1. Gemma mansi and Hilary Orpin
To what extent should foundation specific grading criteria be considered and implemented within extended degree programmes: a study at the University of Greenwich
Gemma mansi and Hilary Orpin

2. background Extended degrees-2016
Programme Leader of Childhood and Youth Studies
Largest intake in the Faculty of Education and Health
Deciding new academic standards-what are our academic expectations at year zero?
How do we bridge level three to level four?
Assignment briefs available but how are we assessing quality of work?

3. Aim and objectives
Aim: To produce a generic foundation year grading criteria for extended degree students in the Faculty of Education and Health- with a little bit of help from yourselves!
Objectives:
Investigate how colleagues currently assess the quality of student’s work at foundation level
To evaluate current guidance and materials used to support staff in developing a clear understanding of the assessment level for foundation students
Finally, how students interpret and understand the bridging between level three and level four in the feedback from staff

4. Literature-pros to grading criteria’s
‘Effective feedback is the result of: agreeing and communicating clear criteria before students complete the task; assessment that uses those criteria; and feedback based on the criteria and timed so that students can use it constructively in their next stage of learning’. (QAA 2018, p6).
Widespread use of grading criteria’s because:
ethical practice, providing guidance, greater objectivity in marking and communicating feedback more easily to students
Criteria-referenced grading scheme is viewed very favourably by students.
Criteria forms an essential element of the evaluation and communication process

5. Literature-objections to grading criteria’s
Confusion between criteria and standards
Hidden curriculum?
Regularly highlighted objections to grade-related criteria’s are:
Variation is attributed to assessors’ different professional knowledge, experience, values and institutions
Studies have found that experienced markers are no better than novice markers at applying standards consistently.
A great deal of descriptive language assumes some implicit thresholds
Markers tacit knowledge-not shared explicitly with students or other assessors
Assessors have different expectations of standards at the different grade levels
Hornby, 2003; Bloxham et al, 2016

6. Primary findings-staff
Regular use of project based learning for extended students across Faculties
The importance of a small team supporting extended students-lacking in confidence
Staff value personal reflection, which is considered part of the analytical experience for extended students
Anecdotally, general assessment of quality for foundation year is whether ‘they will survive’ at level four.
Significant differences in ability tends to be in academic skills rather than ability to pick up on knowledge and understanding.
Colleagues have noted that pitching of topics are pretty similar between level three and four, it is level five where colleagues and students feel there is a significant difference between years

7. Primary findings-staff
In the Faculty of Engineering and Science, statistics have shown that extended students at level six perform significantly better than direct students coming into university at level six.
Some staff are concerned that too many assessment materials lead to students becoming increasingly literal in their approach to their assignments. A more holistic approach is undertaken by some colleagues.
Quotes from the literature suggesting a holistic approach:
“I cannot describe it, but I know a good piece of work when I see it” (Rust et al, 2003 P152)
“I know a 2:1 when I see it (Bloxham, 2016)

8. Types of criteria
Criteria referenced model: where criteria were identified and in some cases given a weighting
Holistic model: marks/grades were awarded intuitively taking the standard of the piece as a whole
Menu marking model: marks are awarded for each part of an assessment and aggregated at the end
Hornby, 2003, P447

9. Primary findings-students
Grading criteria’s are quite new to extended students-layout and expectations (pass, merit, distinction)
Grading criteria’s are often considered complex due to student’s understanding of terms.
Have requested examples to contextualize grading criteria (cannot be used in isolation)
Visual layout of criteria is considered easier to understand and better strategy for feeding forward
Illustrates clear trajectory for the student-clear evidence of strength and areas of improvement

10. Developing dialogue with students
‘The continued emphasis on explicit articulation of assessment criteria and standards is not sufficient to develop a shared understanding of ‘useful knowledge’ between staff and students. Socialisation processes are necessary for tacit knowledge transfer to occur.’ (Rust et al, 2003, P162).
Workshops/group tutorials
Exemplars
Students as the markers

12. Questions to the floor-mentimeter
We would like an opportunity to discuss with fellow colleagues their thoughts and impressions of the criteria including your thoughts on the following:
Your general opinions of using grading criteria-do you use grading criteria's yourself?
How do you engage students with assessment materials?
At what stage do you seek ‘confirmation’ of your given grade?
Setting standards-What does foundation year at university mean to you?
What would be your expectations of foundation year?

13. references
Bloxham, S. den-Outera, B. Hudson, J. and Price, M (2016) Lets stop the pretence of consisting marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 41 (3)P
Bloxham, S. Boyd, P. & Orr, S. (2011) Mark my words: the role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 36 (6), P
Grainger, P. and Weir, K. (2016) An alternative grading tool for enhancing assessment practice and quality assurance in higher education, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol 52 (1) P73-83
Hornby, W. (2003) Assessing Using Grade-related Criteria: A single currency for universities?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28:4,
Hudson, J. Bloxham, S. , den Outera, B and Price, M. (2017) Conceptual acrobatics: talking about assessment standards in the transparency era, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 42 (7) P
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2018) UK Quality Code for Higher Education, Part B Assuring and Enhancing Academic Quality, Chapter B3 Learning and Teaching last assessed 02/01/19 at: learning-and-teaching.pdf?sfvrsn=3500f781_8
Royce Sadler, D. (2005) Interpretations of criteria‐based assessment and grading in higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol 30 (2) P
Rust, C. Price, M. & O’Donovan, B. (2003) Improving Students' Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 28 (2), P ,