Peer Evaluation/Copyright MCQ e-learning activity
From WikiEducator
Example question
e-Learning activity summary | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Developing multiple choice questions (MCQs) based on your own mini copyright scenario or situation |
 | 1 - 2 hours |
 | This activity contributes to the completion of the course assignment for assessment or optional activity for certificate of participation. |
Start here
 | Stimulus resources
Optional support resources |
| The purpose of this E-Activity is to demonstrate the application of your knowledge of copyright by developing two MCQ questions based on an educational context you describe in your own country. The activity is inspired by the quotation attributed to Yogi Bhajan:"“If you want to learn something, read about it. If you want to understand something, write about it. If you want to master something, teach it." |
Tasks
- Review the stimulus resource links above and search for the web for additional resources which can assist you in achieving the learning outcome actions for this Activity.
- Think about a practical educational situation, for example, a teacher preparing an online course or learner completing an assignment which focuses on two or more aspects of copyright in a digital world.
- Does your proposed copyright situation relate to two or more of: scope, ownership, rights, exceptions or transfer of rights?
- Consider the implications of your own national copyright act.
- Consider possible questions relating to this copyright situation which would demonstrate the application of your knowledge of copyright.
|
Competency statement and assessment rubrics
Competency statements
Knowledge of copyright
- Learner demonstrates knowledge of the basics of copyright by developing two multiple choice questions covering two or more dimensions of scope, ownership, rights, exceptions or transfer of rights evidenced by identifying the correct answer and feedback justifications to the correct and incorrect answers.
Utility of the teaching / learning resource
- Learner achieves acceptable quality of questions by adhering to the majority of best practice recommendations for developing multiple choice questions.
Peer support
- Learner provides peer-learning support by objectively evaluating a minimum of three of the same e-Learning activities of fellow students as assigned by the peer evaluation system.
Assessment items and rubric
Is the content of the post related to <insert activity name>? Yes / No -- <Insert optional comment field>.
Example of rubric using a 1- 10 scale (for each criterion provide optional comment field):
| Completeness (Weight 0.5) | |
|---|---|
| Not achieved Ratings 1,2,3, or 4 |
Learner has not completed the two required questions or provided feedback on correct and incorrect options. |
| Achieved Ratings: 5, 6 or 7 |
Learner has completed the two required questions as well as answers and feedback to correct and incorrect options. |
| Merit Ratings: 8, 9 or 10 |
In addition to completing all the questions and feedback, the learner has also provided:
|
| Knowledge of copyright (Weight 0.3) | |
|---|---|
| Not achieved Ratings 1,2,3, or 4 |
Many errors suggesting that the learner does not understand the basics of how copyright functions. |
| Achieved Ratings: 5, 6 or 7 |
A few errors interpreting the application of copyright in the context of the MQC questions, or learner failed to cover a minimum of two dimensions of copyright i.e scope, ownership, rights, exceptions or transfer of rights. (Note that it is not necessary to cover the two items in a single question - each question can focus on a different dimension.) |
| Merit Ratings: 8, 9 or 10 |
Exemplary answer. No errors in the application of copyright as demonstrated by identifying the correct answer and quality of the feedback on correct and incorrect answers. Learner has provided sufficient information relating to context to facilitate answering the question and/or avoiding ambiguity. |
| Learning value of the questions (Weight 0.2) | |
|---|---|
| Not achieved Ratings 1,2,3, or 4 |
Questions were confusing and many contraventions of suggested good practice for MCQ items, for example:
|
| Achieved Ratings: 5, 6 or 7 |
Learner provides adequate context for the MCQ questions and has done a satisfactory job of implementing the requirements for good MCQ items. Only a few errors or suggested improvements to achieve an exemplary question. |
| Merit Ratings: 8, 9 or 10 |
Exemplary answer. No errors in the application of copyright as demonstrated by identifying the correct answer and quality of the feedback on correct and incorrect answers. Learner has provided sufficient information relating to context to facilitate answering the question and/or avoiding ambiguity. |
Overall rating of the post: Unsatisfactory; Acceptable; Excellent
General comments <Insert text field for tweet sized feedback>.
Implications for design of the Peer evaluation system
- Evaluator must have access to the rubric (possible implementation: link to wiki page which contains the rubric)
- Educator should be encouraged to include competency statements ie what the learner should be able to do with the respective evaluation. (possible implementation: included as a subheading on the wiki page which contains the rubric.)
- Where a Likert point scale is used - I think its important that we can specify bands of achievement (eg Not achieved, Achieved and Merritt). I think the system should cater for 3 to maximum of 4 bands (eg Not achieved, Achieved, Merritt and Excellence) with the ability to assign the likert points to the bands, eg Achieved is 5 - 6 inclusive.)
- It would be useful to have a optional text field for comments on each major criterion - do we need to restrict the number of characters? While encouraging tweet sized feedback, perhaps setting the limit around 300 characters would be better. (Take a look at the WENotes implementation which counts down character usage for reusable code in a widget prototype.)
