WORKSHOP : Self-assessment: strategies and
software to stimulate learning
Higher Education Academy Workshop and Seminar Series 2012
Monday 11 June 2012 (1000-1600)
The Open University, Milton Keynes
Organised by: Sally Jordan (OU: s.e.jordan@open.ac.uk )
and Tony Gardner-Medwin (UCL: ucgbarg@ucl.ac.uk)
PROGRAMME: Click here RATIONALE The effects of tests within a teaching/learning strategy can
be both positive and negative. Later recall of test items is usually enhanced,
but untested material can suffer. Test distractors may be recalled as if
learned; and rote learning may be developed without proper understanding. This
meeting will address how most efficiently to achieve benefits with exercises
that stimulate thought more than memory : developing connections between ideas,
identifying misconceptions and
encouraging evaluation of arguments. The aim is self-assessment integral to
learning, not formative-assessment to provide exam practice or shape teaching,
nor summative- to measure success. It is perhaps better described as practice
rather than assessment, by analogy with how we learn music or tennis, driven by
challenge, exhilaration and the stimulus of failure, rather than by a series of
hurdles. We shall highlight key questions about self-assessment and
try to establish where evidence, ideas and common sense can inform best
practice and new software. Though the initiative for the workshop stems partly
from ideas developed at UCL, we have chosen the OU as venue because of its wide
experience in this area, central location, and involvement with one of the
principal open-source tools – Moodle – for developing new assessment formats.
Computer techniques are key to giving students extensive access to challenging
exercises and we will address how much the student or teacher should control
this access, and which special features may (or may not) be worthwhile.
Specific examples are student selection of questions, certainty-based marking,
instant feedback, conditional or unconditional explanations, smart text
evaluation, adaptive question structures, student comments on content,
collaborative working. We shall discuss experiments where students themselves
create and evaluate exercises, the disciplines that could most gain from
specific strategies, and how dialogue between teachers and developers may
improve the tools available. AIMS We are focussing on a quite specific area of assessment that
many students find particularly valuable in their study, and which we think
deserves wider attention. We hope to attract up to 60 mainly teachers (but also
developers) working in many disciplines, to discuss how self-assessment may be
best used. We see this as an efficient means to improve student learning
experience (at low cost in staff time), and hope that by raising specific
questions with experienced presenters we will stimulate new trials, experiments
and developments and send people away keen to try out what they have discussed. SPEAKERS (see also PROGRAMME )
Nancy Curtin (Imperial)
******* RECORDINGS and PRESENTATION FILES: Click here *******
******* DISCUSSION FORUM: Click here *******
Maria Fernandez-Toro (OU)
Tony Gardner-Medwin (UCL)
Gwyneth Hughes (IOE)
Tim Hunt (OU)
Sally Jordan (OU)
John Kleeman (Questionmark)
Tim Lowe (OU)
Jon Rosewell (OU)
USEFUL LINKS
Gwyneth Hughes: Ipsative Assessment
Tony Gardner-Medwin: Certainty-Based Marking, CBM in Moodle
Sally Jordan: e-assessment (f)or learning
Peerwise (Paul Denny, NZ: Students writing questions; Edinburgh group )
Jon Rosewell: Opening up multiple-choice
Phil Butcher & OU colleagues: OpenLearn, LabSpace
POSTERS
Simon Bates, Judy Hardy and Ross Galloway, The University of Edinburg: SGC4L: Student Generated Content for Learning
Martin Bush, London South Bank University: Formative and summative assessment for large classes: multiple-choice tests
Ramon Eixarch, Maths for More: Maths tools for assessment
Tony Gardner-Medwin, UCL: Analysis of Exams using Certainty-Based Marking
Sally Jordan, The Open University: Student engagement with e-assessment
Clare Wakeham, University of Oxford: Leading and Managing Health and Safety – an online course
A Range of Questions about Self-assessment
Self-assessment as a stimulus to learning: how should it differ from
formative and summative assessment?
Must
assessments always encourage ‘learning
(and teaching) to the test’?
Can
self-assessment capitalise on the truism ‘assessment
drives learning’ in a more constructive way?
Can
e-practice and e-challenge be a stimulus rather than a tedious hurdle?
Why should tennis
practice be fun, but learning practice a bore?
Why is tennis coaching enjoyable
while marking is often perceived to be a chore?
Can exercises
challenge & push boundaries, rather than simply grade & assess?
Should the learner or teacher be in charge of what self-assessments to
do, and when?
Will
the right students tend to opt voluntarily to use self-assessment?
Will
students too much treat self-assessment Qs simply as rote-learning opportunities?
Is
Certainty-Based Marking a worthwhile feature in self-assessment?
Should we reward
students for identifying and acknowledging uncertainty?
Should we punish
misconceptions and inappropriate ideas about the reliability of their knowledge?
Is there more to
knowledge than getting things right?
Is instant feedback important? (or is a delay better)
Should
feedback & explanation be delivered while the student is still thinking –
or in delayed review?
Is
there a balance of crude immediate computer feedback vs. delayed skilled & costly
teacher feedback?
Is
'smart' computerised analysis of text answers worthwhile?
Do self-assessment exercises need to be different from exam-style
tests?
Can
we use past exam Qs to stimulate learning?
Are
planned question sequences and Qs conditional on answers worthwhile?
Is
rigorous marking less important than in exams?
Are explanations of answers important as feedback?
Can
explanations stimulate connections between different areas of wider knowledge?
Are
particular disciplines (maths, science, language, law?) more suited for
self-assessment?
Is
different software from exam software required or preferred?
Is exam-style security
unimportant?
Are open comment
facilities relating to Qs and explanations important?
Are
server interactions significantly slower than responses from a local computer?
Should
marks (percentages) be expressed relative to student-selected Qs, rather than an
entire quiz?
Is
Moodle providing what is needed for self-assessments?
Should
students doing self-assessments be encouraged to work together?
Is collaborative discussion (face
to face or e-discussion) a stimulus to learning?
Should students
themselves write and edit exercises and
explanations?
Do students need to
learn to distinguish important (‘big’) questions from matters of detail?
Is there common ground
between self-assessment and peer assessment?
Should individual students’ marks on self-assessments be ignored by teachers?
Are
students’ mistakes indicative of valuable learning experiences?
Should
timing of self-assessments be under the control of students or teachers?
Are
self-assessments most useful after study (‘revision’) or as a stimulus to
continuing study?
Should we use self-assessments or formal tests as preparation before practicals,
etc.?
Again,
which is better to encourage consolidation of what should be learned from such
sessions?