Managing Group-based Coursework in an e-

Learning environment - M²AGIC™

Eur Ing Dr Peter Nicholl

31 May 2006

Common VLEs

WebCT

Blackboard

Moodle

Good at Content Delivery and Individual Grade Activities

Group Enabled Tools

WebCOM - ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2003, Article 3.PG System - Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference& Exposition 11, 2003, American Society for Engineering Education

Tools that allow students to revieweach others work and give a grade

Requiremnts Not Met by VLEs

• Group work for large cohorts needs:

– Group allocation approaches– Assignment submission by the group– Marking of the group– Feedback to

• Group• Individual

The Magic Wand for Coursework

MM22

AA

GG

II

CC

anagement andarking

ssessments

roups

ndividuals

ohorts

Tool

of

for

and

on Large

Assignments

Individual

and / or

Group related

M²AGIC™ Server

Lecturer Interaction

Group Creation

Assignment Marking / Recording

Review of Students Evaluations

Feedback

Student Interaction

Group Preferences

Assignment Uploads (optional)

Peer / Self Evaluation

Automated Feedback

Lecturer

Students

Choice of components from the system to use

Marking

Lecturer created marking criteria

• View submissions

• Mark

• Comment

M2AGIC• Lecturer control for the group allocation process

– Using Belbin (profiling) or

– Student Lead Reporting of Team Selection method

• Full audit information to allow tracking of an individual student's progress through a course:– Bonus marks can automatically be allocated for completing

tasks on time

• Typical information on each group member– Photograph

– Personal statements

• Mobile numbers

• Alternate email addresses

Magic Users

Peer Contribution Approaches Spark

(open source project - comments) • Group projects aren't fair !• Students common complaint

– Equal marks for unequal contributions • 'Free-riders' known also as 'social loafers' and 'passengers' not

penalised • Better students inadequately rewarded and de-motivated

• Staff common concerns – Staff dilemma of developing collaboration and peer learning

without undesirable side effects • Paper-based attempts in self and peer assessment unable to

overcome confidentiality concerns • Paper-based self and peer assessment impossible workload if

large classes (i.e. huge data collection, collation and calculations)

Peer Contribution Approaches

CHENG & MARTIN, Making a Difference: using peers to assess individual students’ contributions to a group project, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000

Team Contribution

• Evaluation of– Self– Peers

• Numerically• Statement

• Scale

Feedback

Student submitted confidential peer and self-evaluation

Team Mark

Personal Feedback

Evaluation

Mark modification

Nursing Evaluation

61 evaluation forms were returned out of a possible 70 Use of Magic to Create Groups:51/61 felt it was a fair and effective way to organise groups, making comments

like:• Able to interact with people we wouldn't normally work with• Easy way to assign oneself to a group• Good idea to create groups outside of ones normal social circles• Choosing people with different skills helped in forming different opinions • Good for team building• Gave the opportunity to select groups and meet a wider range of people 5/61 were less happy. • 3 felt they did not get the selection they requested• 2 thought magic was not beneficial and would rather have self-selection for

groups

Nursing Evaluation

Attitudes to Peer and Self Evaluation:48/61 felt it was a good idea making the comments below:• Good way to analyse information & contributions made by peers.• No problems as long as scores can be justified.• Useful.• Worked well with effective groups.• Helped to be able to give scores corresponding to levels of contributions.• Allowed you to compare yourself with others.• Fears of consequences if comments made about those who did not contribute.• Positive feedback a motivator & helps pinpoint areas for professional development.• Helped me to be more assertive.• A good learning opportunity to evaluate self and peers.• Rather do this than have a lecturer give me a mark. • 4 Were very uncomfortable with the process.• 3 Didn't assess as they didn't want to offend.• 1 Felt it very hard to judge others.• 1 More guidance needed as peers just give each other good marks.  Nursing Lecturer - From our perspective it was also a very good leaning opportunity thank you for

facilitating us.

Ehancements

• Received £5,000 HE funding to develop:– Java application capable of 10,000

simultaneous connections– Integration to WebCT Vista

• Use of components of selected stages