Enhancing French Grammar Learning through Innovative Online Assessment and Feedback
Revolutionizing French grammar education with a focus on interactive online activities, monitoring independent learning progress, and providing valuable feedback, addressing challenges faced by students in engaging with fundamental language elements. The implementation of a monitored ILP system alongside traditional classroom instruction has brought a new level of engagement and efficiency to the learning process.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Innovation in on-line assessment and feedback: how we brought the WOW factor to French grammar
20 credits = 200 hours = 6 hours outside classroom each week (h/w and Independent Learning Programme = ILP) Fren10210 20 credits (3 contact hours) 2hr Written / grammar seminar 1hr Oral seminar ILP Programme WOW factor in this bit
Students not engaging sufficiently in the building- blocks of language learning grammar and phonetics; Limited class time to devote to such time-consuming basic elements; ILP encouraged with a week by week schedule of activities across all four skill areas, including reflective tasks and action planning, building toward a portfolio of tasks BUT students still not working regularly or systematically; 120-150 students in each year means we cannot take in and mark or assess ILP
Creation of a strand of Monitored ILP activities to complement existing class and independent schedules; Weekly on-line (Blackboard) grammar and oral/phonetics exercises: completion tracked by system; Roughly 1hr a week (30 mins x 2); Exercises live for 10 working days but attempted as many times as desired; 90% of tasks must be completed each semester; 5% available each semester (so at end of year students come out with either 0%, 5% or 10% for this element of their assessment diet; Minimum work for convenors to check completion stats on BB
Software solutions versus VLE compatibility = do the best we could with what we had / BB training Time issues - Considerable tutor time investment = worked a just-in-time system, got quicker as went along, once it s done, it s done! Quantity versus quality (see Ferris, 2004) - the more one does, the better one gets? = provision of FEEDBACK = added-value
Formerly known (2011-12) as Monitored Independent Learning I think my independent learning should be just that... independent, and not dictated by the university I strongly disagree with the idea of a Monitored ILP. I was enraged when I found out that the reason we have them was because last years' students said they were not motivated to do independent work. To be at university you have to be prepared and you have to WANT to do independent work .
Multi-pronged, multi-media feedback approach Fair copy + notes on grammar point being tested Indication of page numbers in set text Link to a micro-tutorial (Powerpoint + narration and rehearsed timings) Live correction of a staged student copy (OneNote + jing) Motivate, stimulate, satisfy different and varying learning styles and needs
2 x surveys (2011-2012) Questions on all aspects of the (new) course combination of numeric and comments We will be looking at the results from these 4 (2 x semesters combined): 1.HONESTLY, do you think you would be doing as much independent learning if we did not have the monitored ILP section of the course? 2.The weekly monitored ILP activities are helping me work regularly and systematically outside the classroom. 3.The feedback given with the Monitored ILP exercises is helpful. 4.Did you find the 'Now watch Annie mark one of your translations live feedbacks useful for the targeted prose exercises?
% If the activities weren't compulsory and checked I definitely would not do as much so this is so good for me because it forces me to put the extra time in. The exercises are really great and varied. I really enjoy them (weirdly!) and they don't take too long to do. 2.2 No answer 79.7 No 19.2 Yes 80% say they wouldn t be doing as much ILP
% 1.4 Unanswered 6.9 Strongly disagree 9.7 Disagree 5.6 Neither agree nor disagree 59.7 Agree 16.7 Strongly agree 76% agree or strongly agree 82% strongly agree/agree or have no opinion
% 2.9 Unanswered 0.7 Strongly disagree 5.9 Disagree 12.8 Neither agree nor disagree 50.7 Agree 26.9 Strongly agree 78% of students agree or strongly agree 90% of students agree, strongly agree or have no opinion
31% of students had not watched them, of those that had: % 31.1 I did not watch them 76% agreed or strongly agreed 96% strongly agreed, agreed or had no opinion 0 Strongly disagree 1.4 Disagree 13.7 Neither agree nor disagree 36.6 Agree 16.2 Strongly agree
No need, enough feedback Laziness Technical difficulties Didn t know about them Because having wasted my time completing them I don't want to spend any more time on Blackboard.
Something which I find SO USEFUL are the powerpoints where Annie speaks and the work where Annie marks it with you. I think these are great and I always listen to them. It makes so much more sense when Annie explains them. I found the correction videos in which a translation is corrected showing the most common mistakes made a really useful way of picking up on personal mistakes and remembering them - as opposed to just seeing the correct version and noticing differences between one's own translation and the correct one. [ ]how is it she knows absolutely every mistake I have made, without having even looked at my work?!
First years do not feel any urgency to complete the activities; 0% 5% 10% 0% 5% 10% 13% 33% 47% 21% 66% 20% First Year Only a third of students got the max +10% available Almost half the students got +0% Second Year Two thirds of students did enough activities to get the max +10% available
They do not all thrive in the computer age: - It took them longer to get used to the system that we anticipated (and we had a number of technical problems); - A good induction and very precise instructions is needed; - They did not believe the number of activities the system said they had done; - Some of them want to do exercises with paper and a pen Only some of them are mature enough to understand why regular and systematic work is necessary.
Blackboard has not always proved 100% reliable (TDF session: The Trouble with Blackboard ways round!) Once deployed, a test cannot be changed, even if there is an error in it: we lost all attempts at week 3 and had to gift it to all students! Away from the University, BB is supported differently by different operating systems; audio files proved particularly problematic; Gradecentre not v. student friendly (paper version in dossier) BB CANNOT count the number of activities students are doing. A spreadsheet must be downloaded and activities counted for each student; Live-marking technique + jing screen capture is v. time- consuming, but does get quicker!
0 5% 10% Percentage of students awarded 0, +5 or +10% for WOW completion 21.5 21 25 35 21.5 23 70 17 75 57 56 10 48 20 70+ 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-39 Result (%) in end of year FREN10210 written examination
0 5% 10% Percentage of students awarded 0, + 5 or +10% for WOW completion 42 61.2 75.5 80 33 22.4 15.5 13.3 25 16.3 9 6.7 70+ 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-39 Result (%) in end of year FREN20210 written examination
Franc, C & Morton, A The Use of VLE for Monitoring Independent Learning in Large Cohort Provision: The Case of French Studies at the University of Manchester (in Computer Assisted Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: Technological Advance, ICI Global, 2013) Just email: annie.l.morton@manchester.ac.uk Not gloomy looking Annie and Catherine Gloomy looking book!
