feedback structure€¦ · the world’s open source learning platform structured feedback...
TRANSCRIPT
the world’s open source learning platform
Feedback Structure
vs
structured unstructured
the world’s open source learning platform
A B C
Structured Feedback Types
rubric
criteria + levels
the world’s open source learning platform
A B C
Structured Feedback Types
rubric checklist
binary criteria
the world’s open source learning platform
A B C
Structured Feedback Types
rubric checklist adaptive
comparative
judgement
the world’s open source learning platform
A B C
Structured Feedback Types
rubric checklist adaptive
comparative
judgement
more instructional more objective
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback Benefits
instructional and correcting
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback BenefitsObjective,
obvious,
fair
reduced
anxietyResults
comparable
between
students
Reliability
and
consistency
Reduced
effort,
efficient,
faster
Feedback
equally
satisfactory
to students
Improved
academic
performance
(sometimes)
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback Potential
Can
be……used in
conjunction
with
unstructured
feedback
…used in
peer and self
assessment
…used to
facilitate
discussion
…used to
focus and
improve
courses
…co-created
with students
…measured
for validity
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback Practice
Set expectations
Instruct students on use
Train markers
Consider each criterion
independently
Refine over time
Avoid
subjectivity
idiosyncrasies
Inequity
same number of
levels across
criteria
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback in Moodle
Rubric Checklist*
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback in Moodle
Workshop
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback in Moodle
Quiz
https://www.packtpub.com/books/content/adding-feedback-moodle-quiz-questions
the world’s open source learning platform
Structured Feedback References
• Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College teaching, 53(1), 27-31.
• Anglin, L., Anglin, K., Schumann, P. L., & Kaliski, J. A. (2008). Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Grading Through the Use of Computer‐Assisted Grading Rubrics. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 51-73.
• de Raadt, M., Lai, D., & Watson, R. (2007). An Evaluation of Electronic Individual Peer Assessment in an Introductory Programming Course. Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling 2007), Koli, Finland.
• Humphry, S. M., & Heldsinger, S. A. (2014). Common structural design features of rubrics may represent a threat to validity. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 253-263.
• Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational research review, 2(2), 130-144.
• Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448.
• Wakefield, C., Adie, J., Pitt, E., & Owens, T. (2014). Feeding forward from summative assessment: the Essay Feedback Checklist as a learning tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 253-262.