- Presentation abstract発表の要約
One of the most useful but least utilized features of Moodle is feedback for question answer distractors. The importance of feedback for developing learners understanding has been well documented (e.g., Lavolette et al., 2015). As properly developed technology-mediated feedback adds to students’ understanding and encourages learning (Loncar et al., 2021), educators should be encouraged to use Moodle’s answer feedback. This presentation will demonstrate the steps need to develop items with feedback for distractors. These are (a) creating a taxonomy of error types, (b) developing items from this taxonomy, and (c) using a spreadsheet to create the GIFT file to bulk import these into a question bank. This presentation will be useful for those who are unfamiliar with building error taxonomies, employing spreadsheets for creating principled distractor feedback, or adding feedback to Moodle question bank items.
References
Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.
Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J. S. (2021). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: Trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-63.
- Original submission元の原稿
発表の題名: Using spreadsheet formulas to generate items with feedback for question banks
発表の種類: Presentation (40 mins) プレゼンテーション（４０分）
発表の言語: English 英語
発表のキーワード: principled feedback, item development, error taxonomies
One of the most useful but least utilized features of moodle is feedback for question answer distractors. The importance of feedback for developing learners understanding has been well documented (e.g., Lavolette et al., 2015). As properly developed technology-mediated feedback adds to the students’ understanding and encourages learning (Loncar et al., 2021), educators should be encouraged to make use of moodle’s answer feedback. This presentation will demonstrate the steps need to develop items with feedback for distractors: (a) creating a taxonomy of error types, (b) developing items from this taxonomy, and (c) using a spreadsheet to import these into question banks. This presentation will be useful for those who are either unfamiliar with building error taxonomies, employing spreadsheets for creating principled distractor feedback, or adding feedback to distractors to create principled explanations.
References
Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.
Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J. S. (2021). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-63.
- Peer review details査読詳細
Peer Review 1
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 8 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 8 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 9 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 9 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 7 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 45 / 50 |
| 86 / 100 |
Feedback There are a couple of typos in the abstract which the presented should address prior to the MOOT.
Peer Review 2
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 6 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 9 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 9 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 9 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 35 / 50 |
| 78 / 100 |
Feedback This sounds like a very relevant and useful contribution to the Moot but I wonder if 40 minutes is really necessary? Would a 20-minute session not be sufficient?
Peer Review 3
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 8 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 9 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 8 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 9 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 8 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 45 / 50 |
| 87 / 100 |
Feedback This proposal is well-written and worded clearly. The only recommendation I could make would be to capitalize (proper case) the name "Moodle" -- looking forward to the presentation.
- Peer review notes査読メモ
Thanks for your submission!
Your proposal has been conditionally accepted.
- For this submission to be fully accepted, please make the requested changes to your abstract/presentation before 2022 Jan 22 (Sat) 23:55.
- When the changes have been made, they will be reviewed and you will be notified of the new acceptance status.