Providing Feedback to Students Electronically: The Electronic Feedback Freeware

1
Providing Feedback to Students Electronically
The Electronic Feedback Freeware

• Philip Denton
• Faculty Learning Development Manager
• Liverpool John Moores University

2
Contents

• Electronically-assisted feedback
• Electronic Feedback v15 Short Demo
• Traditional versus Electronic feedback
  Comparative Case study
• Conclusions

3
Electronically-assisted feedback

• Typed remarks via Emails/VLEs1
• Automatic feedback on MCQs2
• Web-facilitated peer assessment of free-response
  type questions3
• Video4a / Streamed Audio4b feedback
• Bespoke subject specific systems e.g. assessment
  of computer code writing5
• Marking assistants
• Turnitin? Grademark? 6
• Electronic Feedback freeware? 7,8

4
Electronic Feedback v15

• Facilitates the synthesis of feedback
• Tutor inputs
• Student names, email addresses
• Comments (including standard comments)
• Marks and allocation of standard comments
• Software outputs
• (Auto)Mark, Mark stats, allocation stats
• Individualised MS Word feedback reports
• which may be emailed to students

5

• Example feedback sheet (Abridged) Dr Philip
  Denton
• 18 Dec 2008
• PHCDF1015 Log P Extended Laboratory Reports
• ANDREW N OTHER lt37665gt
• 58 2(ii) Class
• Your mark is shown above. As detailed in the
  supporting information, I've considered the
  following aspects of your work. The weightings
  allocated to each section in the markscheme are
  indicated.
• INTRODUCTION (Weighting 10)
• A very good start to report that dealt with most
  of the underlying theory associated with this
  practical Partition phenomena, acid
  dissociation, apparent partition coefficients,
  Lambert-Beer law. Take care with symbols when
  writing the equation that defines log P.
• METHOD (Weighting 5)
• A good account of what you did but remember the
  importance of writing in appropriate scientific
  style
• RESULTS, TABLES, GRAPHS AND CALCULATIONS
  (Weighting 35)
• H is given by antilog(-pH) and you should
  have stated this explicitly. The title of one (or
  both) of your graphs is inappropriate It should
  detail what is being plotted and identify the
  system (salicylic acid) that is being considered.

This was generally a good report, Andrew, but the
lack of references and a failure to fully discuss
the role of log P in drug development stopped it
from being first class. Thank you for the effort
that you put into this work.
6
Short demo of v15

• Consists of 3 files
• Guide15.xls Read-only interactive guide
• Fb15.doc May be ignored by the user
• Feedback15.xls
• Template on which all feedback files are based.
• Usual to create one feedback file for each
  assignment.

7
Case study Traditional versus Electronic
Feedback9

• Study of Level 1 Pharmaceutical Science and
  Pharmacy (PSP) extended lab report
• Traditional and electronic feedback returned to
  198 PSP Students by 7 markers
• Characteristics of effective feedback identified
  from literature
• Questionnaire designed so that students could
  rate their feedback

8
Case study Method

• 4 Markers returned traditional feedback only
• 3 Markers returned traditional (T) and electronic
  (E) feedback
• Standard Comments agreed by E-marking team
• E-markers interviewed after marking complete
• Lab reports and feedback returned within class
  Student confer over questionnaires
• Average Likert scores calculated (5 agree)

9
(No Transcript)
10
Case study Results

• Response rate 85 Average Likert for E (n 40)
  is 0.9 units greater than T (n 129)
• Responses to all questions were correlated with
  each other, r 0.162 to r 0.657
• Correlations were significant (Plt0.05)
• ? First principal component score can be used as
  an overall satisfaction rating
• We undertook a principal component analysis and
  two-way analysis of satisfaction rating variance
  using Minitab General Linear Model

11
Case study Results (cont.)

• Marker identity and feedback type were treated as
  the two factors
• Influence of individual markers was not found to
  be significant (P 0.238)
• Feedback type v. significant (P lt 0.001)
• Mann-Whitney test Responses to Q2 (legibility),
  Q3 (amount), Q5 (identifies errors) and Q6 (where
  did well) differed significantly according to
  feedback type

12
Case study Results (cont.)

• Informal interviews conducted with the 3 markers
  that used Electronic Feedback
• Took 2 to 3 minutes less marking time per script
  (up to 2 hours for 40 scripts)
• Average marks awarded by Markers 1 to 3 (n 129)
  were within 6 of each other 19 for Markers 4
  to 7 (n 69)
• Tutors appreciated facility to automatically
  return emailed feedback

13
Case study Conclusions

• Students prefer E-feedback, as noted.7
• This study identifies specific features
• Legibility (SENDA)
• Amount (e.g. model answers)
• Identification of negative/positive aspects
• Staff favour E feedback, as noted.8
• Consistent feedback (bottom/top of pile)
• Reduced marking time (once set up)
• Feedback returned more quickly, by email

14
What next?

• Electronic feedback freeware available
• www.tinyurl.com/36oem5
• v15 expires 30/09/09 v16 then available for
  download
• V16 will correct (non-critical) issues when
  running EF on Office 2007.
• A consultancy are working on a BlackBoard VLE
  version of the software (HEFCE TQE funding)

15
References

• Collis, B., De Boer, W. Slotman, K. (2001).
  Feedback for web-based assignments. Journal of
  Computer Assisted Learning 17, 306-313.
• Bull, J. Stephens, D. P. (1999). The use of
  question mark software for formative summative
  assessment in two universities. Innovations in
  Education Training International 36, 128-136.
• Bhalerao, A. Ward, A. (2001). Towards
  electronically assisted peer assessment A case
  study. Association of Learning Technology Journal
  9, 26-37.
• a) Hase, S. Saenger, H. (1997). Videomail - a
  personalised approach to providing feedback on
  assessment to distance learners. Distance
  Education 18, 362-369.
• b) e.g. http//www.wimba.com/products/wimba_voice
  / (www.tinyurl.com/qxrjlj)
• Heo, M. Chow, A. (2005). The impact of computer
  augmented online learning assessment tool.
  Educational Technology Society 8, 113-125.
• http//turnitin.com/static/grademark.html
  (www.tinyurl.com/oxeq97)
• Denton, P. (2001). Generating coursework feedback
  for large groups of students using MS Excel MS
  Word. University Chemistry Education 5, 1-8.
• Denton, P. (2003). Evaluation of the electronic
  feedback marking assistant ... Proceedings of
  the 7th International Computer Aided Assessment
  Conference (pp 157-173), Learning and Teaching
  Development Loughborough.
• Denton, P., Roberts M., Madden J., Rowe P. (2008)
  Students response to traditional and
  computer-assisted formative feedback A
  comparative case study. British Journal of
  Educational Technology 39, 486-500.

16
(No Transcript)