Assessment Introduction Unit for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching

A question… A student has worked the following mathematical problem: Working individually, give this student a mark out of ten Mark = ……/10 269 23 x 5380 787 6167 Get participants to mark this ‘question’. Give them a few minutes, brief discussion then go to next slide.

Consider… Was your judgement based on process or product? What might affect the mark you gave? Discuss how marks may be allocated, whether they imagined certain assessment criteria; the effects of these factors; why process or product may be assessed (separately or together) etc. Risks of assessing product only

Assessment needs to be Valid (measures what it is supposed to) Reliable (reproducible results) Transparent Free of bias Practicable Discuss the concepts- look for examples. Why was/wasn’t the previous example valid etc?

Reproducibility The consistency or reproducibility of an assessment: Markers: do they agree? Can the test be repeated to achieve the same results? Internal: does it agree with itself? Briefly look at marking/moderation and discuss the points

But… Is this achievable In a discipline? Across an institution? How widely can or should results be reproduced? Are these desirable educational purposes? Briefly discuss the points – why are we assessing?

Why assess? Assessment is central to teaching and learning Diagnostic (placement) Summative (certification) Formative (aiding learning) Move towards ‘sustainable’ assessment (Boud 2000) Assessment central to t&l: turns presented material into a ‘task’; provides feedback between tutor/student; is integral at every stage of education ie informal assessment or evaluation is continuous. This evaluation is subjective and assessment involves subjective judgements- even standardised testing involves a judgement by the marker as to whether a standard has been reached. Moderation may reduce this but not eliminate it altogether. Moderators tend not to change marks, and Price’s studies (Price & Rust 1999, Price 2005) show that common assessment criteria do not reduce variability of marking practice in groups of markers. (Knight Assessment close-up) Summative provides a ‘de facto agenda for learning’ (Boud 2000): defines ‘what matters’ but can drive out learning. Summative Assessment also provides the ‘warrant’ or ‘certificate’ that a standard has been achieved. (For discussion on warranting functions of assessment see Knight 2007, Knight, 2006 Assessment close-up keynote). Formative assessment guides learning- gives indicators of progress ie includes feedback. Key points about feedback can be found in Nicol, D. (2007) Principles of good assessment and feedback: Theory and practice, from the REAP International Online Conference on Assessment Design for Learner Responsibility, 29th-31st May, 2007. Available online from http://www.reap.ac.uk/public/Papers/Principles_of_good_assessment_and_feedback.pdf at http://ewds.strath.ac.uk/REAP07. Sustainable assessment: To prepare students for lifelong learning, they need to be able to self assess against criteria: this means moving assessment away from ‘assessors’ and into ‘the jands of learners’ (Boud 2000). Encourage participants to think about how to involve students in the assessment process.

Planning assessment Integral to curriculum planning Defining learning outcomes Linking assessment criteria and learning outcomes Assessment tasks should be designed so that students can demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes Are you planning the assessment from scratch or is it a part of the course you are teaching? Can you clearly see the links between ILOs and assessment criteria? Can you explain these to students so that they understand exactly what is required? How?

What is being assessed? Content learning Skills (generic) Skills (subject specific) With what effect? Deep / surface learning Gibbs and Simpson (2004) assessment for learning: the effects (unintentional or intentional) of certain assessment regimes. Discuss what students do with assessment; deep/surface approaches; what sorts of assessments encourage ‘cramming’ and which encourage real engagement with the task. How does frequency of assessment affect student engagement/learning? Find classroom examples.

Assessment and Feedback Assessment by whom? Staff, peer, self How? Three main forms- written, oral, performance Feedback? Written, oral, recorded Motivation, engagement Discuss why assessment should or shouldn’t be the domain of teacher/lecturers What types of assessment are good and why ie seen/unseen papers, essays vs alternative assessments etc (interesting to see if the exam debate starts). Can introduce ideas about plagiarism and assessment design depending on discussion. Feedback- timeliness/ time consuming; effects on students. If time and depending on the group, mention studies on self efficacy and attribution on student motivation and engagement with feedback eg: (Bandura for basic self efficacy concepts) Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Nesbit, P.L. & Burton, S. (2006) Student justice perceptions following assignment feedback, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp.655-670. Schunk, D.H. (1991) Self-efficacy and academic motivation, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 26, nos 3-4, pp.207-231.

Assessment workload Staff Students Usefulness of assessments Marking load Discuss how much control the group has over these factors. How many assessments do their students have at any time? What shortcuts will the students take? How will this affect the assessment? Tips for reducing marking load get the group to discuss these online marking with rubrics marking in batches reduce bias from spending too much time at any one sitting spotting plagiarism using the marking criteria marking with proformas Etc etc

References Boud D 2000 Sustainable Assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol 22, No 2. Gibbs G & Simpson C (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 1. Knight, P (2007) ‘Grading, classifying and future learning’ Ch 6 in D Boud & N Falchikov, Eds, Rethinking assessment in Higher Education, Oxon: Routledge.

References Knight, P 2001 Assessment: A briefing on Key Concepts, LTSN Generic Centre Assessment Series Number 7, LTSN Generic Centre: York. Price, M; Handley, K & O’Donovan, B (2008) Feedback: What’s in it for me? Paper presented at the 4th EARLI/Northumbria Assessment Conference, Berlin. Available from http://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/veranst/enac2008?reg=r_11.