Patris van BoxelUBVU

Blackboard Teaching and Learning Conference24 April 2012

Gaining Efficiency through Digital Marking and Feedback

Patris van Boxel (p.van.boxel@vu.nl)Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Content Institutional context Impact of feedback on learning Organisation of feedback Digital marking and feedback in Bb

Turnitin Building Block Peer feedback / Teacher feedback

Future work / Conclusions

Institutional Context VU Strategic Plan (2011-2015) Bachelor education key priorities

Increase quality Increase study success Reduce % drop-out rates Increase cost efficiency (‘operational

excellence’)

Increased focus on feedback Guideline Bachelor Education (1/9/2012)

Assessment take place frequently and timely. Halfway through a course (at the latest) an interim assessment will evaluate student progress and provide feedback. Each course will be completed with a final assessment. For each course, the weight of the various assessments will be predetermined. This will provide the basis for the final assessment.

Most powerful impact on ‘student achievement’(Hattie & Timperley, 2007)

Characteristics Timely, personalised, information-rich ‘Feedforward’: bridging the gap between

current and desired (end) result

Organisation of feedback Teachers

Written feedback time consuming Large student groups Inefficient process (storage,

distribution,..) Repetitive aspects of feedback

Students Accessibility of feedback Comprehension and use of feedback

Turnitin software suite

• On-screen marking (teacher)

Grade Mark

• Peer feedback (student)

Peer Mark

• Scan for plagiarism

‘Originality’ Report

Turnitin integration with Bb

Since 2003 to facilitate peer review (turnitin.com)

Since 2011 integrated with Bb Reasons for integration

Immediate access for Bb users to functionality

Less support / system admin overhead Shared marking between instructors in same

Bb course

Why teachers use PeerMark Activating learning method

Deeper processing of learning content Development of feedback skills

Review criteria give insight in required quality of own work

Can handle large quantities of feedback with quick turn-around

How teachers use PeerMark Choice of peer review design context-

dependent Typical formative peer feedback cycle:

Teacher provides assessment criteria Students submit paper in Bb Peer Mark distributes papers random accross

(x) reviewers Students complete review(x) Students receive review(x) Student processes feedback (demonstrable)

and submits final paper version

PeerMark in Blackboard

Peer feedback success factors Clear, concrete assessment criteria Clear task description, procedure and

deadlines Allow for practice and show good / bad

examples of peer feedback Feedback from peers should be

demonstrably read/used to improve course work

Feedback process is between students, but lecturer should play an active role as expert

Why teachers use GradeMark Steady increase in users since BB

integration (50 >250 active GM users)

Saves time (up to 40%) Less logistical overhead More efficient essay management Less repetitive feedback work

Saves paper (a lot!) Speeds up introduction of new teachers

to faculty procedures on assessment

How teachers use GradeMark Students submit paper via

Blackboard All papers accessible in one place Automatic scan for plagiarism (%) Docent provides feedback via:

Annotations ‘QuickMarks’ (reusable feedback) ‘Rubrics’ (scoring forms)

demo

GradeMark in Blackboard

‘QuickMarks’ in GradeMark

Rubrics in GradeMark

Rubrics in GradeMark

GradeMark potential Stimulates wider approach to

assessing and (development of) feedback criteria

Potential to increase transparancy / uniformity of assessment procedures

Potential to increase quality of feedback

Exploring the potential through SCALA ‘SCaffolding Assessment for Learning’ (2012-

2014) National funding (SURF) to develop ways to

efficiently provide formative feedback Project aims:

Development of high quality, reusable feedback criteria (quickmarks and rubrics)

Balancing & combining teacher and peer feedback Mapping of efficient digital feedback-workflows

Cognitive load during on-screen marking Substantiate claims on time saving and re-use of

feedback

Conclusions Turnitin enriches Bb through its

dedicated feedback tools PeerMark and Grademark both enable

timely, personalised, information-rich feedback

Potential to act as catalyst for improvement of assessment criteria and procedures

Promising contribution to efficiency requirement