1. School of Combined Studies University of Hertfordshire An initial investigation into the types of assessment used across faculties and schools at the University of Hertfordshire Andy Gillett & Angela Hammond

2. Who & What Andy Gillett –International Students EAP In-Sessional Pre-Sessional Foundation and Bridging Programmes Angela Hammond –Home & International Students Research and Study Skills teaching KST, Health & Human Bridging Programme

3. Why Study Skills books tend to concentrate on a narrow range of assessment types Concentrate mainly on: essays. Plus some oral presentation & group work Often too much technique and not enough on purpose E.g. Cottrell, Northedge, Drew & Bingham

4. But… Swales (1996) –the submission letter. Hyland (2004) –dissertation acknowledgements. Jackson, Meyer & Parkinson (2006) – science students in South Africa Nesi & Gardner (2006) –assessed writing tasks

5. Our approach Decided to find out: –What the range of assessment types at UH was/is –This was an initial survey in order to go deeper in the future

7. Our sample 2005/6:7595 Modules Sampled: 2397 Useful info in: 1133

8. DMDs  A partial trawl led to an A-Z of over 100 different assessment tasks.  This was becoming a maze.  We realised we needed to find a way through it.

9. Reading and research Biggs (2003) –gives insight into what is actually being assessed each time [e.g. comprehension, recall, recognition] Habeshaw, Gibbs, & Habeshaw (1993) –list 48 discrete items [e.g. project exam, note-form essay, computer-based assessment] Rowntree (1987) –polarises assessment [e.g. formative vs. summative, process vs. product, coursework vs. exam etc]

10. Some current concerns Assessment not currently fit for purpose Assessing for the learning society Constructive alignment Learner-oriented assessment Feedback and formative assessment Plus Higher Education Academy research and resources e.g. Boud (2000); Knight (2002); Yorke (2003); Biggs (2003); Brown (2004)

11. Strands Learner participation [e.g. Peer assessment; Self- set element] Representation of learning [e.g. Oral; Diagram/Pictorial] Bloom’s taxonomy [e.g. Analytic; Evaluative;Theory] Learner interaction [e.g. Group element; Role play] Developmental [e.g. Reflective; Process/Periodic] The work-place [e.g. Practice focus; Case study]

12. Categories TasksMedium Who assesses?Cognitive skills Time-spanWork-related

13. 22 Features Multiple choice Open book IT based Interactive Group element Role play Oral Numeric Diagram/Pictorial Self assess Peer assess Self set element Analytic Evaluative Skills focus Primary research Theory focus Reflective Process/Periodic Portfolio Practice focus Case Study

14. Results Some examples to give you an idea of the picture we built up across UH are :- Broad categories across all schools at different levels Individual features across UH Examples of individual schools Comparison of schools Most commonly-occurring types of assessment

15. Tasks Multiple choice Open book IT based Interactive Group element Role play Medium Oral Numeric Diagram/Pictorial Who assesses? Self assess Peer assess Self set element Cognitive skills Analytic Evaluative Skills focus Primary research Theory focus Time-span Reflective Process/Periodic Portfolio Work-related Practice focus Case Study

23. 46.6Practice focus 34.7Oral 23.1Process/Periodic 20.2Group element 17.9Skills focus 13.9Reflective 12.7Diagram/Pictorial 10.0Portfolio 9.2Primary research 6.8Case study 5.7IT based 4.1Open book 3.9Self set element 3.7Interactive 3.0Peer assess

25. Where and what next? Further research to verify these findings In-depth study of modules across UH Tailoring teaching more carefully Widen our own scope in generic classes

26. References Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment:: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 151-167 Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Brown, S. (2004). Assessment for Learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81-89 Brown, S., Race, P. & Smith, B. (1996). 500 tips on assessment. London: Kogan Page. Chambers, E. & Northedge, A. (1997). The arts good study guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press. Cottrell, S. (2003). Study skills handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Drew, S. and Bingham, R. (2004). The student skills guide (2nd ed.) Aldershot: Gower Publishing Limited Habeshaw, S., Gibbs, G. & Habeshaw, T. (1993). 53 interesting ways to assess your students. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services. Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates' gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324. Jackson, L., Meyer, W. & Parkinson, J. (2006). A study of the writing tasks and reading assigned to under-graduate science students at a South African university. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 260-281. Knight, P. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray Studies in Higher Education, 27, 275-286 Nesi, H, & Gardner, S. (2006). Variation in disciplinary culture: University tutors’ views on assessed writing tasks. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickens, H. Woodfield & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics. London: BAAL/Equinox. Northedge, A. (1990). The good study guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press. Northedge, A., Thomas, J., Lane, A. & Peasgood, A. (1997). The sciences good study guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press. Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004). Assessment grid. Higher Education Academy resource (available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources) http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page. Yorke, M. (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477-501