excuses, excuses, excuses….

A bit out of date now, but feel I need to add this post, written a couple of weeks ago.

Where does the time go ? Cliché I know, but true nevertheless. So why am I making excuses ?

Well, multitasking seems to be getting harder as I get older and I seem to have less stamina (altho’ hopefully made up for by increasing experience).

Work has been very busy lately especially as I’m doing more class teaching this term and I need to do more lesson preparation. I’ve been giving feedback to first year students using grademark and they are lapping it up and want more. I shouldn’t complain as I hear from tutors who say their students don’t look at online feedback much. However the turnaround for giving feedback has been very quick; hence the pressure of work.

My job also entails a great deal of f2f, one-to-one tutorials and this has its own pressures. It can be very draining due to having to react to students’ needs very quickly and often with little prior knowledge of what the issues might be. And as I get older, I find it more tiring so then on going home at the end of the day, trying to start researching, reading and writing doesn’t happen as I fall asleep before I get the chance.

Trying to fit in PhD research during the working day has been difficult given that the Autumn term and the Spring term are the Learning Development Group’s busiest times. Also I have needed to prepare for the Day School recently by reading articles James (Avis) had set for us at the previous session. And I do like to be a ‘good’ student (the Headmistress at my girls’ grammar school has a lot to answer for) so felt I should prioritise the articles.

Then I mixed up the date by which I needed to send work to Lyn. I also forgot what we had agreed I would work on and ended up sending a rather basic description of what I’d been reading, almost as an annotated bibliography. On top of this I had the date for the next meeting with Lyn wrong as well – a week too early. All I can do is plead overwork and advancing age.

However, the material I had been reading involved a review of Cholmsky’s theories on language aquisition which I found really stimulating and if Chomsky is correct in his claim that there is a LAD located within the human brain, what implications does this have for students diagnosed as dyslexic ?

First Principles

Gaps in my knowledge

I trained as a dyslexia support teacher some time ago, qualifying in 1998. My training seemed to be focused on dyslexia as a learning difficulty, barriers to language acquisition and effective intervention. However, over the years of working with dyslexic students in school, in college and in higher education, my experience has influenced how I think about dyslexia. I have met and supported a considerable number of creative, intelligent and highly capable individuals coping with educational environments mainly suited to a particular type of learner – I don’t want to describe that learner as being one who is good at reading and writing as dyslexic students are also good at reading and writing, but they  have other abilities that are not always suited to a system of assessing and accrediting achievement in narrow terms. But this is not the place for a ‘rant’ about our education system, rather to explain that I am concerned with the gaps in my knowledge – how can I develop an aim relating to dyslexia as a topic for a PhD without feeling that I have first explored theories surrounding how language is acquired.

Chomsky, N. (2004). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. In Lust, B. and Foley, C. (Eds.), First Language Acquisition: the essential readings (pp.15-24). Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

This book seemed like a useful place to start – whilst the discussion is not recent (originally written in 1986), the author has considerable credibility in terms of his contribution to linguistic theory and philosophy as well as having a long and distinguished career as an author and professor. Moreover, I have some knowledge of Chomsky from working with students taking an undergraduate degree in childhood studies. He featured largely as a source of evidence for how children acquire language in terms of his theory regarding a language acquisition device (LAD) that is “an innate component of the human mind” (Chomsky, 1986, cited in Lust and Foley, 2004, p.16) which interacts with experience to produce some kind of reasoned interpretation defined by language. I have been intrigued by this theory but have not followed it up in the past – this is my chance.

Interesting discussion and one which contextualised the debate about ‘generative grammar’ (must investigate this topic further) in terms of linking behaviourism to a cognitivist perspective. Chomsky raises three questions:

(i) What constitutes knowledge of language?

(ii) How is knowledge of language acquired?

(iii) How is knowledge of language put to use?

Chomsky explores these questions within the context of generative grammar, which he claims is not a ‘theory’ but a ‘topic’. What emerges from the discussion (if I’ve interpreted it correctly), relates to how human beings seem able to understand how to make sense of experience in linguistically complex ways that are not dependent on ‘over learning’ a set of rules as might be encountered by traditional grammar within a formal learning situation. He also draws attention to second language learning and suggests that if examples of sentences that raise problems of meaning were presented, then those people studying a second language would also be able to understand and differentiate the meaning. The notion that an individual is not dependent on their schooling with regard to language learning to frame their linguistic expression, but somehow through what he describes as a faculty within the brain or mind (LAD?) has developed knowledge or what he describes as ‘ability’ in a broader sense and which is influenced by their life experience and environment.

Action Points:

• What is ‘generative grammar’ ?
• Research the LAD and ‘instinctive grammar’ (page 22)

The Morning After

Tuesday 9.45

I met with Lyn Tett my main supervisor yesterday. We got on well and I found the discussion and Lyn’s advice very helpful. Both Lyn and Lisa Russell , my second supervisor, have been very welcoming and encouraging. However, I need to calm down a bit and stop being so hyperactive, so apologies Lyn for not allowing you to complete your sentences at times (a combination of nerves as well as being very busy in my main job).  It’s a bad habit I need to curve and stems from having to fit in a lot of students for tutorials. I need to realize that taking on a PhD is a big commitment and is a priority alongside supporting students and I need to make time for it, so I’ve blocked out two mornings on my calendar to give time to the research and need to be firm about sticking to a routine.

First things first:

I need to look again at my research aim/s. The bullet points from my proposal were really potential aims and not objectives. I was ‘thinking aloud’ and exploring possibilities. So, as Lyn advised, my first task is to narrow down what I am really interested in as well as what offers potential in terms of a PhD. So my plan is to explore  each one bullet point in turn, not necessarily in this order:

• the acquisition of reading and writing skills as a second language
• the acquisition of literacy skills by both L1 and L2 dyslexic students
• the barriers that affect the development of competent reading and writing skills for both groups, including students who may have English as their second language and could also be described as dyslexic
• the different stages involved in the writing process which will include: planning, researching, the formulation of ideas and how these get translated into coherent arguments on paper and will involve such processes as reviewing and editing
• it may also be enlightening to investigate how culture and situated learning affect the development of successful academic skills

I’m actually going to start with bullet point 1 but take it further back and look at how language develops in terms of communication at the understanding, listening and oral stages, before moving on to the acquisition of reading and writing skills as a first language. This is because, although I have a specialist dyslexia tutor qualification and have worked with dyslexic students for several years, my knowledge of how language develops is patchy.

Update – Friday 17 Oct 3.30

‘The best laid plans’ and all that – didn’t even get chance to publish the post I started last week following my meeting with Lyn until just now, despite the date on the post above – bodes ill for the future unless I get more organised. To this end I have started reading and have also decided to resurrect Wejoin.com, an online calendar that I used when I taught at the Barnsley campus and it worked well for organising my timetable more efficiently.

A New Chapter Begins….

Have just enrolled to a PhD at my university. Several reasons – had considered updating my knowledge on dyslexia and getting to grips with the theoretical foundations for the condition as this is an area I feel confused about, but none of the courses I explored could offer the same research possibilities that (I hope) a Phd can. So, as I will be supported with regard to the financial cost and time to undertake research whilst earning a living, I decided that this was the way to go. Mind you, very concerned as to whether I will be able to manage my job as well as the time I need to spend researching and writing, especially as I am still committed to developing my artistic interests (see my profile). As I get older, this side of my life is becoming  increasingly important.

First meeting tomorrow (Mon 6th Oct) with my main supervisor, so I will discuss my hopes and concerns with Lyn and see what she advises.

Monday morning

Let’s start as I mean to go on. Have decided to use the first hour of each day for PhD research. Yesterday evening I started reading Rowena Murray’s book “How to Write a Thesis” online via Summon. Started with the intro, then skipped quite a lot until I came to a set of questions that she advises students to address:

(Murray , 2011, p.20)

Good questions especially given my style of research and writing as I tend to immerse myself in the process and find it hard to compartmentalize. However, that’s what I’m going to have to do. So made a start this morning as I will try to devote the first hour at work each day to PhD research, reading, writing and related issues. However, the first hour this morning was given over mostly to inserting the questions above. It would have been quicker to type them, given my command of technology (despite having an MSc in Elearning and Multimedia – but as it was stressed on the course – it is all about the pedagogy. Mind you it does help to have some competent IT skills).

So, how will I plan and measure my written output ? One way is to use my blog to reflect on write about my PhD topic and clarify my aim/s along the way. I will also ask my supervisor if this is acceptable to her and give her access to my blog.

References

Murray, R. (2011). How to write a thesis. (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill International.

questions, questions, questions, questions …….

Long Overdue Update

Trying to analyse the results from my development project raises more questions (which is clearly a positive aspect of the research) but presents issues with completing the write up. Someone once said that ‘research is a messy process’; Bernie Divall agrees with this and says in her blog post “I’ve found that the structure of what I do only becomes apparent in retrospect” (2011). I can empathise with this statement as I feel that I am only really becoming clear about the aims of my dissertation as I’m writing up the results and understanding more clearly what my aims really were and how I’ve been too vague in the objectives.

Also this year has been very challenging  – coping with the demands of student support, collaborating with a colleague on the project has been very helpful but has also had its issues such as trying to make opportunities for meeting up to discuss the progress of the project and all the while with the TUPE process hanging over our heads at the Campus which has affected morale and motivation.

OK, excuses over – what stage am I now at ?

Data from the questionnaire, focus group and interview with the tutor have been collected and analysed and as I said above, I realise that I have not been clear in my objectives. These have kept shifting – perhaps I’ve been trying to collect too much information ? I originally wanted to run an experiment where I tested the use of GradeMark with students but this had issues in terms of the approach to the research which seemed to be positivist and at variance with the ethos of action research (I’m sure I could have argued a case for conducting an experiment). As a result, I planned a case study approach using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods for collecting data. Whilst this has yielded useful information about how students use GradeMark, the questions I was trying to answer do not seem to have been focused tightly enough. Despite this, I have gained some very practical insights into how students use GradeMark and have also realised that there are many areas for further research, so that does sit well with action research – an iterative and cyclical process (McNiff & Whitehead (2003).

The EBEAM Project

First of all, thanks to Cheryl Reynolds for sending me the link to the project, the findings of which have contributed significantly to my understanding of Electronic Assessment Management (EAM) and is particularly relevant to my research area.

I am aware that formative feedback and assessment are still ‘hot topics’ with the added dimension of understanding how technology can support teaching and learning at the formative stage. The recent findings from the EBEAM Project conducted by Cath Ellis and Cheryl Reynolds  between 2011 and 2013 whilst having a wide remit addressing institutional as well as teaching and learning issues, is particularly relevant for how I am evaluating GradeMark and my future engagement with the resource. For example, understanding how students and teachers interact with the technology at a ‘grass roots’ level investigating their preferences for the different features and attempting to evaluate whether GM saves time whilst giving quality feedback as Ellis (2011) suggests.

Whilst I echo some of the findings from the EBEAM Project in terms of finding GM easy to use, is a flexible tool and has the potential for supporting consistent feedback, as an Academic Skills Tutor, I haven’t found it saves time and indeed, this echoes the findings from the project that whilst, EAM does not save time, it does enable more focus time on task. Furthermore, one recommendation arising from my project relates to the selection of specific areas for feedback on assignments rather than trying to ‘blanket cover’ everything and enter blindly into giving feedback without setting the limits and indicating what will and what will not be addressed.

References

Divall, B. (2011) Messy research – by Bernie, October 28th, 2011, PhD Life: A blog about the student PhD experience [online]. Available at: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/researchexchange/entry/messy_research/ [Accessed 5th August, 2013].

Ellis, C. and Reynolds, C. (2013) EBEAM: Evaluating the Benefits of Electronic Assessment Management, [online]. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/assessmentandfeedback/ebeam.aspx [Accessed 5th August 2013].

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project, 2nd ed. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer

Far From the Madding Crowd

I came on a writing retreat this week as I hoped it would allow me time and space to take stock of the Development Project so far and support reflection. The Mirfield Centre is a beautiful place (http://www.mirfieldcentre.org.uk/) and the people are very welcoming. Just wish I’d been able to attend all week instead of just 2 days. Thank you to Janet Ho and Sharon Prentis for arranging such an excellent course in such an inspiring venue.

The first hour of ‘free writing’ stimulated more questions than provided answers. Not a problem as they ” However, I first need to get a few things off my chest.

The Development Project continued

This is an appropriate time to reflect given I’ve finished adding feedback to the students’ methodologies online. As usual there have been barriers to reflection as well as to actually getting time to add feedback. This last issue may be resolved within my normal practice in the future as I’ve been marking work formatively online in addition to my usual workload. I did try to set aside a week for this at the end of last term, but this was too early for most students and they mainly submitted work at the end of January through to March.As this is also the busiest term for me, the marking got done mainly within the last month and blog posts also got postponed until now :-).

Selling Off the Family Jewels

Another issue that has also intruded has been the transfer of the campus where I work to a local FE college and this has greatly affected everyone who works at the campus (staff at the main site have been sympathetic, but it’s like divorce, until you’ve experienced it, it’s hard to understand some of the pain – yes pain – that we have felt and continue to feel. Contrary to the information supplied by ACAS about keeping people informed, the decision was taken to ‘sell off the family jewels’ and ask the local FE college to take over the campus and HE provision. The first we heard about it was at a meeting with the VC and by then we were already in the TUPE process.

The shock is still felt several months later and although we are now past the denial and anger staes (Kübler-Ross model, Curious Tendency, 2003); see below::

we are still feeling rejected (depression stage; not sure if we’ve reached the acceptance stage, perhaps some of us have, but I’m not sure I’m there as yet) and in limbo as the final ‘signing over’ does not take place until August and questions we ask     (bargaining ?) are unable to be answered. Whilst this issue isn’t a part of my MSc development project, it does explain why at times, it feels pointless carrying on with it.  However, I am still interested in the aim of the project and want to understand how effective delivering feedback online can be. I will also still be working as an Academic Skills Tutor if I decide to ‘go with the flow’ and transfer, or whether I apply for positions elsewhere, so for this reason, I will continue with the researh: intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation (Ryan, 2000).

Can you have too many questions ?

There are many questions that have arisen in researching this project and these have crystallized at the Retreat when I’ve had time and space to reflect-on-action (Schön, 1991); questions such as:

• Most of the feedback I am giving seems to do with correcting mistakes in punctuation – should I have been proofreading ?

Spelling and grammar haven’t been a major problem except here and there, but punctuation has, particularly with regard to correct use of semi-colons – I thought of adding this to the quickmarks set I was using, but for some reason I wasn’t able to do this (my grasp on the technology perhaps, or lack of it).

In hindsight, it would have saved time if I had customized the quickmarks with a link to a website or video to show how to use semi-colons correctly, along with colons and commas as people were mixing up all three in the methodologies I was marking.

Is punctuation a big issue ? Lynne Truss (“Eats, Shoots and Leaves”) thinks so: “Proper punctuation is both the sign and the cause of clear thinking” Truss (2003). So if we want our students to show evidence of this in their writing, they need to understand how to punctuate properly. I also consider that semi-colons ‘lift’ one’s writing – make it more sophisticated, academic even (like signposting) – why ? I’m even thinking of writing a paper entitled: Semi-colons and Signposting; the role of bit players in the drama of academic argument”.

• Poor referencing even in Year 3 – ‘it ain’t hard’, so why do students get it wrong ? An inability or reluctance to follow rules?

• The process of adding assessing and adding feedback online has been time consuming – should I have spent time setting up a quickmarks set to suit what I wanted to focus on (see above)? To do this I should have conducted a pilot study with a number of students to try to ascertain what the common errors might be. However, as Sadler (1989) argues, every student is different and every subject may require different feedback so this strategy might not have worked.

• I did not use a rubric – why not ? This should have been addressed, as I had already uncovered evidence to support a shared understanding of learning outcomes for effective feedback in the research (Black and William, 1998; Sadler, 1989; Juwah et al, 2004). Relating learning outcomes to the appropriate rubric could have been discussed with the students in the first term and we could have shared knowledge and used examples to increase understanding of what we as tutors wanted and what students were required to do in relation to the Learning Outcomes.

• The lack of interpersonal communication, visual clues and the inability to follow up questions has been another issue; the online environment can create barriers to communication (Vonderwell, 2006). Not sure whether this made the process more time consuming as I needed to add extra detail to get my point across or took less time because I wasn’t engaged in conversation.

• Intext feedback and General Comment / audio comment – how were these used ?

These were some of the questions that occurred to me during my first formal reflection at the Mirfield Retreat and forms the first s of two related blog posts; the second post considers ‘the larger questions’.

Post script

Another question that a colleague raised when we discussed our day and what we felt we had achieved is a really important one that I had somehow overlooked or hadn’t really targeted in the first stage of the research: “how do we know when our feedback has been effective ?”. This of course is discussed in ‘closing the gap’ (Juwah et al, 2004) and elsewhere (Sadler, 1989, Black and William, 1998) but it also seems like a truism to state – we think the feedback has been effective when students get better marks, but how do we really know ? How can we be sure that it is our feedback that is causing our students to improve ? This is really key to my whole project and practice and at the heart of what teachers believe and do: that teaching has a positive effect on achievement (and lots of other areas – self fulfilment, developing the whole person etc etc). The question remains: how do we measure achievement and so we revert to bevahiourist learning approaches (Ertmer, and Newby, 1993).

References

Black, P. and William, D. (1998) ‘Assessment and Classroom Learning’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol 5 (1), March, pp7-71.

Curious Tendency (2012) Elisabeth Kübler-Ross – 5 Stages Of Grief Model 18 February, 2012. Curious Tendency: Blog [online]. Available at: http://curioustendency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/elisabeth-kubler-ross-5-stages-of-grief.html#.UUwwLFKDjms [Accessed 22^nd March 2013].

Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. (1993) ‘Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features form an instructional design perspective’. Performance

Improvement Quarterly. 6 (4) pp50-72. Available at: http://uow.ico5.janison.com/ed/subjects/edgi911w/readings/ertmerp1.pdf

[Accessed 9^th December 2011].

Juwah, C., Macfarlane-Dick, D., Matthew, B., Nichol, D., Ross, D. and Smith, B. (2004) ‘Enhancing student learning through effective formative feedback’,

The Higher Education Academy [online]. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/database/id353_senlef_guide.pdf [Accessed 2nd September 2012].

Sadler, R. 1989) ‘Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems’, Instructional Science, Vol 18, pp119-144 [online]. Available at: http://michiganassessmentconsortium.org/sites/default/files/MAC-Resources-FormativeAssessmentDesignSystems.pdf [Accessed 18th November 2012].

Vonderwell, S. (2003) An examination of asynchronous communciation experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study, The internet and Higher Education, Vol 6, first quasrter, pp.77-90 [online]. Avbailable at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S1096751602001641 [Accessed 22nd March 2013].

Reflection – on – Action (at last) !

The Plot So Far

This blog was intended to provide a space to reflect on using GradeMark for online formative feedback – the project I’m working on for my MSc in Elearning. Of course, as a ‘lone practitioner’, (the only Academic Skills Tutor (AST) at the Barnsley campus of the University of Huddersfield), time to reflect has been, as usual at a premium. As teachers, we all know that reflection ‘makes sense’; however, when under pressure at work, making space to ‘reflect-on-action’ becomes as usual ‘reflection-in-action’ only (Schön, 1983). Schön argues that this is still a useful activity, but considering Kolb’s ‘reflective cycle’, the ‘abstract conceptualization’ stage (see below) then gets missed out unless our brains are ‘doing this’ subconciously :-).

(Davies and Lowe, n.d.)

Since I’ve reached a stage in the project where I’ve completed some online feedback, it’s therefore time to start reflecting-on-action (Schön, 1983).

Reflective Observation

Working with the Course Leader, the Assignment we had selected was set up on GradeMark within turnitin on our VLE as the online platform within which to provide formative feedback for 30 final year Health and Community studies students. The assignment is part of their Literature Based Study (Dissertation) and is often problematic as students understand the purpose of a Methodology section within an empirical study but seem to get confused by a Methodology section within a literature based one. Issues arise such as describing the place of ethics and ensuring reliability and validity within their search strategies and the literature that is sourced.

We therefore set up the assignment to allow students to submit for formative feedback during the last week of the Autumn term 2012. In the event, only one student submitted over the Christmas period and 11 students submitted after the new term started halfway through January with another student submitting at the beginning of February. The Course Leader decided the students could only submit once for formative feedback and this seems to have limited submissions. Given this project is concerned with the benefits of offering feedback and in a flexible way to overcome some of the difficulties with f2f feedback, I would have preferred students to have had the choice of submitting for feedback more than once. However, I can understand the concerns that the Course Tutor has with the amount of time that providing feedback takes, especially if it individualised. Furthermore, I have seen 2 students f2f about their methodologies before submitting their work on online, and this may affect the students’ perceptions of online feedback as well as my own experience when I come to evaluate the experience.

In terms of time management, despite the claims made about how online feedback can save time using resource tools such as quickmark comments and rubrics (Ellis, 2011),  because I am still inexperienced with using the system, I haven’t had time to customize the comments and the ones available on GradeMark are not always appropriate and don’t always contain enough explanations or examples to guide the students. Clearly, time needs to be allocated for this although I do question their use in my practice as an AST which is built around formative assessment and feedback and, for feedback to be effective in ‘closing the gap’ in understanding and promoting independent learning (Sadler,1989), feedback needs to be tailored to individual needs so using generic comments, even when customized, might mitigate against this.

Abstract Conceptualization

The main issues, my observations so far and how I might address these in future:

• taking time to customize quickmarks. Ellis (2011) suggests that this is cost effective in terms of saving time, as once a set of relevant quickmarks is available, these can be reused. I need to experiment with this when marking the rest of the submissions.

• another colleague who uses GradeMark has kindly sent me some short audiovisuals (screencasts) to see if I can use them within the quickmark comments which I have attempted to do altho’ not all have been relevant to the comments I’ve made. However, this is another area to explore; perhaps making my own screencasts.

• using all the features available such as highlighting text and striking text thru – I haven’t been able to use these tools so I need to make sure my system is up to date. I have had support from the LTA in the relevant School, but as he is based at Queensgate and I work at Barnsley, he isn’t able to look at my PC to investigate why I don’t seem to have all the tools I have seen used on turnitin tutorials. The IT support at Barnsley for Unilearn is limited and I feel these tools would be very useful, especially as I sometimes give feedback by email attachment using Word and I often highlight text and colour code this for particular types of comments. I therefore need to ensure that I have access to all the tools available on GradeMark.

• using a rubric and making sure that students understand the learning outcomes and assessment criteria is an important issue. This is supported in the literature; both Sadler (1989) and Black & William (1998) argue that in order for students to make effective use of formative feedback, they need to understand the criteria for assessment and sharing rubrics can support this process. Significantly, Sadler (1989) also points out that teachers too need to understand the criteria especially in relation to making qualitative judgements that involve what he terms ‘fuzzy’ and ‘specific’ criteria. The Course Tutor was reluctant to use a rubric with this assignment; as I plan to interview him in order to evaluate using GradeMark for online feedback, I do need to understand this decision.  Investigating the use of a rubric would be part of the next stage of the action research cycle in terms of developing this project.

• giving asynchronous feedback online can be problematic when compared to f2f feedback; this is because there may be a lack of mutual coherence (Yacci, 2000) and Laurillard (1993) and Juwah (2003) both argue for the importance of sustaining a dialogue to support learning. To overcome this, I am attempting to maintain contact with students and I have emailed them to encourage them to submit their assignments and to let them know when they can look at the feedback. I also try to ensure that there is audio feedback as well as written feedback to highlight my presence (Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999). However, sometimes this facility does always work, such as when I use a PC at home.

Active Experimentation

Evaluating GradeMark for Formative Assessment and Feedback is the next stage in this action research project.  Once all the methodologies have been submitted and formative feedback delivered, I plan to evaluate the response of students to their experience of receiving academic skills support online. As most of the students have had workshop and tutorial support over the last 3 years, it will be interesting as well as useful to gather their opinions and analyze their experiences of online support and also compare this with f2f support.

I also plan to interview the Course Leader for his experiences of using GradeMark for delivering feedback and about working collaboratively: he provides feedback in relation to content whilst I attempt to provide skills support, altho’ in practice we sometimes overlap.

What’s Next ?

In terms of future research and the learning potential of using GradeMark and other tools to offer formative assessment and feedback, a partnership is called for, with students and teachers sharing the learning and assessment process. Clearly the next stage of action research would therefore involve giving students opportunities for self evaluation and investigating activities to support peer assessment.

References

Black, P. and William, D. (1998) ‘Assessment and Classroom Learning’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol 5 (1), March, pp7-71.

Davies, C. & Lowe, T. (n.d.) Kolb Learning Cycle Tutorial [online]. Available at: http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_multimedia/kolb/static_version.php [Accessed 17th February 2013].

Ellis, C. (2011) GradeMark Shortcuts 21 February, 2011. cathellis13: Blog [online}. Available at: http://cathellis13.blogspot.co.uk/ [Accessed 27^th March 2012].

Juwah, C. (2006) Interactions in online peer learning. In Juwah, C. Ed. Interactions in Online Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge

Sadler, R. 1989) ‘Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems’, Instructional Science, Vol 18, pp119-144 [online]. Available at: http://michiganassessmentconsortium.org/sites/default/files/MAC-Resources-FormativeAssessmentDesignSystems.pdf [Accessed 18th November 2012].

Schön, D. A. (1983 The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action New York: Basic Books

Vrasidas, C. And McIssac, M.S. (1999) Factors influemcing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education. 3 (3) pp327-350. Cited in: Yacci, M. (2000) ‘Interactivity Demystified: A Structural definition for Distance Education and Intelligent CBT’ Educational Technology XL (4), pp5-16. [online]. Available at: http://www.ist.rit.edu/~may/interactiv8.pdf  [Accessed 17th February 2013].

Yacci, M. (2000) ‘Interactivity Demystified: A Structural definition for Distance Education and Intelligent CBT’ Educational Technology XL (4), pp5-16. [online]. Available at: http://www.ist.rit.edu/~may/interactiv8.pdf [17th February 2013].

Return to Learn

My last post was entitled: Post Script or is it…? Well, no, it isn’t; hence this new post.

I am now starting my final module on the MSc course: Researching the Development Project and I have decided to revisit GradeMark as an online tool for formative feedback to enhance my practice as an Academic Skills Tutor, complementing the f2f sessions I offer.

The project can be regarded as a second stage in an iterative process of action research (Ferrance, 2000), as I began exploring different tools to offer online feedback s part of my last MSc module: etutoring. My reflections on this experience were posted in blogs on this site between January and May last year and supported the process of critical reflection; (Richardson, 2006); I anticipate that this will be the case for this module as I intend to reflect on the experiences of using GradeMark for a large group of students and to work collaboratively with their subject tutor.

References

Ferrance, E. (2000) Action Research [online]. Available at: http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf [Accessed 11th December 2012].

Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Post Script or is it ….?

Onwards and Upwards

I drew attention to the advantages and disadvantages of using GradeMark for formative feedback in my last post. On reflection, I do think I will be attempting to offer formative feedback using GradeMark in the next academic year. This is because of the following advantages:

GradeMark can offer the potential of collaborative learning, working with subject tutors to improve academic writing and cooperating with other ASTs to learn from and share experiences of using GradeMark as a diagnostic tool.

GradeMark enables the tutor to use diagnostic tools such as GradeMark Report; allowing for greater understanding of what students need to do to improve their academic skills.

With Peermark, there is the potential to involve students in peer learning and mentoring.

GradeMark supports the A4 of online learning: “Anytime, Anyplace, Anypace, Anysubject” (Mobbs, 2007) for both tutor and students.

Final Thoughts

Learning to use GradeMark has involved reflection on my practice as an Academic Skills Tutor; an activity that  is often put aside in attempting to support students on a daily basis.  In investigating different methods of online delivery, I have taken time to consider what lies at the heart of my practice – formative feedback and to harness technology to support pedagogy.

Reference List

Mobbs, R. (2003) Advantages of eLearning [online]. Available at: http://www.le.ac.uk/users/rjm1/etutor/elearning/advdofelearning.html [Accessed 17th April 2012].

Reflecting, Abstracting and Conceptualising but not Actively Experimenting (yet)

Advantages of using GradeMark for giving formative feedback; see video below:

 

Thus, the main benefits seem to be:

• saves time (although the tutor needs to spend some time learning how to use the technology and setting up the ‘system’ to suit her needs and those of her students
• offers consistency to students (although it is important to avoid using cliches such as ‘be more critical / analytical’ as these may not be understood by students)
• can offer the potential of collaborative learning (with Peermark for example)
• enables the tutor to use diagnostic tools such as GradeMark report; allowing for greater understanding of what students need to do to improve their academic skills
• allows tutor and students to access work online in a flexible way: anytime, anyplace etc.
• to be able to limit involvement with students who may be ‘high maintenance’
• to manage time more effectively

Drawbacks to using GradeMark:

• attempting to be ‘consistent’ and customising comments that can be applied across the board could lead to difficulties in targeting feedback to individual needs
• does not support synchronous communication (could this be overcome with Skype and IM ?)
• does not allow for more ‘creative’ annotation such as highlighting text and inserting comments more directly e.g. spacing the text to allow comments
• need to get to know the technology(although so far it has proved easy to use)
• need to set aside time to set up the assignments and develop a set of customised comments
• advantages of f2f communication can be lost e.g. being able to respond flexibly to a student’s needs and to be able to ‘delve beneath the surface’ to understand how to support a student – reading non-verbal clues, asking questions, providing encouragement etc.

More advantages than disadvantages – so far.