managing group-based coursework in an e- learning environment - m²agic™ eur ing dr peter nicholl...
TRANSCRIPT
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