Upload
hilary-bradley
View
218
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
Overview
Introduction CAA at UCLAN Key Challenges Staff Uptake Framework Staff Development Students Other Stakeholders Conclusions and Discussions
3
Introduction
Teaching and Learning strategy incorporated e-learning – mainly content development
First summative CAA test summer 2003 WebCT
TRIADS and Questionmark evaluated for pilot study
Questionmark - adopted felt easier for staff develop their own questions
4
Introduction
Technical Infrastructure analysed concerns Scalability – expansion over time Connectivity – internal and external colleges Bandwidth – 10 Mbps available, multimedia
Purchased dedicated server host Questionmark, Internet Information Server & SQL Server
Integration with other systems concern but addressed later
Piloting Within Department of Computing
5
Key Challenges
Encouraging Staff Uptake Staff Development Stakeholder Acceptance – e.g. management CAA perceived ability to test range of
cognitive skills Practical Issues - Labs
6
Methodology
Questionnaire Staff n=34 response rate 64% Views in relation to CAA, support and training
Framework developed based on Blooms Taxonomy, 6 staff, 8 modules
Questionnaire Students n=86 response rate 94% Acceptance of technique Question styles Language Used Usability
7
Staff Uptake
Computing encompasses range of subjects technical networking, subjective HCI
CAA may readily lend itself assessment specific disciplines
Questionnaire revealed only five members of staff used CAA, 3 actively using it
Encourage uptake CAA being incorporated into department’s strategy, all level 1 formative and summative being optional
8
Staff Uptake
Five staff now using CAA within the department
Questionnaire revealed 91% use CAA formative 56% Summative
Difference could be attributed level lecturer teaches
Appropriateness of CAA for Summative Assessment
78.26%69.57%
21.74% 17.39%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4
LevelsP
erc
en
tag
es
9
Framework
Analysing structure of module identify how CAA could be incorporated into modules
Bloom’sTaxonomy
LearningOutcomes
Syllabus
Other Assessment
format
CAA
10
Framework
Number of Learning Outcomes at each level of Blooms Taxonomy
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
CO1652 C01802 C01804 CO2751 CO2752 CO2601 CO3707 CO4707
Knowledge 1 1
Comprehension 3 1 1 1 1
Application 3 2 6 2
Analysis 1 3 2
Synthesis 1 1 1 2 1
Evaluation 1 2 1 3
11
Framework
Variations between number of Learning Outcomes from 3 – 8
Level 1 modules at lower Cognitive Level Level 2 Module CO2601 (Technical Solutions and
Business) requires students to demonstrate similar ability found on CO3707
Next is to identify elements of syllabus and relationship to Learning Outcomes
Prevent unrelated content being integrated into exam
12
Framework Example for CO3707 Identify the parts of the syllabus that
relate to the learning outcomes.
A B C D
1 Consideration of primary users X X X X
2 Introduction to Multimedia X X
3 Introduction to human systems X X X X
4 Multimedia Technology X X X
9 Importance of evaluation and choice metrics
X
13
Framework Number of syllabus elements at each level of Bloom’s
Taxonomy
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
CO1652 C01802 C01804 CO2751 CO2752 CO2601 CO3707 CO4707
Knowledge 2 1
Comprehension 2 1 2 2 2 4
Application 2 3 2 2 2 3
Analysis 1 3 3
Synthesis 3 2 1
Evaluation 5 6 1 9
14
Framework
Is going to be used on MSc Web Development Module
Module is all coursework Formative test in first semester
Enable students gain early feedback Lecturer obtain early indication of their progress
Framework shows how staff can integrate CAA into modules but further development necessary
15
Staff Development
Asked staff ‘ Would you be prepared to input the questions into the software yourself?’ 80% Yes May not reflect attitude
staff in other departments
Staff Support for CAA
86.96%73.91%
60.87%
78.26%
43.48%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sof
twar
e
Dev
elop
ing
Que
stio
ns
Invi
gila
tion
Que
stio
nD
esig
n
Ora
gnis
eLa
bs
IssueP
erce
nta
ge
16
Staff Development
Lecturers need support in question design 74%
LDU organised staff development in CAA An introduction to Computer Assisted Assessment
CIF bid for funding pay developer to work with staff develop multimedia questions
81% more time required to write questions Question banks and experience reduce time
61% lecturers help invigilation (essential)
17
Staff Development
Informal Focus Groups Discuss problems and share experiences
How accommodate students special needs Invigilation issues Risk issues e.g. server fails
Without this students experience may be different from module to module
18
Students
Attitude measured through series of questionnaires
Students asked ‘ Would you find this format of assessment an acceptable replacement for part of your final exam?’
5 Point Likert Scale, Strongly Disagree=0, Strongly Agree=4
Mean=2.9, SD=.9, 99% Conf. Interval ± 0.26 Indicates reasonable level of support
19
Students
Research into computer anxiety and CAA (Liu et al. 2001; Zakrzewski & Steven 2000)
Concerns, students no prior experience of QM ‘This format of assessment is more stressful than a
paper based test’ Mean=.99, SD=.987, Conf. Interval ± 0.28 Comments ‘I prefer completing a test in this way as
it is less intimidating’ ‘As a computer geek I feel more at ease in front of a
computer.’ (final exam)
20
Students
‘Did you have any difficulties accessing the test?’ 14% Yes
Majority problems copying password from email with white space
Software could trim white spaces Authentication could be achieved through
LDAP process
21
Students
Questionmark used question by question delivery
Standard Templates Question the suitability
of a number of templates e.g. scrolling, navigation
Idea have a template bank
22
Students
Series of questions relating to the interface
Question Mean Standard Deviation
The test was easy to use. 3.13 .838
It is easy to read the characters on the screen 3.18 .917
The screen layout is clear 3.06 .843
The screen layout is consistent 3.15 .823
The navigation was clear. 2.77 .992
I always know where I am in the software 2.95 .851
The button location is consistent 3.21 .709
The order of the navigation buttons is logical 2.95 .881
The button names are meaningful 3.01 .845
The on-screen navigation is easily distinguished from the questions
3.13 .858
23
Students
81 Students completed questionnaire 3o provided qualitative feedback
Requested facility go directly back to previous question (11 times)
‘Proceed’ button felt inappropriate near main navigation
Features incorporated into forthcoming test and further analysis will be conducted
24
Other Stakeholders
Information System Services and Management informed through steering committee
Responsibility report finding of the evaluation for institutional wide deployment
Without support of management additional resources will not be made available
25
Conclusions and Discussions
Scepticism about CAA appropriateness at level 3,4 for summative assessment
Framework showed how it may be incorporated further research required
Adopting CAA into departments strategy increased uptake but staff development necessary
Students responded positively to experience Logging in process could be improved Comparison of WebCT and Questionmark
planned