1. Managing Group-based Coursework in an e- Learning environment - M²AGIC™ Eur Ing Dr Peter Nicholl 31 May 2006

2. Common VLEs WebCT Blackboard Moodle Good at Content Delivery and Individual Grade Activities

3. G roup E nabled T ools WebCOM - ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2003, Article 3. PG System - Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition 11, 2003, American Society for Engineering Education Tools that allow students to review each others work and give a grade

4. R equiremnts N ot M et by VLE s Group work for large cohorts needs: –Group allocation approaches –Assignment submission by the group –Marking of the group –Feedback to Group Individual

5. The M agic Wand for Coursework M2M2M2M2AG IC anagement and arking ssessments roups ndividuals ohorts Tool of for and on Large

6. Assignments Individual and / or Group related M²AGIC™ Server Lecturer Interaction Group Creation Assignment Marking / Recording Review of Students Evaluations Feedback Student Interaction Group Preferences Assignment Uploads (optional) Peer / Self Evaluation Automated Feedback Lecturer Students Choice of components from the system to use

7. M arking Lecturer created marking criteria View submissions Mark Comment

8. M 2 AGIC Lecturer control for the group allocation process –Using Belbin (profiling) or –Student Lead Reporting of Team Selection method Full audit information to allow tracking of an individual student's progress through a course: –Bonus marks can automatically be allocated for completing tasks on time Typical information on each group member –Photograph –Personal statements Mobile numbers Alternate email addresses

9. M agic U sers

10. P eer C ontribution A pproaches S park (open source project - comments) Group projects aren't fair ! Students common complaint –Equal marks for unequal contributions 'Free-riders' known also as 'social loafers' and 'passengers' not penalised Better students inadequately rewarded and de-motivated Staff common concerns –Staff dilemma of developing collaboration and peer learning without undesirable side effects Paper-based attempts in self and peer assessment unable to overcome confidentiality concerns Paper-based self and peer assessment impossible workload if large classes (i.e. huge data collection, collation and calculations)

12. P eer C ontribution A pproaches CHENG & MARTIN, Making a Difference: using peers to assess individual students’ contributions to a group project, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000

13. T eam C ontribution Evaluation of –Self –Peers Numerically Statement Scale

14. F eedback Student submitted confidential peer and self-evaluation Team Mark Personal Feedback Evaluation Mark modification

15. N ursing E valuation 61 evaluation forms were returned out of a possible 70 Use of Magic to Create Groups: 51/61 felt it was a fair and effective way to organise groups, making comments like: Able to interact with people we wouldn't normally work with Easy way to assign oneself to a group Good idea to create groups outside of ones normal social circles Choosing people with different skills helped in forming different opinions Good for team building Gave the opportunity to select groups and meet a wider range of people 5/61 were less happy. 3 felt they did not get the selection they requested 2 thought magic was not beneficial and would rather have self-selection for groups

16. N ursing E valuation Attitudes to Peer and Self Evaluation: 48/61 felt it was a good idea making the comments below: Good way to analyse information & contributions made by peers. No problems as long as scores can be justified. Useful. Worked well with effective groups. Helped to be able to give scores corresponding to levels of contributions. Allowed you to compare yourself with others. Fears of consequences if comments made about those who did not contribute. Positive feedback a motivator & helps pinpoint areas for professional development. Helped me to be more assertive. A good learning opportunity to evaluate self and peers. Rather do this than have a lecturer give me a mark. 4 Were very uncomfortable with the process. 3 Didn't assess as they didn't want to offend. 1 Felt it very hard to judge others. 1 More guidance needed as peers just give each other good marks. Nursing Lecturer - From our perspective it was also a very good leaning opportunity thank you for facilitating us.

18. E hancements Received £5,000 HE funding to develop: –Java application capable of 10,000 simultaneous connections –Integration to WebCT Vista Use of components of selected stages