Peter Rowlett

Sheffield Hallam University

• p.rowlett@shu.ac.uk
• peterrowlett.net/
• prowlett
• 0000-0003-1917-7458

Peter is a Reader at Sheffield Hallam University, where he teaches mathematics and is a researcher focused on higher education mathematics educational practice. He has been interested in e-assessment since around 2003, including as a user of e-assessment systems and as a researcher interested in how e-assessment can be used to support student learning and effective assessment practice.

Questions

Peter is a contributor to these questions:

• Q1: What common errors do students make when answering online assessment questions?
• Q2: Do the errors students make in e-assessments differ from those they make in paper-based assessments?
• Q6: What difficulties appear when designing e-assessment tasks that give constructive feedback to students?
• Q10: Under what circumstances is diagnosing errors worth the extra effort, as compared with generally addressing errors known to be typical?
• Q12: In what circumstances is instant feedback from automated marking preferable to marking by hand?
• Q13: How do students interact with an e-assessment system?
• Q14: To what extent does repeated practice on randomized e-assessment tasks encourage mathematics students to discover deep links between ideas?
• Q15: How do students engage with automated feedback? What differences (if any) can be identified with how they would respond to feedback from a teacher?
• Q16: What should students be encouraged to do following success in e-assessment?
• Q17: What are students' views on e-assessment, and what are their expectations from automated feedback?
• Q20: How can e-assessment be used in group work, and what effect does the group element have on individuals' learning?
• Q22: What principles should inform the design of e-assessment tasks?
• Q24: To what extent does the randomisation of question parameters, which makes sharing answers between students difficult, adequately address plagiarism?
• Q25: What effect does the use of random versions of a question (e.g. using parameterised values) have on the outcomes of e-assessment?
• Q27: How can formative e-assessments improve students’ performance in later assessments?
• Q29: What are suitable roles for e-assessment in formative and summative assessment?
• Q33: What might a “hierarchy of needs” look like for lecturers who are transitioning to increased use of e-assessments?
• Q36: To what extent do existing e-assessments provide reliable measures of mathematical understanding, as might otherwise be measured by traditional exams?
• Q37: How can e-assessment support take-home open-book examinations?
• Q39: What methods are available for student input of mathematics?
• Q40: How can the suitability of e-assessment tools for summative assessment be improved by combining computer-marking and pen-marking?
• Q41: Are there differences in performance on mathematics problems presented on paper versus as e-assessments?
• Q43: How can we emulate human marking of students’ working such as follow-on marking and partially correct marking?
• Q46: How can we assess problem solving using e-assessment?
• Q47: How can we assess open-ended tasks using e-assessment?
• Q49: How can the assessment of proof be automated?
• Q54: To what extent can e-assessments meaningfully judge student responses to example generation tasks?