Evaluation of the Use of VoiceThread for Assessment
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like37 views
The document evaluates the use of Voicethread for assessments at Charles Darwin University, focusing on its slow adoption despite its robust features. The study involved 112 students across various units and found that while students appreciate the feedback provided, the assessment design significantly impacted Voicethread's usage. It concludes with practical recommendations for supporting both students and lecturers in effectively utilizing this educational technology.
Evaluation of the Use of VoiceThread for Assessment
- 1. 1 Evaluation of the use of VoiceThread for Assessments Taleo, Reedy, Isaias, 2019 ASCILTE 2019
- 2. • Approximately 23,000 students • Dual sector institution (HE and VET) • Several campuses and centres across multiple states; with different modes of study • Learning Management System (LMS) – Based on Blackboard products - VoiceThread integrated • Member of the Innovative Research Universities (IRU) group • VoiceThread Statistics – October 2019: Slides Created 1,645, Slide Views 460, Comments 847 Charles Darwin University
- 3. 3 Research Team Assoc. Prof. Pedro Isaias UNSW, Sydney Mentor Dr Alison Reedy Charles Darwin University Mentor Wendy Taleo Charles Darwin University Mentee
- 4. 4 VoiceThread in Education VoiceThread YouTube Channel https://youtu.be/9PuJJ3purvw
- 5. • The take-up of VoiceThread since integration in the LMS in 2016 has been slow • Product appears robust but few lecturers taking it up for teaching or assessing • Resulting in a ‘How’ research question Question: How is VoiceThread being used by students and staff for assessment purposes in Higher Education at Charles Darwin University? 5 Research Problem
- 6. • Evaluative research in: 6 units across 3 disciplines in 2 colleges • Delivery of unit was through the LMS for both internal and external mode students • Student numbers varied from unit to unit. Ranging from 3 to 65 in a single unit. Total student 112. • 93% of students participated in the study 6 Participants and Scope
- 7. • VoiceThread data collection • Lecturer Interviews • Student survey • Focus Group 7 Research Methods
- 8. 8 Assessment Process using VoiceThread VoiceThread Support
- 9. Data Source Assessment Design Create Submit Receive Feedback Support VT assessments X X X X X Lecturer Interviews X X X X X X Student Survey X X X X X Student Focus Group X X X 9 Results I Table 1: Data Collection Mapped to Assessment Process
- 10. 10 Results Table 2: Student Numbers and VT Design Unit Student Numbers Student Created Media Text only Visual and text visual only video audio U1 63 578 45% 52% 3% 1% 0 U2 4 3 0 0 0 100% 0 U3 3 31 87% 13% 0 0 0 U4 9 126 0 0 0 0 0 U5 4 54 69% 31% 0 0 0 U6 15 115 11% 85% 0 1% 3%
- 11. 11 Results III Table 3: Student Comments on VT Media Unit Text Comment Student spoken comment Student Video U1 19% 78% 3% U2 0 0 (100%) U3 0 100% 0 U4 0 100% 0 U5 0 100% 0 U6 0 100% 0
- 12. • The five-part VT assessment process and support diagram was used by the authors to conceptualise how VT is used and guided the data collection and analysis • All commenting functions in VT were used • Assessment design impacted the usage of the functions • High workload for providing multimodal feedback although appreciated by students 12 Discussion
- 13. Students can use the flexibility of the tool and appreciate the lecturer feedback (audio and text comments) 13 Conclusion Practical tips: 1. Provide extra support to students in using unfamiliar tools for assessment. 2. Provide detailed support for lecturers at the assessment design stage. 3. Facilitate interdisciplinary knowledge about VoiceThread This study provided clear picture of VoiceThread as a powerful and multifaceted tool
- 14. • Address the limitations in further research • Implement the practical tips • The next question: Assessment design is key when asking students to use edtech tools, are we addressing that when the tools change? 14 Future Direction
Editor's Notes
- #2: Acknowledgements: My 2 mentors, Pedro and Alison which has been facilitated by the ASCILITE Community Mentoring Program. I acknowledge the traditional custodians, the Arrente people, of the unceded land Mpartntwe/Alice Springs on which I live and work and I pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging. I extend that respect to the many peoples of Singapore.
- #3: VT stats from October 2019 (University wide both staff, support staff and students). Comments 24% text 74% audio and 2% video. Created and
- #4: Mentoring facilitated by ASCILITE CMP Different backgrounds and research interests and different timezones
- #5: A brief overview of what is VoiceThread. Emphasising that while research shows that this is a great alternative to text only discussion boards, this research is looking at using VoiceThread for assessments.
- #6: Denzin & Lincoln 2017
- #7: Denzin & Lincoln 2017
- #8: Denzin & Lincoln 2017
- #9: This could be useful for academics to approach assessment design when choosing new or evaluating edtech to use for assessment. The process for using VoiceThread for assessment is shown diagrammatically above. Students create a response to the assessment and may use a selection of different tools to do this. Submission is required through the LMS with a VoiceThread submission point that is linked to the Grade Centre. Lecturers receive the submissions and provide feedback in several ways. All work is given a numeric grade which is transferred from VT to the LMS Grade Centre.
- #10: Limitations: The small student numbers in five of the six units in a single University in this study, and low student response rates in the student survey and focus group limited the data about the range of ways that VT is used at CDU. While the student survey data was largely positive in relation to VT, the design of the comments section in the survey only encouraged responses that related to what needed improvement. A larger student response rate to the survey may have delivered more details. The focus group had low representation as students did not return to the Thread to have a dialogue with the researcher. This limited the ability of the researcher to clarify some of the responses provided in the survey.
- #11: Limitations: The small student numbers in five of the six units in a single University in this study, and low student response rates in the student survey and focus group limited the data about the range of ways that VT is used at CDU. While the student survey data was largely positive in relation to VT, the design of the comments section in the survey only encouraged responses that related to what needed improvement. A larger student response rate to the survey may have delivered more details. The focus group had low representation as students did not return to the Thread to have a dialogue with the researcher. This limited the ability of the researcher to clarify some of the responses provided in the survey.
- #12: Limitations: The small student numbers in five of the six units in a single University in this study, and low student response rates in the student survey and focus group limited the data about the range of ways that VT is used at CDU. While the student survey data was largely positive in relation to VT, the design of the comments section in the survey only encouraged responses that related to what needed improvement. A larger student response rate to the survey may have delivered more details. The focus group had low representation as students did not return to the Thread to have a dialogue with the researcher. This limited the ability of the researcher to clarify some of the responses provided in the survey.
- #13: Limitations: The small student numbers in five of the six units in a single University in this study, and low student response rates in the student survey and focus group limited the data about the range of ways that VT is used at CDU. While the student survey data was largely positive in relation to VT, the design of the comments section in the survey only encouraged responses that related to what needed improvement. A larger student response rate to the survey may have delivered more details. The focus group had low representation as students did not return to the Thread to have a dialogue with the researcher. This limited the ability of the researcher to clarify some of the responses provided in the survey.
- #14: While we acknowledge these limitations, this study has provided a clear and detailed picture of VoiceThread as a powerful and multifaceted tool that students can use to respond to assessment tasks. The practical implications from this study can be seen in the following recommendations for actions which address some of the findings:
- #15: While we acknowledge these limitations, this study has provided a clear and detailed picture of VoiceThread as a powerful and multifaceted tool that students can use to respond to assessment tasks. The practical implications from this study can be seen in the following recommendations for actions which address some of the findings: