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 27th 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].
The Daley Post 