Transcript School of Health & Bioscience

Assessment Policy
http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/Assessme
ntPolicy.htm
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessment challenges
Setting assessment tasks and moderation
Internal moderation + second marking
External moderation
Timing of assessment + reasonable
adjustments
Examinations
Feedback
Assessment Tariff
Module reporting
Assessment Challenges
• Creating assessment that develops learning and
measures performance (Boud, 2000)
• Balancing efficiency with effectiveness (Ross,
2003)
• Using a creative + balanced range of approaches
• Growing sector context of massification (Land,
2004)… plagiarism proofing… offering learner
autonomy + choice…
Constructive Alignment
‘Constructive Alignment (Biggs, 1999) is one
of the most influential ideas in higher
education.
It is the underpinning concept behind the
current requirements for programme
specification, declarations of Intended
Learning Outcomes (ILOs) and assessment
criteria, and the use of criterion based
assessment.’ (Houghton 2004)
Constructive Alignment
‘There are two parts to constructive
alignment:
• Students construct meaning from what they
do to learn.
• The teacher aligns the planned learning
activities with the learning outcomes.
The basic premise of the whole system is that
the curriculum is designed so that the learning
activities and assessment tasks are aligned
with the learning outcomes that are intended in
the course. This means that the system is
consistent. (Houghton 2004)
Setting assessment tasks
• Assessment task plus
– marking criteria and the grading criteria
– indicative answers
•
•
•
•
Meet module specifications
Assess the learning outcomes
Be set at the correct level
Draft assessment and reassessment tasks
set at the same time
Moderation process
• Tutor sets assessment task
• AKMI undertakes a process of internal
moderation
• UEL staff moderate tasks
• Sent to external examiner
Purpose of moderation
– tasks provide the students with the opportunity
to perform at a comparable standard
– tasks enable students to meet the intended
learning outcomes, and appropriate to the
curriculum content
– clarity of assessment task
Marking
• Anonymous marking wherever the
method of assessment allows
• Observation assessment tasks
observed by a minimum of two
examiners or recorded for second
marking
2nd marking as ‘sampling or moderation’
• 3.4.1.
• …the preferred method at UEL is “second
marking as sampling or moderation” for
both written and practical assessments.
INTERNAL MODERATION
2nd marking as ‘sampling or moderation’
•“2nd marker samples work already 1st
marked, with annotations + marks attached,
in order to check overall standards... adding
relevant comments and indicating their
agreement on the script or on a separate
marking sheet…” (Appdx 2)
Internal Moderation
- % 2nd marking
• 3.4.3
• At least 15% or 10 individual pieces of
each assessment task (which ever is the
greater) should be second marked.
• The sample should be taken from the full
range of student performance.
Internal Moderation
- % 2nd marking
• 3.4.3 Where the 1st marking of any
module is undertaken by more than one
marker, the sample should include a
minimum of 20% of the work marked by
each individual marker, again relating to
the range of performance
• 3.4.6 Calculations should always be
checked by a 2nd marker (to avoid
arithmetic errors)
Resolving differences
• 3.4.5 Resolving differences between markers
within modular assessment tasks:
• No significant differences- 1st mark stands
• Significant differences = discuss/ negotiate
• but
• Where agreement (ie the 1st mark stands)
cannot be reached:
• - resort to a 3rd marker must take place,
- where marks need to be changed, all work
marked by the first marker should be 2nd
marked.
EXTERNAL MODERATION – materials to
external
• 3.5.2
• All 1st + 2nd opportunity assessment /
reassessment tasks for each academic year
should be submitted to the relevant external
examiner at least 4 working weeks prior to
the 1st opportunity assessment”
• - in order to achieve consistency across
assessment opportunities
Timing of Assessment
• 4.1.1
• Exams - at least 5 weeks notice
• Coursework - at least 3 weeks notice
• (NB wouldn’t normally include any material
taught in 2 weeks prior to submission date)
Timing of Assessment
•Reasonable adjustments must be embedded
in all coursework submission times
•
•4.1.3
•All time-frames set for coursework submission should
have reasonable adjustments embedded within the
assessment process.
•This ensures that students with disabilities/ specific
learning difficulties do not require specific additional time to
complete the assignment since extra time (normally 25%)
is already built-in.
•E.g. coursework that would normally be given 4 weeks in
advance of submission date will be given 5 weeks for all
students, therefore achieving an inclusive approach to the
assessment of all students (see Section 7).
Examinations
• 4.2 Integrity of Examinations
• 4.2.1 All examinations must be conducted in a fair,
proper and secure manner. This requires specification
of at least one identified member of staff within the
School with responsibility for:
• the maintenance of examination papers throughout the
development process
• the coordination of the invigilation process, in
association with the Unit responsible for managing that
process
• 4.3 Invigilation
4.3.1 Guidelines for good practice in invigilation are
produced by the Assessment Unit.
Feedback - coursework
• May be Individual or Generic (5.1.1)
• Feedback on Coursework: (5.2.1)
•
- formative assessment– in time to use
for summative tasks
•
- summative assessment- should be
given within 4 working weeks of
submission date
Feedback - exams
• 5.3.1 Feedback on examinations should be
given within 5 weeks of the conclusion of the
examination period.
• 5.3.2 Clear guidance should be given regarding
the type of feedback that will be given following
examination i.e. individual or generic.
• 5.3.1 Guidance should be given on whether
feedback will include the return of examination
scripts and/or work, or not.
Assessment Tariffs and Equivalences
- to bring UEL in line with HE sector
- to reduce over-assessment
- to achieve comparability + consistency
across Schools
- identifies maximum word counts + exam
duration for summative assessment, other
modes of assessment will need defined
equivalences eg performance, web sites,
annotated bibliog etc etc
Assessment Tariffs and Equivalences
(cont’d)
- ALL modules are required to meet the
Tarrif(Appdendix 7)
- Tariff applies to Summative Assessment
only
- Tariff does not indicate component
weighting
Assessment Tariff
TARIFF: Maximum Assessment loads per module
Assessment Mode
Level 0-3
(20 credits)
Level M
(30 credits)
Coursework
4000 words
5000 words
Written Examination
180 minutes
180 minutes
Practical (face-to-face)
examination, viva,
presentation or practical
skills demonstration
Dissertation
60 minutes
80 minutes
5000 words
7000 words
Module reporting
• Brief report from the Module Leader:
– Module delivery and management: successes
and problems
– Student module performance and outcomes:
data plus comments on the outcomes of the
assessment process (e.g. trends in questions
answered by candidates, common errors,
questions generally answered well/poorly)
– Student feedback and responses to feedback
– Action plan for next year
Bibliography
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University,
Buckingham: OUP.
Houghton, W. (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide:
Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics.
Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre [online]
Available from:
http://www.engsc.ac.uk/er/theory/constructive_alignment.as
p [13 February 2010]