Abstract
Use of web technology as a means of providing students with information,
knowledge and learning opportunities in mathematics is widely recognised as
fundamental to emerging e-learning strategies within HE. Fortunately, there
exists within the Mathematics community a wide experience of implementation
and development of Computer-Based Learning and particularly within CAA over
many years to utilise this technology effectively. The increasingly comprehensive
access for students to the internet and software tools available for web authoring
and management suggests that more traditional teaching, support and assessment
mechanisms will be adapted in response to the increasing expectations of students
and funding bodies. In this article, the provision of an integrated web-based
learning environment for non-specialist mathematics students in Engineering
and Science introduced for the Service Teaching provision at the University
of Nottingham is outlined. The integration into the Environment of pilot
formative assessment mechanisms consisting diagnostic and interactive self-testing
is evaluated and discussed. Case studies on student use, performances and
feedback on the Environment from recent student cohorts provides information
on different learning styles and preferences.
1. Introduction
The influential report ‘ Measuring the Mathematics Problem’ [1] identified
the decline in students’ level of preparation in mathematics on entry to Higher
Education during the 1990’s decade and identification of a variety of supplementary
support mechanisms. In recent years, many Universities have made significant
progress to cater for the diversity of intake qualifications available in
mathematics and a digest of ‘good practice’ has been disseminated within booklets
from the LTSN - ‘MathsTeam’ [2], [3]. The importance of helping students
at the School/University interface has been recognised within projects under
the FDTL4 programme and informed by earlier related projects such as those
funded at Scottish Universities by SHEFC. The publication of the Smith Report
on post-14 mathematics [4] identifies the shortcomings of the prior-University
preparation for students both at GCSE and under Curriculum 2000 in GCE. Smith
makes wide-ranging recommendations to Government but it is unlikely that many
will impact on HE student entry competencies in mathematics for some years
to come. Therefore enhancing existing support and developing further support
for a diversity of students background proficiencies remain imperative.
The deficiencies in mathematical knowledge and skills and the increasing
diversity of intake is particularly wide amongst non-specialist mathematics
students in Science and Engineering and this has been well catalogued for
Engineering Mathematics in series of articles in successive IMA Conference
Proceedings [5-8]. Catering for such non-specialists provides distinct challenges,
as often the intake is often large and diverse; students are typically registered
on many different degree programmes and each with differing requirements of
intake standards and experiences in mathematics. Further, the Mathematics
curriculum is tailored to the student’s main degree programme which allows
little flexibility to provide tutorial support separate from their main subject.
The need to help students to evaluate their current knowledge and skills ability
in key, often assumed pre-requisite, mathematical topics on entry remains
crucial, together with appropriate and accessible student-centred support
to overcome any identified deficiencies. However, such provision is also
useful throughout the students’ studies as prior-shortcomings naturally emerge
as they progress to more advanced mathematics modules and from mathematical
difficulties arising directly from studies within their Science or Engineering
modules.
2. Web-based support and assessment
The potential advantages of using computer-based technologies
for teaching, learning and assessment to facilitate a flexible provision within
Mathematics has been apparent for many years and persuasive enough to secure
significant funding from HEFCE for over ten years. Courseware provision authored
within the nineties was based on the prevailing technology and resulted in
predominantly ‘CD-based’ format, although often deliverable over a network,
with Mathwise, Transmath, Metric, Mathlectics and Calmat leading the way,
eg see Pitcher [10]. This emerging approach addressed technical aspects of
display and delivery but also pioneered the pedagogic gains in embedding animation
and user-interaction alongside delivery of knowledge to promote understanding
and skills in mathematics. A strong motivational and feedback aspect was
provided through embedded formative assessment and where feasible the gains
in efficiencies gained by computer-based summative assessments. Extensive
development in associated CAA work is notably successful within CALM and associated
projects such as SUMSMAN. The maintenance of these as integrated learning
environments remain important to those with strong local development interests
but are now often restricted to a decreasing element of the HE mathematics
provision. A more recent update on this approach is provided in the M4E-Disc
[9] which supplements Transmath with motivational video clips and video tutorials
exploiting the more powerful software utility capabilities of current DVD
computer technologies. The most significant advance however is undoubtedly
the widespread availability of internet technology that provides an ever increasing
access to linked facilities through high-speed broadband links on and off
campus, at times convenient to the students learning preferences and timetable
constraints. This extends to students accessing software outside of usual
University terms and potentially from any worldwide connection. As noted
in the overview article on assessment in Mathwise by Pitcher [10], the advent
of the internet does not diminish the underlying influence of earlier major
collaborative ventures in CBL within mathematics but it would seem inevitable
the realities of limited student access and upgradeability issues for existing
learning materials and formative assessments will restrict further direct
development. The requirement of security on summative assessments tend to
favour more limited local implementation although as exampled in the HELM
project [11] summative assessment is being actively promoted as a web-enable
facility for widespread HE use.
The increasingly available technology associated with ‘e-learning’ is web-based,
arising from its global accessibility and the growing implementation within
HE Institutions of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). Such environments
enable learning and support materials to be easily managed and uploaded by
teaching staff and readily link to other local or possibly national or international,
supporting resources. The initial experiences such as reported by Foster
[12] are hopefully less common, with the technological aspects now more mature
and there is a greater ongoing awareness of the pedagogic requirements. The
unprecedented levels of monitoring and tracking of student usage within a
VLE can also help identify student learning styles and preferences to promote
the emerging pedagogic issues of good-practice in e-learning. An example
of active use of detailed feedback was presented by Greenhow [13] where results
from answer files to assessment tests are used to evaluate the learning experience
of different cohort groups. Within a VLE, assessment aspects can be readily
obtained but also linked to monitoring student access to support materials
etc. Experience from earlier CBL projects suggest the use of CAA must remain
as an important formative tool and this can be maintained by utilising the
appropriate VLE assessment tools, linking to specifically locally authored
utility or other web-enabled assessment utilities. A recent example of a
local assessment utility approach embedded within a locally constructed VLE
(WALLIS), and piloted with a first-year honours mathematics group, is reported
by Mavrikis and Marciocia [14] which incorporated an existing (AIM) assessment
engine.
3. MELEES
MELEES is a web-based environment running under WebCT for providing learning
support in mathematics initiated within the e-learning strategy at the University
of Nottingham. The Mathematics Electronic Learning Environment
in Engineering and Science is being developed to support students
from Schools outside of Mathematical Sciences who take mathematics modules
as a compulsory or optional element as part of their course. The environment
also offers monitoring and evaluation of students’ learning preferences and
increased communication between the teaching staff in the School of Mathematical
Sciences, students on the modules and with the students’ home School. Detailed
information on MELEES is given in the paper by Hibberd et al [15].
Based on a content management system (CMS) MELEES provides a site that is
configured to the students’ mathematics module registrations but also includes
common elements that provide information on their module choices and common
learning materials relevant to the transition between School/College to University.
Figure 1 shows the home page of MELEES that gives gateway entry to the individually
configured information sources made available. In this instance access is
shown from a login entry as a staff member which gives direct access to edit
their registered materials (Designer Options) but also provides access to
a variety collated documents and useful ‘bookmarked’ web-based resources.
Access is also configured to provide module attendance records for consultation
by tutors in client schools.
Figure 1 – MELEES - Home Page
A separate icon provides extensive academic, administrative and timetable
information to students on optional or compulsory modules available in mathematics.
A further icon (Modules) expands to display icons for mathematics modules
for which they are currently registered or have taken previously to provide
reference in terms of pre-requisite requirements. For students entering into
first-year an icon gives access to learning materials aimed at helping students
make the transition into first-year mathematics modules (see Figure 2). This
latter provision is by requirement varied as the first-year accommodates a
selection of modules depending on the student’s prior mathematical experience
and also to accommodate the differing levels of preparedness.
Figure 2 - MELEES – support materials
Traditional lectures remain the primary means of teaching service mathematics
but MELEES is available as an integrated framework of support to help students
to attain high levels of achievement and includes:
- Information and advice about the mathematics provision and current timetable
information
- Access to support materials to help with the transition to University
level mathematics
- Access to module specific learning resources
- Provision of support e-learning materials provided locally, nationally
and internationally
- Access to module assessment materials and their solutions (e.g. past
examination papers, past assessed coursework, notes on plagiarism)
- Provision of feedback to students
- Information on student progress to students’ home Schools
Materials available to students vary between modules although typically there
are lecture notes, copies of OHTs, worksheets, past exam papers with solutions,
assignments with timed release solutions and links to further resources.
This variation between modules is due to the lecturer’s requirements and materials
available. Some modules have interactive assessment elements included which
students can use to assess their own progress through the module as well as
for revision purposes. There are also bulletin boards available for communication
between students, lecturers and MELEES staff, although these seem little used
at present. An example of a module template is provided in Figure 3 for a
first year module HG1M01 which will be used within a Case Study later in this
paper.
Figure 3 - Module support (HG1M01)
The MELEES provision was initiated in the Autumn Semester, 2002 with a pilot
module – HG1M01, and extended in the Spring Semester to provide support for
a further three modules. Evaluation of implementation and use of MELEES was
conducted on the technical, content and some pedagogic aspects with students
and staff. For the session 2002-2003 a module ‘template’ was developed to
underpin the provision and include a wider CAA provision, although currently
this is focussed on formative assessment, together with developmental support
through:
- guidance on ‘good practice’
- workshops informing and involving module teaching staff
- specifying minimum core requirements for each module
- provision of exemplar materials available to module staff
- project officer support to module conveners.
There are currently 18 modules within the MELEES environment,
and this entailed 1,910 new students being registered onto the system, bringing
the total number of students registered for this Session to 2,310. These
students are primarily in their first or second year, and attending modules
that are compulsory for them, although there is also one optional module taken
by over 150 students in their third year. Usage of MELEES has been excellent
with typically 83% of students using the system regularly and 4% only logging
on once; the remaining 13% of students did not log into MELEES but much of
this is due to inaccurate student registration details! Significant use of
the system was recorded with 1380 students logging into the system between
the end of formal teaching and the module examinations. In an email student
feedback survey, over 100 replies were received and some 96% of students reported
that they found MELEES easy to use and 97% perceived it to be helpful with
their studies. Some student ‘free format’ comments included:
“The best module website I have available to me.”
“All inclusive, well organised web site, a perfect example on excellent
teaching resources, which other modules could follow”
“A brilliant, useful website, that has helped a lot. It is the most organised,
professional module I have been lectured.”
“Very useful, as I have access in my room, and it’s easy to look up if
I am stuck with anything.”
“Good job! Thanks a lot for creating the MELEES website! I feel much more
convenient for collecting useful information if there’s no lecturer at hand!
Do wish you go on making the site better!”
The benefit of using a VLE as a platform for providing learning support has
been well accepted by the students. Moreover it has been embraced by teaching
staff as providing an integrated and versatile support mechanism. In concert,
the detailed provision for each module is changing and developing as teaching
staff become more familiar with the system and as their confidence increases
with feedback information on how students use it. The culture is developing
that students are using the environment extensively which provides an opportunity
to both develop ‘e-learning’ activities, such as interactive assessments,
and to monitor student preferences in types of learning. The monitoring and
tracking facilities has provided us with the opportunity to try to develop
the site according to student use and to identify perhaps characteristic preferences
of particular cohort groups. Aspects that have been developed include formative
assessment to provide students with initial self-assessment on their active
knowledge of key topics on entry (e.g. diagnostic test), self-assessment
tests on key topics areas within modules and for revision aids.
4. Diagnostic Test
A well-established practice, particularly with the inhomogeneity of student
intake associated with the Service Teaching, is the provision of diagnostic
tests. The rational and variety of existing approaches are well documented
in the MathsTEAM publication [2]. At Nottingham a computer-based diagnostic
test has been made available for many years based on the approach detailed
in Brydges and Hibberd [16]. Further development of the test with colleagues
at Keele, as discussed in Hibberd et al. [17], identifies strongly the role
to be played by linking testing to suitable ‘support’ materials. The article
by Quinney [18] highlights that implementation of diagnostic testing is limited
without providing support; further he comments that in delivering a computer-based
test it may seem appropriate to use a computer-based element to provide an
efficient mechanism for flexible support. The existence of a web-based VLE
underpinning MELEES can be fully utilised to provide the support structure
for students through developing a compatible web-based test. The existing
diagnostic test was written in Authorware, however the issues raised, in terms
of conversion, use of plug-ins, accessibility and monitoring, in implementing
this over to a web format made rewriting the test directly for web was a far
more attractive option. Experience of usability, simplicity and flexibility
of the previous diagnostic test would be retained.
MELEES already benefits from access to a computer-aided assessment mechanism
within WebCT, but although used for interactive self-assessment as described
later, a Web-based test with a greater diagnostic and feedback capability
has been developed. The test was authored using the PHP scripting language
which uses standard server-side software, MathType was used to create GIF
equation graphics, and consequently overheads for setting up and running the
test are low. The original multiple-choice format has been maintained that
includes diagnostic capabilities improved by utilising information from both
the correct and incorrect answers to give a ‘profile’ of student attainment.
The test system attempts to give each student a graphical indication of their
performance in a number of key topic areas and follows this with recommended
support topics. An overall diagnostic test score is provided and incorporates
the use of negative marking to deter students from indiscriminate guessing.
The development has focused on producing a test which was as flexible as possible
and could be used as a re-useable template for other assessments. Much of
the test as possible, including the logos, the questions, the topics and the
advice given, are easily customised by non-expert computer user. Past experience
suggests that for an intake Diagnostic Test there is significant gain from
constructing a test with restricted total number of questions, to allow detailed
comparison between annual cohorts and also, particularly for an optional test,
one that is readily available and not too time consuming. The test was created
with 45 questions in five categories: Algebra, Functions, Co-ordinate Geometry,
Differentiation and Integration. Each test is dynamically configured with
15 questions covering each area and includes questions in three categories
of difficulty. This pilot test was designed to be completed in approximately
30 minutes and targeted at first year undergraduate Engineering students that
did not have a recent A-level qualification in Mathematics. Feedback advice
directed students to HELM [11] and Mathcentre [20] materials on the MELEES
system.
The diagnostic test interface is shown in Figure 4. Questions
are selected from a fixed question bank pseudo-randomly, and the labelling
of the possible answers (a)-(d) was pseudo-randomised also. These two ‘randomisation’
features have been found sufficient for the generation of independent tests
to be taken by many students simultaneously, or by the same student several
times, if required. Confidence in the approach is evidenced by the good correlations
in comparisons between the performance of such a computer-based test and a
written test as undertaken by Quinney [18] on the topic of differentiation.
Figure 4: Diagnostic test interface
Each answer has an associated profile, which gives ‘grade’
marks according to difficulty in a selection of topics. Then, if the student
were to answer an ‘easy’ question incorrectly, they will lose more points
in that topic than if they were to answer a ‘difficult’ question incorrectly.
Further and different distractors may carry different levels of penalty depending
on the level of misconception. With a restricted number of questions, this
system is believed to greatly enhance the diagnostic capabilities of the test.
A demonstration version of the diagnostic test is available [19].
On completion of the test, the student is given a (printable)
Diagnostic Report such as illustrated in Figure 5. This contains the graphical
analysis of the student’s performance in each topic, the number of correct
and incorrect answers given, the time taken and a weighted percentage score.
For student responses below a threshold level, the three topics for which
the student has least score are highlighted with suggestions of remedial or
revision materials. There are two levels of advice given, according to the
severity of the score, and targeted to whether ‘revision’ material is needed
or under ‘action’ that more substantial work is relevant.
In addition to the interactive computer-based test, an
accessible interface is available. In particular, this enables students with
disabilities to print out a version of the test, with answers, and thus gain
some diagnostic ability offline. In addition, an accessible interface is
available for students to input these answers for a full Diagnostic Report.
Figure 5: Diagnostic
test report
Access to the test is provided directly from MELEES and
data from the test is stored in text files to enable students to view their
previous scores, retake the test as needed and to provide comparison scores.
A results viewer is available for staff wishing to view results data from
the test. This includes data on overall student performance together with
individual students and question-by-question analysis. This can be viewed
online or downloaded in CSV format, suitable for input into a spreadsheet
package such as Microsoft Excel for further processing.
The diagnostic test was available to MELEES students through
the Autumn Semester on an optional basis. Recorded student behaviour on encountering
the test was similar to previous experiences with the original test format
with many students choosing to familiarise themselves with the test briefly
before retaking the test. Of about 250 instances of test activation, 145
exceeded the requirements for a ‘valid result’ of taking at least 5 minutes
and answering at least 5 questions and these are used for evaluation. The
time taken by students to complete the test had an average of about 20 minutes
and the distribution of times is shown in Figure 6. The corresponding mark
scores are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6: Time taken to complete test
Figure 7: % scores with time taken
As can be seen from Figure 6 results indicate that the
majority of students (70%) completed the test in the target time of 30 minutes.
Figure 7 identifies a wide range of scores for students taking a ‘rapid response’
approach of completing the test in less than 15 minutes. For ‘average speed’
students taking 20-40 minutes to complete the test the results are more compact
but vary mainly between 20%-80%. A small cohort of ‘slow but sure’ students
took over 40 minutes but attained uniformly high scores. The overall test
average was 44.0%.
Bar charts of the graded scores obtained by candidates
within profile categories of Algebra, Functions, Co-ordinate geometry, Differentiation
and Integration are included in Figure 8. Results for Functions and Co-ordinate
Geometry show few negative marks and large numbers of students with positive
scores. Differentiation and Integration had large numbers of students scoring
zero (abstention over the whole category, or marks cancelling out). This
particular area of weakness is consistent with results obtained by Quinney
[18] for cohorts in his latest two cohorts (2001 & 2002) reported. The
results for Algebra are a little more varied; the majority of scores were
positive, but the negative scores are far more evident than in Functions and
Co-ordinate Geometry. This suggests the students were confident enough not
to abstain from algebra questions, but that their ability was perhaps less
than their expectation.
Figure 8 – Profile scores for each category of question
The response for each of the 45 individual questions from
student responses within the Autumn Term is shown in Figure 9. For each question
the correct answer is (a). The plot shows a relative comparison of responses
for each of the four answer options and ‘abstain’. Those attaining the correct
answer are generally associated with adequate knowledge and competence with
the topic and those choosing to abstain is more associated with lack of confidence
or knowledge. The scale of response to each of the distractors helps identify
general areas of previously identified misconceptions.
Figure 9 - Question profiles detailing
answer responses [correct answer is (a) in each case]
5. Interactive self-tests
Interactive assessment environments can be readily constructed
and incorporated into MELEES using standard question software utilities without
the need of high level technical expertise. WebCT offers the user a quiz/survey
tool to facilitate the construction of mathematically-based assessments.
This tool allows the direct input of mathematical equations using an equation
editor, it supports both text and html input and allows the insertion of an
images. Various question formats are supported by the tool, namely multiple
choice, matching, calculated, short answer and paragraph and there is a facility
to allow feedback to be given to the student once the assessment has been
submitted and graded. The student is free to use these interactive environments
at any time and may save their answers with a view to return and completion
at a later time, they may also review their past submissions.
MELEES used this WebCT facility to construct an exam practice
assessment environment for a module containing a multiple-choice section in
the final module examination. This practice assessment randomly generates
the order in which possible solutions are presented to the student and so
has benefit in that it can be taken on more than one occasion. In the first
presentation of this resource it proved popular, with some 90 students submitting
186 tests for grading. Shown in Figure 11 is the student view of results
and feedback. The correct answer is deliberately not revealed to encourage
recalculation of the problem however feedback is given as to the manner of
the student error in order to assist the student in identifying their mistakes.
Figure 10 - Feedback
screen from WebCT-based MCQ test
Interactive assessment objects can also be constructed
locally using ‘third-party’ software tools and imported into MELEES. Such
utilities may provide more functionality, better importing capabilities or
simply have more advanced editing and construction tools. Respondus [21]
is an application that offers the same range of question types as the WebCT
quiz tool but has its own more user-friendly equation editor or the user can
opt to import mathematical text from the popular MathType editor. Respondus
also has the capability to import questions from a text file, in an appropriate
format, and convert them into an interactive assessment. The benefit of authoring
locally and exporting to the VLE is the element of re-usability which can
be readily utilised within a service teaching environment where often similar
modules are provided to different programmes. Question databases can also
be constructed within WebCT, allowing the user to select simply a set of existing
questions and construct a new assessment. These databases can either be populated
with questions from existing assessments or by importing question sets. The
MELEES resource has a database which includes questions imported from the
e3an database [22], again promoting the use of re-usable objects (RLO’s).
Production of self-assessments as RLOs is an efficient
use of resource. An example used within two separate (probability and statistics)
modules in MELEES is the provision of an interactive self-assessment on the
use of the table of normal distribution. The test was generated in Respondus
and directly accessible from each of the module home pages. The format of
the test is shown in Figure 11 as a short answer format where a student enters
a numerical value. There is some built in error checking to entered values
and more than one feasible correct response, e.g. 0.7 or 0.71, accepted as
correct.
Figure 11 Format
of self-assessment test for use of Normal tables
6. Case studies
The development of MELEES as a mechanism for mainline
support of students remains in a formative stage but it has already impacted
on a variety of the (student) users and stakeholders.
i) Involvement of Client Schools.
First year undergraduate students of the School of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering were encouraged by staff in their home School to
take the MELEES diagnostic test in their own time. Around 70 of the intake
of approximately 130 students took the test. Staff of the School arranged
remedial workshops (separate from provisions on MELEES) that all students
were invited to attend and targeted invitations were sent to around 30 students
who answered less than 10 out of 15 questions correctly on the test or had
less than A Level Mathematics grade C on intake. However, only four students
attended the workshops. An investigation of those students’ habits on MELEES
suggests greater use of materials provided to this cohort through the web-based
support resource over than that of their peers. This suggests the students
were actively seeking remedial work through the MELEES resource, and certainly
making an effort not to ignore the issue of their apparent difficulty with
mathematics. The staff running the workshops reported that the students who
attended responded positively to having someone prepared to “debug” their
maths. However, it is not difficult to conjecture why some students might
find an online resource more convenient. Students can get remedial materials
at any time and work at their own pace to suit their situation. Additionally,
students might feel the MELEES resource is a more anonymous method of getting
support, whereas they may find the formal and public classroom setting for
seeking help to be rather more intimidating. Additional encouragement through
personal tutorials to use the Diagnostic Test facility is to be implemented
in the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and further evaluation
is planned for the next student intake.
ii) Use of interactive
tests for revision
Summative assessment within most first-year modules includes
multiple-choice papers that are marked using an Optical Mark Reader system.
Sample MCQ assessments of both Coursework Tests and Module Examinations (part)
have been provided using Respondus on MELEES as interactive tests and have
proved very popular with students, particularly within revision periods.
The format of the test uses negative marking in concert with the summative
tests but provides feedback on incorrect responses as shown in Figure 10.
A pilot provision was incorporated in the module HG1M01 aimed at first year
engineering students without a recent A-level in mathematics; correspondingly
this module has a higher proportion of diversity in student intake qualifications
and background. The curriculum and support are correspondingly more tuned
to these students than with the more homogeneous grouping of the remaining
550 students studying engineering mathematics within their first year.
Figure 12 - Use of interactive revision
test and corresponding average final module score
Within a pilot provision 56%(50) of students opted to use
the test and the pattern of repeated usage and average score is illustrated
in Figure 12. Groups are based on the number of test submissions, the figures
in brackets show the number of students in each group, and compared with the
average (final) module average for the submission group cohort. Students
prepared to use the test have generally achieved better and many students
have felt the test worthwhile to use on multiple occasions; with only a small
proportion perhaps going for the Nintendo syndrome as first identified by
Greenhow [13].
Figure 13 - Use of interactive revision assessment tests (HG1M01)
In the same module a coursework test interactive assessment resource was
made available. Of the 90 registered students 39%(35) used this resource,
submitting some 68 completed tests.
The chart in Figure 13 indicates what proportion of students used each interactive
assessment, with a group of 36% choosing to utilize both.
References
[1] Measuring the mathematics problem (2000), Engineering Council
[2] LTSN MathsTEAM (2004), Diagnostic testing for mathematics, LTSN Engineering
[3] LTSN MathsTEAM (2004), Maths support for student, LTSN Engineering
[4] Smith, A., (2004), Making Mathematics Count, Report of the Professor
Adrian Smith’s Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics Education, Stationary Office
[5] Mustoe, L. & Hibberd, S. (Eds),(1994), Proceedings of the IMA Conference,
Mathematical Education of Engineers, Oxford University Press
[6] Hibberd, S. & Mustoe, L. (Eds), (1997), Proceedings of the IMA Conference,
Mathematical Education of Engineers II, Institute of Mathematics and its Applications
[7] Hibberd, S. & Mustoe, L. (Eds), (2000), Proceedings of the IMA Conference,
Mathematical Education of Engineers III, Institute of Mathematics and its
Applications
[8] Hibberd, S. & Mustoe, L. (Eds), (2003), Proceedings of the IMA Conference,
Mathematical Education of Engineers IV, [CDROM], Institute of Mathematics
and its Applications
[9] Maths for Engineers M4E, (2002), [DVD ROM], Educational Broadcasting
Services Trust
[10] Pitcher, N., (2002), Assessment with Mathwise – Lessons, Limitations
and Learning Curves, Maths CAA- Series, LTSN Maths, Stats and OR Network,
September 2002.
[11] Green, D.R., Harrison, M.C., Mustoe, L.R. & Ward, J.P., (2003),
The HELM project – Helping Engineers Learn Mathematics, Proceedings of the
IMA Conference, Mathematical Education of Engineers IV, see[8].
[12] Foster, W.H., (2002), Using a VLE for teaching Foundation Level Mathematics
and Statistics, CAA- Series, LTSN Maths, Stats and OR Network, October 2002.
[13] Greenhow, M., (2002), Answer Files --- What more do they reveal? CAA-
Series, LTSN Maths, Stats and OR Network, Jan 2002.
[14] Mavrikis, M. & Maciocia, A., (2003), Incorporating assessment into
an Interactive Learning Environment for mathematics, CAA- Series, LTSN Maths,
Stats and OR Network, June 2003.
[15] Hibberd, S., Litton, C.D.L., Chambers, C. & Rowlett, P., (2003),
MELEES – e-support or mayhem?, MSOR Connections, Vol 3, no 3, August 2003,
LTSN Maths, Stats & OR Network.
[16] Brydges S. & Hibberd S., (1994), Construction and implementation
of a computer-based diagnostic test. CTI Maths and Stats. 5/3.
[17] Hibberd, S, Looms, A. & Quinney, D.A. (2001), Computer based diagnostic
testing and support in mathematics, In Innovative ideas in teaching collegiate
mathematics, edited M.H. Ahmadi, University Press of America
[18] Quinney, D, (2001), Computer based diagnostic testing and student centred
support, CAA- Series, LTSN Maths, Stats and OR Network, Nov 2001.
[19] Demonstration of diagnostic test framework
http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/melees/demodiagnostictest
[20] Mathcentre, an LTSN Development Fund project, see http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk
[21] Respondus, see http://www.respondus.com/
[22] Electrical and Electronic Engineering Assessment Network (E3AN), see
http://www.e3an.ac.uk
[23] ZDNet UK, (2004), Article ‘Lecturers give full marks to e-learning’,
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,39118916,00.htm
