Tony Gardner-Medwin
Posts: 14
 |
| 29/05/2007 10:55 |
|
One principle of good assessment, emerging sometimes within other principles, is I think that it should be multidimensional - with variety generating transcripts and feedback that can do justice to students' various strengths and weaknesses in different skills (as well as different topics), and so inform their study.
Within such variety, I do like the idea that students should discuss and feed into how some of the assessments will work, for their class or group. But I don't so much like the idea that they can choose how individually they will be assessed. I don't see why they should escape assessment of possible lacunae. Is this really the idea, or have I got the wrong end of a stick? Doesn't student choice belong instead in a portfolio - where one can show off self-selected strengths? Shouldn't these concepts be quite clearly distinguished - the authenticated multi-dimensional university transcript and the portfolio of proud achievements?
Tony G-M |
|
|
|
|
David Nicol
Posts: 18
|
| 29/05/2007 12:34 |
|
| I agree in most disciplines there are skills and knowledge that must be known so there might not be choice in that. But we already give choice in many contexts - choice of project work, choice in when students might do multiple choice tests, maybe they can add some assessment criteria to those provided by the teacher to identify skills they also think are important or choice in how to divide up tasks in their group. Choice seems to motivate students and help them to feel ownership. It might be more appropriate to portfolios than to professional skills assessment. In my own institution they asked for this to be reworded to 'explore opportunities for choice' rather than 'give' choice. |
|
|
|
|
Steve Draper
Posts: 25
|
| 29/05/2007 13:14 |
|
My own response to this worry is to realise that really, there are 3 broad types of assessment of quite different natures: (and choice of what topic and method to be assessed by only really applies to (c)).
a) Attendance: were they there, and participating in the experience and opportunity. Participation matters; the process not any defined product.
b) Breadth: minimum competence. The product matters and all must attain it.
c) Depth: individualistic, and scope for differentiating students. Learner choice makes sense here.
Note how some assessment principles really only fit one of these types, not all. E.g. student choice makes no sense for (a,b); but a lot of sense for (c). Average of all marks fits (a); but taking only the last mark fits (b) (except to the extent it changes the chance element in the measurement e.g. retake the test until you luck out, then stop).
Some of the forum discussions (on Baxter I think) has made me realise that in effect he is "assessing" their work on his exercises under (a) i.e. he enforces their participation, but not the quality of what they produce, allowing them to develop without pressure except to put in some useful work.
SteveD
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Gardner-Medwin
Posts: 14
|
| 29/05/2007 14:47 |
|
| Interesting thoughts. I do agree with both of you (David & Steve) that student choice is bound to help with motivational attitude and getting stuck in to challenging work. The crux I guess is what determines how students choose. Apart from Steve's (b) [the certification function] we probably all see the functions of assessment to be ultimately to enhance student abilities. What we need is a culture that is assessment-for-improvement rather than assessment-for-performance. Think tennis. Given a choice of different assessment and feedback options, you would choose to run through your worst shots - not your best shots - with the trainer. How can we make university assessment more like this? Student and teacher (or student and computer) need to work on the weaknesses as much as (but please not more than!) the strengths of the student. Diagnostic tests or self-assessment, offered without risk of humiliation, would be a great first step. |
|
|
|
|
David Nicol
Posts: 18
|
| 29/05/2007 14:51 |
|
| Perhaps giving no choice in attendance would disadvantage part-time students with other responsibilities. Also, Baxter does give some choice in when students can do the work over a period of a week so this is not such a hard and fast distinction. In b there may also be choice in how students acquire their minimum professional competencies - if the course was resource based they could do it in different ways. So choice is still important - think of the implications of lack of any choice in content or process - how would that put learners in control. |
|
|
|
|
Fran Everingham
Posts: 14
|
| 29/05/2007 16:15 |
|
| Steve, thanks for the passing commentary about 'working groups' versus 'learning groups'. I have been using a 'journal club' to structure groupwork for PG distance students, working through WebCT. The 'journal club' structure is reasonably common in their professional lives (health) - so is authentic. There is a mix of solo written work (submited in a final group report), and mutual dependence achieved through evidence of critical discussion. What hit me after reading your comments was the need for me to articulate more clearly to the students the almost conflicting purposes behind the different components of the design. Fortunately, many have taken a unit about group dynamics, so they come this unit with some powerful tools to interprete what's happening throughout the process. They are also advantaged because the group structure is familar from the world of work. In these and other ways PG assessment might be different in terms of principles? |
|
|
|
|
Steve Draper
Posts: 25
|
| 31/05/2007 13:59 |
|
Fran,
actually, in the light of your comments here and elsewhere in the conference, and other people's too, I'm beginning to realise that an implication of the solo/group working/learning issue, is that for most prof. dev. we need to give students experience of working groups, but to maximise their learning of things other than how to work in a group, i.e. to make the most of having peers on the course, then we need to give them experience of learning groups: different in some ways.
As for your " PG assessment might be different in terms of principles?", well mature (i.e. older) students are like that whatever the level of the course: they bring from work the expectation of working with others, and the skill of how to do it.
SteveD
|
|
|
|
|
|
