Perspectives on Assessment Business School Perspectives on Assessment Saturday, November 17, 2018 Professor Margaret Price Director of ASKe (Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange) a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

ASKe “I know a 2.1 when I see it” Assertion: A meaningful understanding of assessment standards requires a combination of explicit and tacit knowledge Business School

ASKe Meaningful knowledge A combination of tacit and explicit knowledge Explicit knowledge can be articulated, written For example: learning outcomes, criteria, level descriptors Tacit knowledge is knowledge that cannot be easily articulated “We can know more than we can tell” (Polanyi,1998, p.136) “Pretty much impenetrable to the non-cognoscenti” (Webster et al., 2000, p.73) Tsoukas suggests that data, information and knowledge are three concepts that can be arranged on a single continuum depending on the extent which they reflect human involvement with, and the processing or construction of, the reality at hand (2001). Data may be simple observations of the state of the world, whilst information is data that has been patterned, organised or constructed for some specific purpose. Knowledge, however, is information that has been contextualised, seen as relevant, given a valid meaning and capable of being related to experience and put to productive use (Davenport, 1997). Explicit knowledge takes on meaning depending on its use and how it is fitted into the complex tacit universe of social or organisational praxis (Spender, 1996). E.g mark of 55% at Poppleton University UK is an average mark, just a portrait and 68% at Parvard University USA paints the same picture. Business School

ASKe In theory… “A single-minded focus on explicit articulation falls short of providing students and staff with common and meaningful knowledge of standards and criteria.” (O’Donovan et al., 2004, p.333) Baumard, not only acknowledges the importance of tacit knowledge in the development of understanding, but also suggests that this important tacit dimension can be ‘crushed or stubbed out by an over-emphasis on explicit knowledge’ (1999, p.194) P331-2 Business School

ASKe In Practice… A Criteria Grid comprising criteria with detailed level descriptors was developed and used across a Business school. Business School

ASKe Can explicit criteria descriptors create common understanding? Staff ‘To establish common standards of marking and grading across advanced level modules…. through a common grid of detailed criteria does not appear to be possible’ (Price and Rust, 1999, p.143) Students ‘[Grid was] of limited practical use if presented in isolation without the benefit of explanation, exemplars and the opportunity for discussion.’ (Rust et al., 2003, p.151) Business School

ASKe Transferring tacit knowledge in practice… Marking exercises, a workshop and exemplars were used in a simple intervention with first year students. Business School

ASKe Can socialisation processes designed to transfer tacit knowledge support the development of meaningful knowledge of assessment standards? Students Participants achieved, on average 6% higher marks than non participants (Rust et al., 2003) Business School

ASKe “No one method of knowledge transfer, either explicit or tacit, by itself is robust enough to deliver meaningful knowledge. Meaningful knowledge of assessment standards is best communicated and understood through the use of a combination of both explicit and tacit transfer processes.” (O’Donovan et al., 2004, p.333) Business School

References BAUMARD, P. (1999) Tacit Knowledge in Organizations (London, Sage Publications). O’DONOVAN, B., PRICE, M. & RUST C. (2004) ) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria’, Teaching in Higher Education 9 (3) pp.325-335 PRICE, M. AND RUST, C. (1999), The experience of introducing a common criteria assessment grid across an academic department, Quality in Higher Education, 2 pp.133-144. POLANYI, M. (1998) The tacit dimension, Reprinted in L. PRUSAK (Ed.) Knowledge in Organizations (Boston: Butterworth Heineman). RUST, C, PRICE, M. AND O’DONOVAN, B (2003) 'Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes' Assessment and Evaluation 28 (2) pp.147-164 WEBSTER, F., PEPPER, D. & JENKINS, A (2000) Assessing the undergraduate dissertation, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 1, pp.72-80. Business School