DEPARTMENT OF MARKETINGPresented by: Mercedes Douglas, Senior

Tutor, mercedes.douglas@strath.ac.uk

Other Reap Team Members:

Michael Harker, Lecturer, michael.harker@strath.ac.ukMartin Smith, TLTO, ms@strath.ac.ukSean Ennis, Director of Teaching, sean.ennis@strath.ac.uk

PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING CLASS

•422 STUDENTS – FIRST YEAR•1 LECTURER•10 TUTORS•39 TUTORIAL GROUPS

OBJECTIVES

• ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVE READING, SELF/PEER ASSESSMENT – ENGAGE IN LEARNING PROCESS

• IMPROVE STUDENT AND TUTORS DIALOGUE• IMPROVE FEEDBACK PROCESSES• ACHIEVE EFFICIENCY GAINS IN ADMINISTRATION,

MARKING AND NUMBER OF TUTORIAL HOURS

USE OF TECHNOLOGY

• ADOPTED WEBCT: ALL LECTURE TEMPLATES, TEXTBOOK SUPPORT MATERIALS: CASE STUDIES AND TESTS

• IN-HOUSE DESIGN OF FEEDBACK TEMPLATE

Reap Project Activities:

1. MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION TESTS

2. ON-LINE MARKING AND FEEDBACK FOR ESSAY AND REPORT

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION TESTS

• FORMATIVE MCQs OVER 2 WEEKS: TAKEN BY 59% OF STUDENTS

• TUTORIAL PRACTICE: ALL GROUPS

• SUMMATIVE RANDOMISED MCQs: TAKEN BY 90% OF STUDENTS

FORMAL TEST

– 954 questions – randomised

– 50 questions each for each student

– Over two weeks

– Two hours

– Open book

– 60% obtained pass mark (40%) and above

LEARNING IMPROVEMENTS

MCQ Tests

– Closing loop by repetition– Immediate feedback/open book: self-

correcting, reflection– Peer dialogue: tutorials, outside

classrooms – Data from students to be collected

PILOT GROUPS (8 Tutorial groups) : Submission, Assessment and Feedback on-

line • IN-HOUSE DEVELOPED TEMPLATE using Visual

Basics Software

– Submission using WebCt – Tutors download assignment (Word),

assess, add comments – Tutors use Template to select comments

and award mark– Tutors upload edited version, feedback form

and mark on to WebCt

LEARNING IMPROVEMENTS

USE OF TEMPLATE – PILOT GROUP

– Used criterion-referenced grid: standard and specific comments (based Price & Rust, 1999; O’Donovan et al, 2000; Rust et al, 2005)

– Lecturer defined subject specific criteria– Template allows for automatic selection of comments

which are transferred onto Word document - time efficiency

– Typed comments – better to read than handwritten comments

– More detailed and relevant comments – Data from students still to be collected

ISSUES

• With MCQ Tests: participation of students to construct some questions

• With Templates – online marking and providing feedback:– Students participation on setting criteria– Using template for students to peer assess– Tutors’ attitude to marking large numbers on-line

(bus/train/garden/bed)

WHAT NEXT? IMPROVEMENTS

• IMPROVE ON MCQ TESTS

–Smaller summative tests– Integration to Electronic Voting

System

• STANDARD TEMPLATE to be used in all classes in the Department

References

Price, M & Rust, C (1999) The Experience of introducing a common criteria assessment grid across an academic department, Quality in Higher Education, 5, (2), 133-144

O’Donovan, B; Price, M & Rust, C (2000) The Student Experience of Criterion-Referenced Assessment (Through the Introduction of a Common Criteria Assessment Grid), Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 38, (1), 74-85

Rust, C, O’Donovan, B & Price, M (2005) A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, (3), June, 231-240

Nicol, D & Milligan, C (2006) Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice, In C Bryan and K Clegg (Eds) Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, Taylor and Francis Group Ltd, London