BMAF, Economics and Hospitality Management Cluster

 

Evidence – difficult,

Derby Business School - CAA – collected data on use and student individual data – relationship between use of formative assessment against performance

Theoretical underpinning, collect data and evaluate.

Outcomes only as good as measure – are we measuring the right thing so how can we tell whether or works. Need model but if model erroneous, what value?

 

Leeds Met - Measure increase in achievement – appeared to be none but students were more satisfied.

 

If students see benefits then will use; 1^st year students appear to feel more comfortable using computer than working in tutorials (not been in tutorial situation before so need to build confidence and skill base in subject).

 

Leeds Met – structured activities. Measurement – regular feedback from students, summative assessment every 2 weeks to ensure regularly engagement. Class attendance increased. Module mark up by 15%. At commencement of course no regard to deadlines (culture change) so gradual tightening of deadlines (from 1 week to on day) this had knock-on effect on other modules. Many staff not aware of cultural differences between FE and HE and therefore type of support required for transition.

 

Notes from Bristol Meeting

Exeter – seminar material online, metrics = pass rates slightly better than previous years

Glamorgan – focus groups with quotes

Glamorgan – gaming, experimental so no comparator makes evaluation difficult.

 

Sometimes do not start evaluation until second or third year of running – wait because ‘want to get it right’ before evaluation.

 

How measure difference between material available vs innovative methods and integrated with different learning pathways? Opinions but based upon student perceptions (different at beginning to end of module/course); important point. Link physical amount of time with outcome result – behavioural outcome. Need to use both measures.

 

How measure effectiveness?

 

Students may enjoy the learning but (what) have they learnt?

 

Can measure change rather than use absolutes. Measure transformation.

 

Potential to reduce costs – by centralising or externalising of resource – reduction of staff time. Other cases costs hidden.

 

Institutional environment has large impact; how much online learning environment used; students ‘push’.

 

ADD TO CASE STUDY Institutional context of development. Do we need background? Agreed.  eg what central support. Can vary between departments.

Vast differences between HEIs.

 

Need strategic view of how online/e-learning system to be used. In some instances no step-change in terms of model of learning / pedagogic approach. Integrated approach. Examination of ‘what trying to do’, think about pedagogic model can reawaken interest in teaching!- a tangible benefit.

 

Centralised resource (IT + pedagogy) to support staff so that staff can develop teaching can be extremely important.

 

Assessment question bank development time consuming – upfront costs high so ROI over years (could 4-5 years). Benefits high in terms of time and quality.

 

Stability to make pay-off is required. Why put time in when could be changed every year? But some aspects (technology and how used in L & T) do change very fast.

 

Need model of resource.

 

Difficult to remove from rest of teaching and learning.

 

Changes in behaviour.

 

Future devs: Web 2 be aware – students need personal space, don’t invade their space. Also need space for personal evaluation, time/space for reflection.

 

Pedagogic models: Integrate tools into activities. Eg discussion boards. If attach assessed outcome then most will use. Students will use other methods for discussion. Depends upon engagement of academic – skill.

Coaching approach eg management coaching.

Feedback: Learning and feedback thro’ assessment.

Byte-sized assessment – is this meaningful assessment? Danger of some computer assessment styles

e-learning makes spoon-feeding approach easy. However in transformation courses do need guidance and perhaps byte-sized.

 

Transferability: how does e-learning champion disseminate the ‘zeal’? Sometimes impossible for others to follow as so far ahead. Institution needs to value this work and have strategy to support developments. Top down approaches vs individual approaches. Is there a skills issue? Staff & students. Perception of skills required problem not skills problem. Need to support staff to achieve. ‘if they can do it, then I can do it’. Encourage staff to try – coaching model rather than training model works best. Students perception of IT skills – used to press buttons, not thinking about what doing. People with ideas and getting support within a partnership of development.

 

Support from subject community – reusable learning objects to be investigated (equiv to trying to use someone else’s lecture notes) Leeds Met.