The key innovation is the mix of formative and summative assessment and feedback activities. Our two main scenarios or use cases challenge the orthodoxy of simply using EVS for formative feedback in a large lecture situation or low stakes, easy to deliver MCQ assessment.
The first scenario uses EVS immediately following traditional summative, paper-based MCQ test assessments. After individual examination, EVS is used in a re-run of the test that permits open discussion between peers. These “fast” feedback sessions add many of the features of the deeper use of EVS [Draper 2009] in learning, which might be missing from more traditional uses of EVS MCQ for either summative or formative purposes.
Our second experiment makes use of EVS as part of a feedback session after students have completed a series of small scale or personal lab and tutorial exercises. In this second scenario, learning and formative feed forward is linked to traditional summative assessment – often seen as a principal driver for student engagement. Again, EVS and MCQ are used to prompt deeper engagement by getting learners to consider the reasons for answers in MCQs and how they might be used in essay style questions.
A third scenario supports students in self-assessing their own engagement with the yet to be explored possibility of using rankings as part of a gamification strategy. This shows the value that students place on the feedback provided by our second use of EVS.
In terms of innovation, our first scenario builds on the formative feedback resulting in more tailored, deeper, learning (Draper & Brown, 2004) while avoiding the trivialising education through gamification that benefits lecturers at the expense of students’ understanding (Graham et al 2007). By mixing traditional summative assessment with interactive fast feedback test reruns, students benefit from control in managing an assessment while also getting timely feedback that promotes deeper learning.
Similarly our second scenario blends the benefits of promoting engagement of through the use of EVS linked to larger scale summative assessment. This avoids the tension between low-stakes continuous weekly summative e-assessment which can positively influence student engagement (Holmes, 2015), and the formative in-class use of MCQ with EVS as a fast superficial check of understanding that can be seen as dumbing down learning (Jordan 2009).
Draper, 2009. Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. BJET, 40, 285 ‐ 293
Draper and Brown, 2004. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an EVS. JCAL, 20, 81-94.
Graham et al, 2007. Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using ARS. Active Learning in HE, 8, 233-258.
Holmes, 2015. Student perceptions of their learning and engagement in response to the use of a continuous e-assessment in an undergraduate module. Assessment & Evaluation in HE, 40, 1-14.