DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING Presented by: Mercedes Douglas, Senior Tutor, Other Reap Team Members: Michael Harker, Lecturer, Martin Smith, TLTO, Sean Ennis, Director of Teaching,

PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING CLASS 422 STUDENTS – FIRST YEAR 1 LECTURER 10 TUTORS 39 TUTORIAL GROUPS

OBJECTIVES ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVE READING, SELF/PEER ASSESSMENT – ENGAGE IN LEARNING PROCESS IMPROVE STUDENT AND TUTORS DIALOGUE IMPROVE FEEDBACK PROCESSES ACHIEVE EFFICIENCY GAINS IN ADMINISTRATION, MARKING AND NUMBER OF TUTORIAL HOURS

USE OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED WEBCT: ALL LECTURE TEMPLATES, TEXTBOOK SUPPORT MATERIALS: CASE STUDIES AND TESTS IN-HOUSE DESIGN OF FEEDBACK TEMPLATE

Reap Project Activities: 1.MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION TESTS 2.ON-LINE MARKING AND FEEDBACK FOR ESSAY AND REPORT

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION TESTS FORMATIVE MCQs OVER 2 WEEKS: TAKEN BY 59% OF STUDENTS TUTORIAL PRACTICE: ALL GROUPS SUMMATIVE RANDOMISED MCQs: TAKEN BY 90% OF STUDENTS

FORMAL TEST –954 questions – randomised –50 questions each for each student –Over two weeks –Two hours –Open book –60% obtained pass mark (40%) and above

LEARNING IMPROVEMENTS MCQ Tests –Closing loop by repetition –Immediate feedback/open book: self- correcting, reflection –Peer dialogue: tutorials, outside classrooms –Data from students to be collected

PILOT GROUPS (8 Tutorial groups) : Submission, Assessment and Feedback on- line IN-HOUSE DEVELOPED TEMPLATE using Visual Basics Software –Submission using WebCt –Tutors download assignment (Word), assess, add comments –Tutors use Template to select comments and award mark –Tutors upload edited version, feedback form and mark on to WebCt

LEARNING IMPROVEMENTS USE OF TEMPLATE – PILOT GROUP –Used criterion-referenced grid: standard and specific comments (based Price & Rust, 1999; O’Donovan et al, 2000; Rust et al, 2005) –Lecturer defined subject specific criteria –Template allows for automatic selection of comments which are transferred onto Word document - time efficiency –Typed comments – better to read than handwritten comments –More detailed and relevant comments –Data from students still to be collected

ISSUES With MCQ Tests: participation of students to construct some questions With Templates – online marking and providing feedback: –Students participation on setting criteria –Using template for students to peer assess –Tutors’ attitude to marking large numbers on-line (bus/train/garden/bed)

WHAT NEXT? IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE ON MCQ TESTS –Smaller summative tests –Integration to Electronic Voting System STANDARD TEMPLATE to be used in all classes in the Department

References Price, M & Rust, C (1999) The Experience of introducing a common criteria assessment grid across an academic department, Quality in Higher Education, 5, (2), O’Donovan, B; Price, M & Rust, C (2000) The Student Experience of Criterion-Referenced Assessment (Through the Introduction of a Common Criteria Assessment Grid), Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 38, (1), Rust, C, O’Donovan, B & Price, M (2005) A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, (3), June, Nicol, D & Milligan, C (2006) Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice, In C Bryan and K Clegg (Eds) Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, Taylor and Francis Group Ltd, London