Pick 'n' mix

I have just attended what was described as a ‘mixed’ session on all things of interest to me – pre-induction, electronic exams and feedback. Yay!

The first paper was by Jo Axe (Royal Roads Univ., Canada) on the development of online learning communities in advance of face-to-face (an ‘online bridge’ to building communities). I was expecting a flurry of ideas for supporting pre-induction, but the research focused on issues of clashes between different backgrounds and cultures and how she had tried to address this by getting the students to submit a non-graded individual reflection on what makes a learning community.

The second paper was by Nora Mogey (Edinburgh) on the pilot of 70 Divinity students having an optional mock exam that they could type or handwrite. This was so far the most interesting paper I had attended. Prior to this student views were sought on typed exams the majority were in favour, though there were reservations about typing skills, integrity of technology and interruptions to the thought process. They used Exam4 software (www.extegrity.com), rather than Word to avoid any inadvertent assessment of word processing skills). Students taking the mock exam were still presented with their questions on paper, but installed the software on their own or borrowed laptop. Prior to the exam, the course team applies settings such as spell checking, where to save work to, and whether to lock down the laptop (no browser, homespace etc), and the student can set font size and set a timer. Throughout the exam encrypted snapshots are taken which the admin team decrypt and there is a choice of printing or marking the work electronically. In the pilot it was found that longer scripts were typed, no correlation between typing speed and word count, no difference in quality between handwritten and typed, and no concept in what 3 pages of A4 look like typed, but the biggest worry was consistency of marking between markers regardless of format. Students have said that typing exams is no less fair than written exams, and they should be offered the choice. They appreciate being able to restructure work and feel that they are being more analytical and critical, and see written exams as a ‘brain dump’. Keyboard noise did not cause concerns. One exam hall at Edinburgh has since been redeveloped with powered floors with sockets and network points.

The final paper was titled Formative audio feedback: is FAF a faff? (Robin Johnson, Manc. Met). He spoke of a HEPI report on Academic experience of students in English Universities (2007) which reports on student progress and feedback - http://www.hepi.ac.uk/pubdetail.asp?ID=240&DOC=reports. (I will read this later). After which he stood with his hands in his pockets reading his slides – audio feedback is easy to do, saves time and provide more details, need clear structure and control emotions. He then spoke of research into 70 students who submitted a draft dissertation; the students on placement received audio feedback and those not on placement received written feedback. All students were asked to complete a questionnaire asking whether their feedback (audio or written) had helped them improve their work etc. Those receiving audio feedback found it helpful; and a poor return from those receiving written feedback meant he couldn’t compare.