SPRInTA not SXSPORT

1
(No Transcript)
2

• SPRInTA not SXSPORT
• Student Portal Resources for Innovative Targeted
  Assessment
• FDTL-5
• November 2004 October 2006
• Martin Sellens
• Nicola Bryan
• Ben Steeples

3
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION

• Background to project
• (why ever did we bother?)
• Overview of project aims
• Progress to date
• Help!
• (the workshop bit)

4
PEDAGOGY vs PRAGMATISM

• Driven by pragmatism (overwork)
• Post-hoc Pedagogy constrained by context

5
BACKGROUND 1

• SPORTS SCIENCE AT ESSEX.
• A centre within Biological Sciences
• 50 staff 160 undergraduates p.a.
• 8 staff 75 undergraduates per year
• Large classes (relatively)
• Lots of marking

6
PROJECT DRIVER 1LOTS OF MARKING

• Assessment heavy (Biological Sciences ROA)
• Level 1 (12 modules)
• MCQ
• Exam (short and essay)
• Practical reports
• Level 2 (10 modules)
• Exam (short and essay)
• Continuous assessment (e.g.2000 word essay)
• 30 practical reports (worksheets and SPF)

7
PROJECT DRIVER 1LOTS OF MARKING

• ASSESSMENT OVERLOAD (staff and students)
• Slow feedback
• Variable quality
• Waste of time (FAST)?
• Whats the solution?
• On-line marking
• Cut down on assessment (Smith, 2005, pers com)

8
PROJECT DRIVER 2PROGRAMME SPECIFICATIONS

• HOW DO WE KNOW STUDENTS HAVE ACHIEVED LEARNING
  OUTCOMES?
• Threshold testing.
• Level1
• MCQs
• 80 (currently 50)

9
PROJECT DRIVER 2PROGRAMME SPECIFICATIONS

• How do we get any of them through?
• Specify threshold objectives
• Opportunities to practice (self test formative
  assessment)
• Opportunities to resit!

10
PROJECT DRIVER 3Improve student learning

• Provide formative assessment and examination
  practice.
• Target it temporally and individually (link with
  student records tiered assessments)
• Provide targeted tutorial support
• Improve feedback
• Educate about plagiarism (link with JISC)
• Do it all seamlessly through the student portal

11
Project Plan
MIS
BS151
BS152
DEPT
BS153
STUDENT PORTAL
BS1nn
FEEDBACK
ADVANCED
CMR LINKS TO OTHER RESOURCES
THRESHOLD
FEEDBACK
BASIC
ASSESSMENT
MCQ
PRACTICALS
OCS
OCM
ESSAYS
12
Progress

• Pilot module for formative multiple choice
  questions (BS155)
• Formative Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)-using
  QMP
• Split course materials into 6 sub modules
• Tiered difficulty of questions
• Summative Exam Online
• Incentive-Summative Exam Questions from Formative
  Question Bank

13
Tiered Sub Modules
14
Demonstration

• https//www.essex.ac.uk/myessex/default.asp?usert
  est

15
Student Uptake

• 113 Students on BS155
• 42 Students took BS155-CVS (37)
• 18 Students took BS155-Respiratory (16)
• 14 Students took BOTH CVS and Resp (12)
• 28 Students took CVS and not Resp (25)
• 4  Students took Resp and not CVS (3)

16
Student Uptake

• In CVS
• Basic - 55 attempts from 18 students
• Threshold - 144 attempts from 42 students
• Advanced - 17 attempts from 6
•  
• In Respiratory
• Basic - 24 attempts from 10 students
• Threshold - 35 attempts from 14 students
• Advanced - 1 attempt from 1 student

17
(No Transcript)
18
Discussion

• How can we encourage students to interact with
  formative assessment?

19
Contact

• E-mail sprinta_at_essex.ac.uk
• Telephone [phone]
• Website http//www.essex.ac.uk/sprinta/

20
Questionnaire

• Questionnaire-staff and students

21
Questionnaire

• Questionnaire to staff/students
• Students- views on assessment, feedback, learning
  resources, formatting of coursework, time spent
  studying, computing skills
• Piloted 2nd version of the Assessment Experience
  Questionnaire FAST (FDTL4)
• Staff-views on assessment, resources, marking,
  the feedback they give students, formatting of
  students work, students study time

22
Questionnaire

• Student questionnaire was dispensed to all
  undergraduates (209 students)
• Staff questionnaire was dispensed to all Sports
  Science teaching staff (25 staff)
• 67 response rate from students
• 48 response rate from staff

23
Questionnaire Results

• Still collecting staff questionnaire back
• Students
• Marked 1-5
• Questionnaire out of 80, high score indicates
  good views on assessment, resources etc

24
Questionnaire Results

• Significant difference between years
• Year 1 scored higher than year 3 (52.4 5.4 vs.
  46.1 5.2, p lt .0005)
• Year 2 scored higher than year 3 (50.8 5.1 vs.
  46.1 5.2, p lt .0005)
• There were no significant differences between
  year 1 and year 2 total scores.

25
Feedback
26
Feedback
27
Re-direction
28
Transferability

• Institutes have different systems
• Institutes have different student record systems
• The assessment structure may not suit all
  institutions

29
Discussion

• How can we overcome the problem of
  transferability?