Judith Pollard, The University of AdelaideFocus presentations
Marjan Zadnik, Curtin University of Technology
Theresa Winchester-Seeto, Macquarie University
Scott Kable, The University of Sydney
Trevor Appleton, The University of Queensland
Judith Pollard - Norm referencing versus criterion referencing
At Adelaide they are marking scripts but then looking for evidence of performance, based on a set of criteria for each grade (HD, D, Cr, Pass 1, Pass 2 (concessional pass - not good enough to go on in the subject)). The criteria for performance for each grade has been agreed to and the physics department in Adelaide is making good headway into putting the criteria into place and matching the criteria to performance. For each type of assessment (practicals, theory examination, etc.) they use the same criteria, put the marks together and then look at the boundaries between the grades, to check for boundary sitters.
Norm Referencing or Criterion Refencing - handout (in pdf format)
Marjan Zadnik - peer and self-assessmentDiscussed the need to change the responsibility for learning from it being the teacher's to it being the learner's responsibility.
He discussed the fact that research has shown the validity of self-assessment in the sciences is very reliable. He used formal feedback and informal feedback - He handed out assessment sheets used in the Scientific Communication 102 course at Curtin University of Technology. These were for the students to indicate their performance and their peers' performance for each activity.
Peer marking - handout (in pdf format)
Theresa Winchester-Seeto - Assessment of Collaborative Work - collaboration versus assessmentIn first year Geosciences at Macquarie University problem based learning was introduced. One of the questions raised was how can one assess collaborative work fairly? Most aspects of collaboration do not help individual assessment.
The Groupwork Assessment Dilemma - overheads (in pdf format)
Tables - Assessment of Product by Instructor, Assessment of product by student and
Assessment of process (in pdf format)
Real problems encountered by instructors in a first year PBL course - questions for discussion (in pdf format)
Scott Kable - Assessment of Collaborative Work - plagiarism
Assessment of Collaborative Work - plagiarism - overheads (in pdf format)
Cameos of best practice
Judith Pollard - Alignment between semester activities and summative assessment
Rewarding students' time and effort - overheads and handout (in pdf format)
Set the course aims. Check the semester activities support the aims; work out the time and effort students put into the activities; align assessment to this effort.
Activities include - lectures, private study, peer group activities outside class, prac labs, tutorials, workshops
Work out the expectation and then estimate the actual time spent on each activity. Evidence used includes lab attendance, assume about 10% students miss each lecture, most student attend most tutorials, surveys on private study indicate the median time is about 3 hours study per week.
Time and effort| Component | Expected time (hours) | Probable time (hours) | |
| Practical work incl. preparation | Prep: 5 x 3 hrs; prac: 5 x 3 hrs | 30 (18%) | 25 (20%) |
| Lectures | 35 lectures | 35 (21%) | 32 (25%) |
| Tutorial | 12 tutorials | 12 (7%) | 10 (8%) |
| Private study | 5 hrs per week | 60 (37%) | 36 (28%) |
| Revision & exam | 24 + 3 hrs | 27 (16%) | 25 (20%) |
| Total | 164 | 128 |
Aligning the assessment
| Component | Expected time (hours) | Probable time (hours) | Assessment weighting |
| Practical work incl. preparation | 30 (18%) | 25 (20%) | 20% |
| Lectures | 35 (21%) | 32 (25%) | |
| Tutorial | 12 (7%) | 10 (8%) | Up to 6% |
| Private study | 60 (37%) | 36 (28%) | |
| Revision & exam | 27 (16%) | 25 (20%) | 74 - 80% |
| Total | 164 | 128 |
Questions for discussion in breakout session
- In your department how common is norm referencing?
- What do you see as the major obstacles to changing the assessment culture of a Department/ School/ Faculty?
- What changes would you make to the Descriptions of Grades in applying them in your discipline?
- What changes in assessment criteria have been or would be needed when Full Year subjects are changed to Semester subjects, especially at First Year?
The effects of changing from norm referencing to criterion referencing - overheads (in pdf format)
The Future?
The discussion identified an issue of content versus process. There is a strong feeling that we should seek to identify ways of changing the culture within our faculties, schools and departments so that there is a better link between the teaching that students receive and the pedagogies of good teaching. In this debate we should seek to answer the question "Can we teach the same process with less content?". We need to identify what content is really important at the first year level. In particular we should be asking the question about whether laboratory classes will be retained for the next 20 years and should there be more of a focus on them as learning environments (where team, group, collaborative activities can more easily occur).
Alternate theme for the First Year Experience 2003: how to identify students at risk of failing and how to help them.
LinksOnline Collaborative Learning in Higher Education home page at Central Queensland University
If you wish to be advised of future activities of this group, please contact
BioSciCH@mail.usyd.edu.au.
|
To notify us of any broken links or to suggest a site for inclusion on this page please send us an email, noting the url and name of this page in your email. Return to
home page |
© 1997 - 2010 UniServe Science
Page Maintained By: BioSciCH@mail.usyd.edu.au
Last Update: Wednesday, 15-May-2002 11:04:39 EST
URL: http://science.uniserve.edu.au/workshop/fye3/index.html