Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Rewriting the Rules: Institutional procedural change based on analysis of student feedback As part of a large JISC-supported institutional project on assessment and feedback, two different types of institutional data were analysed to identify potential changes to assessment procedures and practice. Comments from institutional student survey data were analysed to identify 10,000 comments relating to assessment. Coding of these comments enabled the project team to identify a series of areas for change which were common across the institution, rather than just using the survey data for course-level changes, which had happened in the past. This led to the production of new institutional assessment procedures designed to improve the student experience. Institutional records about assignment types, which had been produced simply to support course validation, were then analysed to discover the ten most common types of assignment in use across the institution. Detailed guidance on implementing the new procedures was then developed for these ten assignment types, which accounted for two-thirds of the total number of assignments being taken by students. The combination of data from different parts of the institution has enabled change to be made and supported in a way novel to the university.
Citation preview
Rewriting the RulesHEIR network | September2014
Dr Rachel Forsyth PL for curriculum development and innovation, MMU
Professor Mark StubbsHead of Learning and Research Technologies, MMU
http://twitter.com/rmforsyth
TRansforming Assessment and Feedback For Institutional Change: TRAFFIC
Aim:
to align assessment and feedback policies, processes and support to institutional goals of enhancing student satisfaction and success.
Context
• 36,000 students - 2700 on Combined Honours
• 600,000 submissions annually• Big peaks for submission
dates – systems issues • Adrift of sector on NSS• Just completed huge
curriculum change
Baseline report
• Review of documentation (policies, regs, etc)• Interviews with staff involved with assessment
(purposive sampling)• Interviews with innovators • Focus groups with student support officers,
administrators and technology-enhanced learning officers
• Thorough discussion throughout governance structure
Understanding how best to make a difference
People frustrated with:
• Overly bureaucratic processes• Procedures which were not always clear• Lack of consistency• Stand-alone systems for different parts of
process• Myths about assessment
Deterrent to
change and risk-
taking
Further investigation
1. Collection of data on assignment types and submission dates:
– myth-busting, guidance for consistency, development of EMA requirements
2. Review of student comments about assessment and working with SU
– unpicking dissatisfaction issues
Assignment types
Blog PosterWorkbookAutobiography Computer Based Logbook Override Portfolio report Programming Assignment Programming Exercises Website Bibliography Documentation Learning Agreement Oral-practical Placement assessmentAnalysis Class Activity Data Exercise Interview Moot SeminarSource Analysis Critical Evaluation Essay/Report/Case StudyExhibition Film Independent Study Negotiated Personal Dossier Presentation Essay Report/PresentationArticle Booklet CGI scene/documentation Close Reading Critical Commentary Design and Product Diary Ensemble projectEthical Practice Report Film/Documentary Group & Solo projectGroup Essay Group presentation Group Web Page H&S Report IT Exercises Journal Laboratory report Literature Rev & Search Magazine Media Project Observation Oral Examination Plan Practical Portfolio Practical Report Précis Exercise Process BlogResearch File Research Project Review Scenario Exercise ScriptSeen Essay Skills Portfolio Skills TrainingTeaching Report Team Portfolio Text
Internal student survey 2011/12
Removed from this section: comments from the student survey.
New procedures
• Assignment briefs• Marking and moderation• Feedback planning• Formal annual review of
assessment
New processes
• Institution-wide coursework receipting system
• Focus on Assessment in annual review
• Automation where possible
Photo by Freekz0r (CC licensed, from flickr
Are we in a better place now?
Some key points
• Students’ Union involved throughout• Process approach helped• Sustained ‘marketing campaign’
• New procedures are pedagogically neutral – academic decision-making left to programme teams
Are we in a better place now?
Also reviewing• Survey comments from students • Views of staff• New programme documentation
QAA institutional review next year
Links
New Institutional Code of Practice on Assessment
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/icp.php
MMU assessment resources
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/assessment/index.php
