Many higher education institutions have implemented a learning management system (LMS) to manage online learning and teaching, with varying levels of support provided to staff and students, but often there is little subsequent investigation into the quality of the online sites or the use made of the support structures provided. This paper presents findings from an institutional survey investigating the use of WebCT by academic staff and students in their learning and teaching at a large Australian university. It was expected that student feedback would relate to technical and infrastructure issues, but instead, the survey elicited responses primarily on how WebCT was used in teaching and learning, indicating that quality control is a major issue for the University. Student opinions appear to reflect more the use of the technology made by teaching staff -students who have experienced a well-designed unit rich with resources, timely feedback and good interaction with staff reported a positive experience with the technology. Staff responses are more focused on the technical and administrative aspects of using WebCT rather than teaching issues. The findings in this paper have implications for quality teaching and learning with technology, and the way in which tertiary institutions support academic staff.
To encourage increased student attendance and engagement in a third year Economics unit, the curriculum was redesigned to incorporate continuous assessment throughout semester. A component of group project marks were allocated to peer-assessment, in an attempt to address concerns about free-riding colleagues sharing a common mark (Gibbs 2009). This study investigated the consistency of marks awarded to peers within teams, and the acceptance by students of marks awarded by peers. Students were asked to provide ratings and explanatory comments for each of their group peers. Focus groups were conducted to determine students' acceptance of this strategy. Eighty student ratings were compared to determine consistency of assessment. Within groups, students who received higher marks from their peers generally awarded marks to their peers across a wider range, whereas students who received lower average grades often awarded the same mark to all team members. These results might indicate that students who were attending class regularly and/or contributing at a higher level were more discriminating in the marks awarded to their peers. Similarly, non-contributors (as identified by their peers) assigned the same or similar grades to each of their peers, possibly due to a lack of knowledge about their peers' contributions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.