Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Assessment Fora. Assessment Code of Practice Grade Descriptors Aligning the Curriculum Multiple Choice Questions Technology Enhanced Learning. Department of Higher Education in conjunction with the DVC for Academic Affairs 4 th – 12 th February 2014. Assessment Code Of Practice. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Assessment ForaAssessment Code of Practice
Grade DescriptorsAligning the Curriculum
Multiple Choice QuestionsTechnology Enhanced Learning
Department of Higher Education in conjunction with the DVC for Academic Affairs
4th – 12th February 2014
Purposes of the Code:
• to ensure integrity, fairness and rigour in the application of academic judgement to the assessment of students’ work;
• and in the associated administrative processes
Principles:
• assessment strategy for programmes• alignment with learning outcomes at programme and module level and
linked with grade descriptors• assessment is proportionate - not under or over assessed• feedback to students – helpful in feeding forward• quality control (valid processes in plan) / quality assurance (mechanisms
to check these)• learning support
Assessment Code of Practice
Purpose of assessment:• design• relevance to learning outcomes differentiated by level where there is an
integrated Masters (e.g. BEng / MEng)• feedback
Definitions:• formative assessment – all modules, particularly with a single Unit of
Assessment, need to include an opportunity for feedback• summative assessment• coursework• examination
Validity of assessment methods:• important link to learning outcomes• aligned with grade descriptors• CPD for staff
Assessment Code of Practice
• University of Surrey Grade Descriptors: Undergraduate Programmes:https://www.surrey.ac.uk/learningandteaching/strategy/University_of_Surrey_Grade_Descriptors.pdf
• University of Surrey Grade Descriptors: Postgraduate Programmes: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/fhms/learningandteaching/imagesandfiles/PG%20Grade%20Descriptors%202012.pdf
• University Grade Descriptors (GDs) – A Short Guide:http://www.surrey.ac.uk/learningandteaching/strategy/University_Grade_Descriptors-Short_Guide.pdf
Grade Descriptors
Constructive Alignment (Biggs, 1999)
Programme Aims and Learning Outcomes
Module Aims and Learning
Outcomes
Assessment Methods
Generic Level Descriptors:
National Qualifications Framework
Subject Level Descriptors:
Subject BenchmarksProfessional Standards
Teaching and Learning Strategy
Curriculum Content
By the end of the module the student should be able to...LO1: Explain the theory of key optical engineering concepts such as the formation of fibre optics, images and holograms.
LO2: Apply transform techniques to specific practical contexts such as optical filtering
LO3: Evaluate the use of optical innovations (e.g. fibre optics, images and holograms) in an everyday product such as digital scenography, medical imaging and mobile technology.
Learning Outcomes
3 x individual lab reports1500 words (30%) [LO1 & 2: Explain and Apply]
1 x group-based PBL project report3000 words (40% individual mark; 30% group
mark). [LO1 & 3: Explain and Evaluate ]
Summative Assessment
Formative Assessment- i.e. not contributing to the final grade
Online MCQ prior to each lab (Surrey Learn)
Formative Assessment
Advantages of MCQs
• Facilitate coverage of the syllabus
• Can be marked quickly
• Can be delivered and marked electronically
• Allow objective scoring (right / wrong)
• Can allow a number of teachers to submit questions
• Often recommended for formative assessment.
Challenges of MCQs
• Good questions are time-consuming to design
• Can focus on recall of facts
• Emphasise atomization of syllabus
• Can encourage surface approaches to learning
• May encourage superficial feedback to students
• Can be answered by guesswork
Level of learning
HIGH
LOW
Level of difficulty in designing questions
HIGH
LOW
Relating MCQs to Bloom’s Taxonomy
Guesswork & MCQs
An inherent problem with MCQs is that students can guess.
Whilst some have argued for negative marking to discourage this, we do not use negative marking at Surrey for the following reasons:
• It is at odds with our credit framework based on learning outcomes(either achieved or not)
• Places MCQ marking out of step with marking of other assessment methods
• Does not fit with our university criteria (0-100%)
• Encourages risk-averse behaviours amongst students
• Creates marking anomalies that do not reflect learning achieved 69 correct – 31 incorrect = 38% fail vs 40% correct + 60 no response = 40% pass
• Can skew overall module results
http://testing.byu.edu/info/handbooks/betteritems.pdf
Electronic Assessment Management (EAM)“Using technology to support the assessment lifecycle, from the electronic submission of assignments to marking and feedback”
JISC http://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/electronic-assessment-management
• Convenience, avoiding printing costs, time savings
• Anxiety reduction - automatic proof of receipt • Confidence provided by improved privacy,
safety and security• Electronic reminders and deadlines• Meeting expectations: this is normal practice in
a digital age
Online submission Replacing paper-based submission with an online system:
Online marking and feedback
• MCQs – automation, summative, formative, diagnostic, analytics, troublesome knowledge.
• Electronic marking - GradeMark - part of the Turnitin suite of software and gives Tutors a digital system for grading and commenting on student work.
• Inline comments• Highlighting tool• QuickMarks – predefined and user-
defined marks for inline comments that can be dragged directly on the paper
• Predefined and user-defined rubrics to evaluate student papers against qualitative or quantitative criteria
• Voice Comments to create personalised audio feedback
Online marking and feedback
• Students: legibility of feedback and being able to access it quickly
• Markers: • found Grademark fairly easy to access and use• liked being able to customise and re-use comments, add
audio feedback, and see Originality reports whilst marking• some markers annotated scripts more fully, adding more
detail and providing what they saw as higher quality comments
“I think it’s great, there are certainly clear benefits for staff – it means that all of your marking is kept in one place. And the additional tools that they provide means that we can really give good constructive feedback to the students.”
Online marking and feedback
A hands-on experience of using Turnitin’s Grademark tool to mark assignments submitted online.
• Provide annotated, general and rubric style feedback to students using Grademark
• Identify the benefits and challenges of online marking using Grademark
• Manage the release of feedback to students (optional) So far this has been delivered to over 70 staff in Biosciences.
Bespoke workshops:Online marking for staff
Assessment Fora 2014
Assessment Code of Practice; Grade Descriptors; Aligning the Curriculum; Multiple Choice Questions; Technology Enhanced Learning
• What are the topics that you would like further information / training on?
• Learning and Teaching Week (19th – 23rd May 2014)
Are there any questions relating to what has been discussed?
http://tinyurl.com/AssessmentFora
