English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper describes a new approach to an ecology practical in which 76 Level 4 students were divided into four groups (n = 20 +/-2) to collect data. Each group studied a different habitat and was further divided into seven subgroups (n = 2 or 3) to collect field data. Each of the four groups collaborated through Google Drive on descriptions and images of the habitat site, and also collaborated at the subgroup level on their own habitat data. The four groups then shared habitat descriptions with the aim to provide enough information to enable everyone to understand the entire data set.   The three-stage assignment was assessed and feedback issued at group and individual level via the University’s online submission service (FASER), with some additional feedback given via Moodle, the University’s Virtual Learning Environment. Two separate submissions were made to FASER, the first was the group and subgroup work (stage 1), and the second included the peer assessment task (stage 2) and the individual evaluation of the habitats (stage 3). Feedback was given after the second submission had been uploaded to FASER and again when the assessment for the second submission was complete. The group and subgroup data sets were provided to all students via Moodle, so that individuals could carry out their own analysis of all four habitats. The use of Google Drive and Google Apps helped to improve the digital literacy of the staff and students involved.   All three stages of the assignment were successful; over 85% of students passed the first two stages, and 82.9% passed stage 3. The collaborative work enabled students to produce high quality descriptive ecology documents valuable for the subsequent stages of the assignment. The peer assessment encouraged students to gain information on expected Undergraduate Minimum Standards, and gave students the opportunity to study multiple habitats. The final stage was open ended and challenged students to make sense of large ecological data sets. There was a positive correlation between levels of success at stages 1 and 3 for students who achieved less than 65% for the independent work, i.e. they benefited from carrying out group work.   This collaborative, three-stage approach is recommended especially as it helps lower ability students gain subject knowledge and improve their presentation skills. However, some modifications are recommended: 1) simplifying the sample and data collection, and 2) providing more guidance for the peer assessment task and individual analysis. Learner autonomy enabled self-directed learning to take place and enriched large scale teaching as it encouraged student-student interaction. Significant differences between gender and ability are discussed.

Trialling the use of Google Apps together with online marking to enhance collaborative learning and provide effective feedback