Download - eAssessment: Who's Involved?

Transcript
Page 1: eAssessment: Who's Involved?

eAssessment: Who’s involved?The Business School, Bournemouth University

Lianne Hutchings, Programme Administrator

[email protected]

David Hopkins, Learning Technologist

The Business School, Bournemouth University

So there are tutors and students, but who else?

How does a manual key quality process shift into the e-

environment? We work through the assessment lifecycle of a unit

David Hopkins, Learning Technologist

[email protected]

ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION

Units are typically defined as having the following

Assignment mix:

• Report, Case Study, Essay

• Collaboration (e.g. Wiki)

• Reflection (e.g. Blog)

• Test / MCQ

• Portfolio

software (Turnitin) to aid the marking and feedback

processes. Currently students are not offered the

ability to review the Originality Report due to the

amount of training required to instruct them on how

to read the report correctly. from creation of the assessments themselves, along with

maintenance of quality processes and procedures, through to the

methods and practices for ease of submission, and onto marking,

feedback, resubmissions and successful completion. Key

aspirations combine preservation of quality educational standards,

security of paperwork and efficacy of functionality whilst aiming to

prevent additional workload falling on either tutors or students.

Assignment mix:

• 100% Coursework,

• 100% TCP (Time-Constrained Paper), or

• 50% Coursework / 50% TCP

Assignments are created based on the Intended

Learning Outcomes required for the Unit subject or

discipline, and can take the form of:

• Portfolio

Assignments that take the form of a report, essay, or

case study are submitted using either the VLE

assignment submission or Turnitin plagiarism

detection/deterrent tool(s).

Where we are able to, and according to the assignment

type , we use plagiarism detection & deterrent

to read the report correctly.

Based on a small pilot study that took place in early

2011, future developments of eAssessment and online

submission will involve careful consideration of the

possibilities added by technological advances in areas

of online submission, plagiarism detection and

deterrence, along with a clear indication to students of

benefits of usage.

prevent additional workload falling on either tutors or students.

STAKEHOLDERS

ACADEMIC OFFENCES

PANEL

PREPARATION ASSIGNMENT MARKING & FEEDBACK KEY:Important/essential stakeholder

to the process.

Engaged but not essential

stakeholder to the process.

PROGRAMME LEADER

LEARNING TECHNOLOGIST

ASSESSMENT PASSED

Student proceeds to next

Unit & Assessment

ASSESSMENT FAILED

Student completes the

ADMINISTRATOR

STUDENT

Student completes the

Resubmission Assignment

REASSESSMENT FAILED

Student repeats the Unit

with next Student Cohort

Dis

pla

yin

g m

ark

s

& f

ee

db

ack

ACADEMIC / TUTOR

2ND MARKER

MARKING & 2ND MARKING

Methods of marking in the online environment have often been

determined by the type of submission (coursework vs.

exam/TCP) and the type of tool used for submission.

Experimentation and approaches have developed with prime

consideration given to tutor choice. Consideration is given to

requirements to print work, format of feedback (annotation within

Dis

pla

yin

g m

ark

s

& f

ee

db

ack

EXTERNAL EXAMINER

OV

ER

VIE

W

PR

EP

AR

AT

ION

AP

PR

OV

AL

LOA

DIN

G T

O V

LE

SU

BM

ISS

ION

GU

IDA

NC

E

AS

SIG

NM

EN

T B

RIE

F

AS

SIG

NM

EN

T

SU

BM

ISS

ION

TE

CH

NIC

AL

ISS

UE

S

MIT

IGA

TIN

G

CIR

CU

MS

TAN

CE

S

LAT

E S

UB

MIS

SIO

N

DO

WN

LOA

D

AS

SIG

NE

ME

NT

S

SE

CU

RE

ELE

CT

RO

NIC

ST

OR

AG

E

MA

RK

ING

MA

RK

ING

AC

AD

EM

IC

OF

FE

NC

ES

PA

NE

L

EX

AM

BO

AR

D

RE

SU

BM

ISS

ION

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NS

SE

CU

RE

ELE

CT

RO

NIC

ST

OR

AG

E O

F F

EE

DB

AC

K

requirements to print work, format of feedback (annotation within

assignment, written or electronic/video feedback, summary

paragraph, etc), and the breakdown and recording of marks where

there are sub-elements.

It is essential to preserve the sequence for marking, 2nd marking

and external examiner approval to ensure the marking policies are

adhered to (e.g. marks not displayed before 2nd marking complete).

Further development is required to fine-tune these processes and

will be based on a coherent marking and feedback structure to

www.bournemouth.ac.uk

OV

ER

VIE

W

PR

EP

AR

AT

ION

AP

PR

OV

AL

LOA

DIN

G T

O V

LE

SU

BM

ISS

ION

GU

IDA

NC

E

AS

SIG

NM

EN

T B

RIE

F

AS

SIG

NM

EN

T

SU

BM

ISS

ION

TE

CH

NIC

AL

ISS

UE

S

MIT

IGA

TIN

G

CIR

CU

MS

TAN

CE

S

LAT

E S

UB

MIS

SIO

N

DO

WN

LOA

D

AS

SIG

NE

ME

NT

S

SE

CU

RE

ELE

CT

RO

NIC

ST

OR

AG

E

MA

RK

ING

2N

DM

AR

KIN

G

AC

AD

EM

IC

OF

FE

NC

ES

PA

NE

L

EX

AM

BO

AR

D

RE

SU

BM

ISS

ION

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NS

SE

CU

RE

ELE

CT

RO

NIC

ST

OR

AG

E O

F F

EE

DB

AC

Kwill be based on a coherent marking and feedback structure to

standardise processes, maintain quality standards and maximise the

student experience.