1

Assessing and Teaching for Learning in Higher Education

2016/17

Student Handbook

Module Coordinator

Dr Sheena Hyland sheena.hyland@ucd.ie, ex 8575.

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction to Programme Modules

2. Module Description

3. Learning Outcomes 4. Teaching and Learning Strategies

5. Content

6. Assessment Strategies

7. Timetable

8. Initial Reading

3

1. Introduction to Programme and Modules Level 9 Modules This Level 9 module can be undertaken as a stand-alone module for the award of Certificate in Continuing Professional Development or as a module for the Professional Certificate/Diploma in University Teaching and Learning. As a level 9 module students are expected to review research and other literature at the forefront of the subjects of the module. Students will assess the current level of their knowledge and skills in the area and take responsibility for their continued professional development. Students’ learning from these modules will facilitate them initiating new teaching and learning activities. Active and Participative Learning The module is structure to encourage high levels of participation in both in-class and on-line discussions. Key contacts

Programme Director Graduate Administrator Module Co-ordinator

Terry Barrett

terry.barrett@ucd.ie

Rm: F317, Newman Building

716x8553

Claire Deighan

teachingandlearning@ucd.ie

Rm: F309, Newman Building

716x2034

Sheena Hyland

sheena.hyland@ucd.ie

Rm: F311, Newman Building

716x8575

2. Module Description Module Description This module focuses on the principles, application and context of assessment in higher education today. Participants will critically engage with literature relating to assessment in their own and wider disciplines with a view to improving their assessment for their current and future practices. They will also experience assessment approaches ('of', 'for' and 'as' learning) in the on-line and within the classroom contexts.

3. Module Learning Outcomes Having successfully completed this module, you should be able to:

1. Critically reflect, based on peer discussions and the literature, the assessment

approaches in your own and other modules, programmes and/or other coherent set of learning activities

2. Analyse and synthesise the relationship between the key assessment principles in the context of higher education, i.e. validity, reliability, transparency, attribution, etc.

4

3. Debate the wider context of assessment and feedback in higher education and its impact on assessment policies and procedures.

4. Evaluate the application of assessment approaches in your current and future

practices, having experienced a variety of assessments of‚ for and as learning.

5. Debate the role of different stakeholders in the assessment process, i.e. staff, students, peers, self and/or group assessment.

4. Teaching and Learning Strategies The module is based on a blended learning approach (see below), which uses a mixture of on-line, out of class and in-class activities. The assignments link with the themes in the workshops. The workshops encourage dialogue around the students’ experiences and draws on the required readings for the different assignments.

Workload: Student Effort hours Code Student

effort hours

Description

Seminars 15 Equates to the scheduled sessions (as in timetable)

Online Learning 30 Equates to the dedicated online activities/tasks required, i.e. on-line discussion

Practical 40 Equates to the implementation/review within one’s practice

Specified Learning Activities 30 Equates to the required activities for set tasks in the module, i.e. assessment preparation.

Autonomous Student Learning

70 Equates to the expected independent study undertaken outside of sessions

Total 185

5

5. Content The themes in the module are based on UCD’s principles of assessment in the new institutional assessment code of practice.1

6. Assessment Strategies There are three assignments in the module. In addition, there are a variety of assessment for and as learning in the module. See appendix 1 for more details and the assessment criteria.

Description (indicative weighting)

Timing In Bb Score by Final Grade

Assignment 1: Importance of an Assessment Principle: On-line Assessment Task (10%)*

Wednesday 15th February by 4:30pm

Yes Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Pass/Fail

Pass

Assignment 2: Best Approach to Group work On-line Assessment Task (50%)*

Wednesday 29th March by 4:30pm

Yes

Assignment 3: My Module assessment Plan Choice of Two Assessments (40%) *

Wednesday 10th May by 4:30pm

Yes

*indicative weighting, as the module is pass /fail grading.

1. UCD Assessment Code of Practice

6

Details Assignment 1: Your views on the importance of an assessment principle. (Assessment Method: On-line Discussion)

*All assessment are mandatory pass/fail. The indicative weighting helps to highlight the weighting of your effort and expectations in these assignments.

Indicative weighting* 10%: Question: What principle do you think should be prioritised for development in higher education and explain why? Instructions: In Blackboard, introduce yourself, and based on your experience of assessment as a student or staff member, discuss what principle do you think should be prioritised for development in higher education and explain why. Refer to either the Gibbs & Simpson (2004) article and/or O’Neill (2013) Introduction to Purposes and Principles of Assessment learning resource (both available on Blackboard Theme 1 folder). Respond also other participants in your group discussion. Your group will need to set ground rules for on-line discussion and organise yourselves into roles. Some suggested roles are highlighted below. All: contribute to discussion (including Lecturer), but in addition:

1. Student Peer Moderator: Starts the discussion, encourages participation and encourages people in their roles. 2. Theoretician : queries the evidence, tries to conceptualize from other alternatives 3. Questioner: asks probing questions and keeps an eye on time and reminds members of looming dead-line 4. Ground rules moderator: submits ‘Group roles and ground rules/netiquette’ document and queries how they are progressing on

the rules. 5. Summariser: at the end, just before deadline, summarises the main points of the group’s discussion.

Submission date

15TH February, 2017

Assessment Criteria for Assignment 1

Participates in the discussion

in a timely manner, and more than one post and includes a response to others

PASS

Does not participate in the discussion

in a timely manner, has only one or no posts.

FAIL

7

Details Assignment 2: ‘Using Group work assessment’ (Assessment Method: Academic On-line Discussion)

Indicative weighting* 50%: Individually assessed. Discussion Question: ‘Based on both your experience and the literature, what is the best approach to assessment of group work and why? ‘ Instructions In this assignment you will be individually assessed for: critical analysis, participation in the learning community, timeliness and netiquette (see attached assessment criteria). You will therefore need to read other posts, refer to the module’s and other material and respond to others in the group. The required reading is: either Maiden & Perry (2011), Reinholz (2015), O’Neill (2012, Group work resources) and/or to other articles/resources specific to assessment of group work. As a group ensure you have considered process/product, peer/self/, individual versus group grade, methods, formative and/or summative, influence of context (i.e. student group/year/level, etc). Similar to the last discussion, your group will need to organise your roles and, in addition, the timing, structure and expectation of the contributions to the discussion. Some suggested roles are highlighted below: All contribute to discussion (including Lecturer), but in addition:

1. Student Peer Moderator 1 (in February: Focus on your experience of group work): Encourages participants to relate to their experience of group work assessment and encourages people in their roles.

2. Student Peer Moderator 2 (In March: Evidence-based) weeks: Continues the discussion that should now be based on evidence from module material. Encourages participation and asks probing question.

3. Student Theoretician: queries the evidence, tries to conceptualize from other alternatives. 4. Ground rules moderator: Submits group’s revised ‘Group roles and ground rules/netiquette’ for this

assignment and queries how they are progressing on the rules. 5. Summariser; at the end, just before deadline, summarises the main points of the group’s discussion.

Submission date

March 29th, 2017

8

Assignment 2: Assessment Criteria for On-line Discussion Forum (adapted from Vandervelde©, 2014)

Exemplary Pass Fail

Critical Analysis

Discussion postings display an excellent understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology. Postings integrate an outside resource, required reading or specific real-life application (work experience, prior coursework, etc.) to support important points. Well-edited quotes are cited appropriately. No more than 10% of the posting is a direct quotation.

Discussion postings display an understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology and proper citation.

Discussion postings show little or no evidence that readings were completed or understood. Postings are largely personal opinions or feelings, or "I agree" or "Great idea", without supporting statements with concepts from the readings, outside resources, relevant research, or specific real-life application.

Participation in the learning community

Discussion postings actively stimulate and sustain further discussion by building on peers' responses including — building a focused argument around a specific issue or — asking a new related question or — making an oppositional statement supported by personal experience or related research

Discussion postings contribute to the group’s ongoing conversations as evidenced by — affirming statements or references to relevant research or, — asking related questions or, — making an oppositional statement supported by any personal experience or related research

Discussion postings do not contribute to ongoing conversations or respond to peers' postings. There is no evidence of replies to questions.

Timeliness Discussion postings are distributed throughout the discussion forum (not posted all on one day or only at the beginning or only on the last day of the module).

Discussion postings respond to most postings of peers within a week after the initial discussion.

Discussion postings are at midpoint or later in the module or contributions are only posted on the last day of the module.

Netiquette Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and sensitivity to peers' social, political and cultural backgrounds.

Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others.

Written interactions on the discussion board show disrespect for the viewpoints of others.

For Copyright for original see: Vandervelde , J (2014) On-line Discussion Rubric , University of Wisconsin, https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/discussionrubric.html

9

Details Assignment 3: ‘My module assessment plan’ (using Concept map or poster)

Indicative weighting* 40% Question: What are the assessment methods you are considering for one module, and why? (Note; ‘considering’ can be a futuristic plan, if you cannot implement this currently.) Instructions Choose either ‘concept map’ or ‘poster’ to answer the question: You can focus on one or more assessment methods, in your module. You need to highlight their role as assessments for/of/as learning (as appropriate). Refer to Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006) article and to articles specific to each of the methods (for example, article(s) on use your assessment methods, i.e. exams, MCQ’s, blogs, portfolios, debates, etc.) (Note assignment 3 should be significantly different from that discussed in assignment 1 and 2.

10th May, 2017

10

Assessment Criteria for Assignment 3 Concept Map Rubric Exceptional Pass* Fail

Comprehensiveness** Breadth of knowledge comprehension AND

The map completely highlights the rationale for the assessment method(s) for their module and the map’s concepts link to the key material on the assessment module.

The map highlights the rationale for the assessment method(s) for their module. but one or two of the main concepts from the assessment module’s materials are missing

The map does not highlight the rationale for the assessment method(s) for their module and there is a limited breadth of concepts from the assessment module’s materials are missing

Organisation and Visual** AND

The map is well organised with concept integration and use of feedback loops. Sophisticated branch structure and connectivity And Equivalence of the effort of 2,500 word assignment

The map has adequate organization with some within/between branch connections. Some but not complete integration of the branches is apparent. A few feedback loops may exist. And Equivalence of the effort of 2,000 word assignment

The map is arranged with concepts only linearly connected. There are few (or no) connections within/between branches. Concepts are not well integrated. And Is not the Equivalence of the effort of 2,000 word assignment

Correctness** Conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic or known truths.

The map integrates concepts properly and reflects an accurate understanding of subject matter, meaning little or no misconception, spelling/grammatical errors And Referencing the key articles on the assessment method and other more specific literature

The map has a few subject matter inaccuracies; most links are correct. There may be a few spelling and grammatical errors. And Referencing the key articles on the assessment method and/or other more specific literature

The map contains misconceptions about the subject area; inappropriate words or terms are used. The map documents an inaccurate understanding of certain subject matter. And There is no reference to the key articles or other more specific literature

*Note the official Grade is Pass/Fail only. ** These categories are based on the work on Besterfield-Sacre et al (2004) Scoring Concept Maps: An Integrated Rubric for Assessing Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering Education, 105-115.

11

Poster Rubric Exceptional Pass* Fail Comprehensiveness** Breadth of knowledge comprehension

AND

The poster completely highlights the rationale for the assessment method(s) for their module and the poster’s concepts link to the key material on the assessment module.

The poster highlights the rationale for the assessment method(s) for their module. but one or two of the main concepts from the assessment module’s materials are missing

The poster does not highlight the rationale for the assessment method(s) for their module and there is a limited breadth of concepts from the assessment module’s materials are missing

Organisation and Visual**

AND

The poster is well organised. The key information is synthesised. Produces an excellent aesthetic Poster, with a good eye catching title And Equivalence of the effort of 2,000 word assignment

The poster has adequate organization Produces an aesthetically pleasing poster. And Equivalence of the effort of 2,000 word assignment

The poster is disorganised. The poster is poor aesthetically. And Is not the Equivalence of the effort of 2,000 word assignment

Correctness** Conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic or known truths.

The poster integrates concepts properly and reflects an accurate understanding of subject matter, including little or no misconception, spelling/grammatical errors And Referencing the key articles and other more specific literature

The poster has a few subject matter inaccuracies; most links are correct. There may be a few spelling and grammatical errors. And Referencing the key articles and/or other more specific literature

The poster contains misconceptions about the subject area; inappropriate words or terms are used. The poster documents an inaccurate understanding of certain subject matter. And There is no reference to the key articles or other more specific literature

*Note the official Grade is Pass/Fail only. ** These categories are based on the work on Besterfield-Sacre et al (2004) and O’Neill & Jennings (2012)

*All assessment are mandatory pass/fail. The indicative weighting helps to highlight the weighting of your effort and expectations in these assignments.

12

7. Draft Timetable.

2016 Workshop Themes, linked with principles.

Friday, 3rd February 2017. 10.00-1.00

Assessment principles & purposes

Friday, 17th February 2017. 10.00-1.00

Validity & Reliability

Friday, 3rd March 2017. 10.00-1.00

Efficiency & Effectiveness

Friday, 31st March 2017. 10.00-1.00

Attribution & Transparency

Friday, 21st April 2017. 10.00-1.00

Equity & Diversity

13

8. Initial reading

Key Text: Bloxham, S., and P. Boyd. 2008. Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press McGraw-Hill.

Ten key readings during the module.

1. Gibbs G., C. Simpson, (2004) Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Student Learning, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, V. 1, pp. 3-31, http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/assessmentresources/pdf/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson.pdf

2. Nicol, D. and MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education. 31 (2), 199-218

3. Maiden B. & Bob Perry (2011) Dealing with free‐riders in assessed group work: results from a study at a UK university, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36:4,451-464, DOI: 10.1080/02602930903429302 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930903429302

4. Reinholz , D. (2015): The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982

5. Hornby, W (2003) Strategies for Streamlining Assessment: Case Studies from the Chalk Face http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=405760

6. Harland, Tony, Angela McLean, Rob Wass, Ellen Miller & Kwong Nui Sim (2015) An assessment arms race and its fallout: high-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40:4, 528-541, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.931927

7. Seymour, D. (2005). Learning Outcomes and Assessment: Developing assessment criteria for Masters-level dissertations. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching 1, no. 2: 1-8. http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/paper/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-developing-assessment-criteria-for-masters-level-dissertations/

8. Evering, L.C. , Moorman, G. (2012) Rethinking Plagiarism in the Digital Age Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 56, 1, p35-44.

9. O’Neill G (Ed) (2010) Practitioner’s Guide to Choice of Assessment Methods within a module, UCD Teaching & Learning http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Practitioners%20Guide.pdf

10. Knight, P.T. (2000). The Value of a Programme-wide Approach to Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25, no. 3: 237-251.