You might be interested in this
Have a look at this JISC project
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/aboutus/foi/bid28loughboroughuniversity.pdf
this project is developing a system that answers a lot of the issues of the Bb tool. I have been in contact with the team, and they do have a possible Bb plugin in the future. But the tool looks good and you could look at running it external to Bb. But you would have to handle the admin. The other tool to look at is within turnitin. Unfortunately their Bb plugin doesn't support this particular part of the system, but as an account holder you can set it up using the back end. Of course this is a bit of an admin burden, but one that could be worth it.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Blackboard/Courseinfo userslist [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ashley Wright
Sent: 13 July 2009 09:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Self and Peer Assessment Tool
David and Trav,
Many thanks for taking the time to reply to me. From my own perspective I think that integrating it as one of 'The Group' features is the most pragmatic way to develop it.
With best wishes,
Ashley Wright
Development Officer (eLearning)
Quality In Learning and Teaching (QuILT)
Ground Floor,
King George VI Building,
Newcastle University
NE1 7RU
United Kingdom
Tel (Direct line): +44 (0)191 222 5565
QuILT: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/
Blackboard: http://bb.ncl.ac.uk/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Blackboard/Courseinfo userslist
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Travis Cox
>Sent: 12 July 2009 02:03
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Self and Peer Assessment Tool
>
>Ashley and David,
>
> I had similar queries a few months back and discussed these
>issues with the folks at Dundee since they developed the
>system before it was incorporated to Bb. I hasten to note
>that since the SPA tool is now a Bb tool, you need to lodge an
>enhancement request with Bb if you want any improvements in
>the functionality. Note that, as usual, an enhancement
>request does not guarantee any enhancements. I've lodged a
>series of enhancement requests for this tool months ago, and
>seen nothing in the subsequent service packs so only have the
>auto-response emails I received at the time.
>
> I asked Dundee how they overcame the "not everyone has
>submitted" issue in their teaching and received the following advice:
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~
>With regard to the allocations of non-submitters, this can be
>turned to a useful teaching advantage to stress how
>frustrating it is when students do not hand in work, and
>therefore cannot be awarded any marks or learn from the
>assignment at all. I recommend the following techniques:
>
>Encourage submission: the system gives a list of who has and
>hasn't submitted and it is worth chasing people up before the
>closing date for submission
>
>Ensure Understanding: make sure students understand how
>valuable the exercise is to their learning, and that it is a
>good opportunity to see other people's work to compare to
>their own, and to understand how marking schemes work. This
>better understanding of why they are being asked to do the
>task tends to increase participation in it.
>
>Numerous peer markers: use numerous peer markers (at least 2
>or 3) to ensure that everyone gets their marked by someone,
>and everyone has some submissions to mark. This minimises the
>impact of any non-submissions. The process is more important
>than the end result, and there should be acceptance that a
>peer mark is very much an 'average' and not a precise grade.
>
>Part of learning: make sure that you discuss with students how
>frustrating it is when there is no work to mark, and that it
>is clear that if the student had only handed something in,
>they would have been able to allocate at least some marks
>rather than none at all. This can be an important realisation
>for students.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> We have a related issue where the fake student accounts are
>being allocated for review also. However, we have a fake
>student account for each staff member, not just each
>module/class/course/subject (choose your appropriate
>terminology!) therefore in large classes may have up to 15-20
>fake students in a class due to the employment of many
>tutors/teaching assistants. This presents quite the issue for
>us in terms of allocation of papers since fake student
>accounts don't have any submissions by staff for students to review.
>
> In my testing of this tool, I have found success in using my
>sysadmin powers to remove the fake student accounts for the
>period of time prior to evaluation allocation, then our system
>automatically recognises they're missing and adds them back in
>the next day. The removal of the fake student accounts
>prevents them being included in the pool for allocation.
>However, this is a laborious method requiring good
>coordination between instructors and sysadmins therefore I'd
>also like to see development of the tool to work with the
>group tool. Assuming groups could be included/excluded from
>the allocation, we would then simply enrol all our fake
>student accounts as members of a group which is excluded from
>the allocation process. It would also serve the dual purpose
>of allowing a SPA to be allocated within a particular group
>rather than all the students in the
>module/class/course/subject, which would enhance group project work.
>
> I'd suggest that you're also going to have to pepper Bb with
>a series of enhancement requests to get these changes on their
>radar. The tool is certainly a welcome development in the
>assessment options available in Bb8 and beyond but needs a bit
>more tweaking (in my opinion) to offer the control we require
>for wider adoption at our institution.
>
> All the best,
>
>Trav.
>
>------------------------------
>Travis Cox
>Senior Learning and Teaching Consultant
>Learning Environments
>The University of Melbourne VIC 3010
>T: +61 3 8344 7446
>F: +61 3 8344 4341
>E: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Blackboard/Courseinfo userslist on behalf of Lewis D J A (LCSS)
>Sent: Fri 10/07/2009 22:14
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Self and Peer Assessment Tool
>
>
>
>Ashley,
>
>We had the same problem - so I'd be interested to hear any
>potential solution, we even had our support accounts (which
>were registered to each module) included in the pool of
>students. I did challenge the academics involved as to how
>they would overcome this in a classroom situation - but they
>didn't have an answer.
>
>David
>
>David J A Lewis BSc(Hons) PGCE MIBiol CBiol MIAP MBCS Blended
>Learning Coordinator Blended Learning Support, Media Services,
>LCSS, J235, Tāf Building University of Glamorgan,
>CF37 1DL.
>01443 654229
>http://celt.glam.ac.uk <http://celt.glam.ac.uk/>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Blackboard/Courseinfo userslist [mailto:BLACKBOARD-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ashley Wright
>> Sent: 10 July 2009 12:49
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Self and Peer Assessment Tool
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> Are you or any of your colleagues using the Self and Peer Assessment
>> tool on a regular basis? I've been trying the features of
>the tool out
>> on a few colleagues but keep hitting the same snag.
>>
>> The tool appears to randomise the users from the
>course/module you can
>> evaluate. Which means if some hasn't submitted there is nothing to
>> evaluate.
>> Is there anyway of specifying which users can evaluate
>specific users
>> on the course? Linking this into the Group feature would have be an
>> ideal way of developing this tool, unless I've missed something.
>>
>> Replies off list welcomed.
>>
>> Thanks in anticipation.
>>
>> Ashley Wright
>>
>> Development Officer (eLearning)
>> Quality in Learning and Teaching (QuILT) Newcastle University
>>
>> e: [log in to unmask]
>> T: 0191 222 5565
>
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1583 - Release Date: 19/08/2008 00:00
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1583 - Release Date: 19/08/2008 00:00
|
