Transcript No Slide Title

Computerised
Assessment
with
Plagiarism
C. A .P.
Phil Davies (Computing)
1
The Evils of Higher Education
• Students
– Numbers (Quantity NOT Quality)
• Plagiarism
– Identification Luck NOT Judgement
• Marking
– Time consuming / Subjective NOT Objective
• Assessment
– Exams (% of course) C/works EHFF
• Web
– EHFWWW
2
Turn Evils to Our Advantage
• Peer Assessment
– Students do the marking for us
• Plagiarism
– Students with quantity of marking will identify
plagiarism easier than lecturer
• Time spent on marking
– at least 15 mins per script / minimum of 10
• Web
– Use it for research and marking
3
MANUAL OR
COMPUTERISED?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Control
Data automatically held on server machine
Client Access following registration
Email in reports
Total Anonymity
Mark in own time
No group marking / limits plagiarism
Learning through marking
4
COURSEWORK FORMAT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create report
Include all web sources
Email in report ( 14 marks)
Perform On-line MCQ Test (8 marks)
Peer Assessment (C.A.P.) (10 marks)
Perform On-line MCQ Test (8 marks)
Feedback !!!!!!
5
6
7
8
9
10
FEEDBACK
• Students “wanted to know!!!” name of
markers
• Students wouldn’t accept comments of
peers
• Wide range of marking
• Average out marks
• Email in complaints to highlight problems
11
POSITIVE BENEFITS
• Lecturer: Marking Qualitative not
Quantitative 150*35 mins * 10 = 800 hours
• Immediate Feedback
• Learning aid / Open up access to material
• Benchmark own performance with peers
• Perspective of marker not producer
• Objectivity not subjectivity in marking
12
WORD OF CAUTION
• Educational benefits in performing peer
assessment
• NOT less work for lecturer
• “.. We are paying for a service, and we are
not getting the service we deserve if the
lecturer is not marking our work”
13