learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Maria-Jesús Martínez-Argüelles et al.
serve to provide the student with feedback. The first one is the continuous evaluation registry, a
space in the virtual classroom where the tutor inserts the marks of the continuous evaluation and
facilitates the personalised feedback (which is sent to a private space only shared by tutor and
learner). The second one is the calendar and it can be found in the planning space of the virtual
classroom. There, the student can accede to the solutions of the continuous evaluation tests,
prepared by the tutor and published one day after the students have submitted their solutions.
Publicness or privacy of the feedback’s processes: Another component is the virtual space where
the feedback takes place, be it public or private. In this study we analyse the effects of feedback
in a private space (from now on, personalised feedback). Authors such as Rice, M., et al. (1994)
have proved that personalised feedback (private spaces) has advantages over feedback in public
spaces because it fits better to the needs and characteristics of each student.
Moment of feedback: To provide immediate or differed feedback has been the object of
discussion in several researches on this issue. It is remarkable the proposal made by Dempsey,
J.V. & Wager, S.U. (1988), that define some categories used in this work. The first one is
immediate feedback (it provides the student with information on the correct answer) and in this
context it corresponds to the continuous evaluation tests, that are published just one day after the
students submit their answers. The second one is deferred feedback (where the errors made are
commented on, some contents are recommended as well as strategies to improve the learning
process), that provides value added to the solution of the continuous evaluation test.
Extension and form of the feedback: Another special feature of feedback in a virtual environment
is its extension. It is tightly linked to the semantic dimension of feedback and to the kind of
knowledge evaluated (depending on whether it is more abstract or conceptual or more applied
and procedural). To guarantee an effective feedback, it must give enough information to students,
so that they attain the foreseen learning aims. The feedback can have different shapes: text
and/or technological multimedia (audio and video recordings, screen-shots with audio as well as
the possibility to upload compressed videos). The student receives it in the continuous evaluation
registry as an attached file or in the message itself.
Furthermore, this input, apart from contributing to improve the students' learning process, becomes a
key motivating tool for them not to quit the subjects but to go on with the continuous evaluation
process.
So, to grant UOC's pedagogical model's quality the implementation of personalized inputs becomes a
key factor.
On the contrary, elaborating personalised inputs of four or more continuous evaluation activities by
the tutors, that have classrooms with 70 students or more, is often a non-sustainable task due to the
time it requires particularly taking into account that the estimate and demanded dedication of tutors is
maximum of two hours per day.
In this project we analyse the efficiency, of different forms of feedback alternative to written text. The
analysis have been done both from the the student's viewpoint and the tutor’s point of view, but .this
work is focussed on the assessment from the student’s point of view .
The pilot test consists of exploring new ways of feedback with the aim to make it closer, more efficient
and more motivation-generating to the student. One of the UOC's features is the diversity of tutors
that take part in it. Diversity understood as different origins, professions, and particularly, as refers to
abilities in transmitting knowledge. In this sense, we propose to pay special attention to this diversity,
trying to make each one's best communicating skills arise. Thus, we propose to investigate on the
possibilities to give inputs in different formats that current technologies make available (audio, video,
screen-shots with audio, etc.). We propose to integrate this input in the framework of the continuous
evaluation registry in order to make it even less costly to tutors. Furthermore, we integrate different
tools that facilitate adoption of diverse multimedia responses (video recordings, audio recordings and
the chance to upload compressed videos).
In this context, the pilot test's main objective is to assess the effect of introducing a major
personalization in the feedback received by students through an offer of alternative channels (oral,
video, etc.) to the tutors, in order to facilitate their task.
467