stimulating, revealing, motivating, and – as an added benefit – just plain fun” (Caldwell, 2007, p19)

Implications for ongoing practice‘As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also

use it on ourselves and our methods’

• Exemplars• Feedback groups• Peer to peer• Self assessment (pre and post module)• Dynamic online self report diagnostics• Statement banks• Personalised development plans• Use of technology for feedback/summative

assessment• Student feedback• Hybrid formative/summative approach

Feedback on assessment should be about putting students at the centre of their own learning and equipping them with the tools for lifelong engagement

References & Bibliography  Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.  Brown, S. (1997) ‘Using formative assessment to promote student learning’, www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/news/events/documents/BrownPowerPoint.pdf, accessed on 09/03/11   Cross N.G. (1990) ‘The nature and nurture of design ability’, Design Studies, Vol. 11, No 3, pp.127-140   Jeffries, K. (2007) ‘Diagnosing the creativity of designers: individual feedback within mass higher education’, Design Studies, vol. 28, issue 5, pp.485-497   Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall   Sadler, D. R. (1989) ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional Science, vol. 18, 119-144

• Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.

• Forehand, M. (2010) Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. University of Georgia website http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy [Accessed 20/03/11]

• JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age, A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. JISC pp9-11.

• Law, B. and Watts, A.G. (1977) DOTS Model. London: Schools, Careers and Community. Church Information Office.

• The Higher Education Academy (2006) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education.

• Winter, R. (2003) ‘Alternative to the Essay’, on Guardian Education website http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/10/highereducation.uk [Accessed 23/03/11]

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Duhs, R. (2010) „Please, no exam”‟ Assessment strategies for international students, in: SEDA Educational Developments, Issue 11.4, Dec, pp. 3-6

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Education Research, 77, 81-112.

Knight, Peter T.(2002) 'Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in disarray', Studies in Higher Education, 27: 3, 275 — 286

Entwistle, N. (1996) Recent research on student learning, in: J. TAIT & P. KNIGHT (Eds) The Management of Independent Learning, pp. 97–112 (London, Kogan Page)

JISC Case study 3: Supporting The Transition To Degree Level Study, Loughborough College.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_supportingtrans.pdf

JISC Case study 6: Enhancing The Experience of Feedback, University of Leicester.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_enhancingfeedbk.pdf

JISC Case study 8: Reflecting on Feedback, University of Westminster.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_rereflectingfdback.pdf

Subject benchmark Statements, Art and Design (2008).http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/artanddesign.asp

Biggs, J.B. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd edition). Buckingham, Open University Press

Caldwell, J. E. (2007) “Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips” CBE-Life Sciences Education, Vol 6, Spring, pp 9 – 20

Deleo, P., Eichenholtz, S. and Sosin, A. A.(2009) “Bridging the information literacy gap with clickers”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35 (5) pp438 - 444

Dunleavy, C (no date) Enhancing face-to-face teaching with Clickers. <www.ldu.salford.ac.uk/html/tel/tools/clickers.html> [accessed 20/03/2010]

Julian, S. and Benson, K. (2008) “Clicking your way to library instruction assessment”, C&RL News, May, pp 258 – 260

McCune, V. (no date) “Effective use of clickers in the College of Science and Engineering”, one The College of Science and Engineering, Edinburgh University website.

<www.scieng.ed.ac.uk/LTStrategy/clickers_effectiveUse.html> [accessed 21/03/2010]