Andy Gillett & Angela Hammond

1. An initial investigation into the types of assessment used across faculties and schools at the University of Hertfordshire Andy Gillett & Angela Hammond

2. Who & What • Andy Gillett • International Students • EAP • In-Sessional • Pre-Sessional • Foundation and Bridging Programmes • Angela Hammond • Home & International Students • Research and Study Skills teaching • KST, Health & Human • Bridging Programme

3. Why • Study Skills books tend to concentrate on a narrow range of assessment types • Concentrate mainly on: essays. Plus some oral presentation & group work • Often too much technique and not enough on purpose • E.g. Cottrell, Northedge, Drew & Bingham

4. But… • Swales (1996) • the submission letter. • Hyland (2004) • dissertation acknowledgements. • Jackson, Meyer & Parkinson (2006) • science students in South Africa • Nesi & Gardner (2006) • assessed writing tasks

5. Our approach • Decided to find out: • What the range of assessment types at UH was/is • This was an initial survey in order to go deeper in the future

7. Our sample • 2005/6: 7595 Modules • Sampled: 2397 • Useful info in: 1133

8. DMDs • A partial trawl led to an A-Z of over 100 different assessment tasks. • This was becoming a maze. • We realised we needed to find a way through it.

9. Reading and research • Biggs (2003) • gives insight into what is actually being assessed each time [e.g. comprehension, recall, recognition] • Habeshaw, Gibbs, & Habeshaw (1993) • list 48 discrete items [e.g. project exam, note-form essay, computer-based assessment] • Rowntree (1987) • polarises assessment [e.g. formative vs. summative, process vs. product, coursework vs. exam etc]

10. Some current concerns • Assessment not currently fit for purpose • Assessing for the learning society • Constructive alignment • Learner-oriented assessment • Feedback and formative assessment • Plus Higher Education Academy research and resources e.g. Boud (2000); Knight (2002); Yorke (2003); Biggs (2003); Brown (2004)

11. Strands • Learner participation [e.g. Peer assessment; Self-set element] • Representation of learning [e.g. Oral; Diagram/Pictorial] • Bloom’s taxonomy [e.g. Analytic; Evaluative;Theory] • Learner interaction [e.g. Group element; Role play] • Developmental [e.g. Reflective; Process/Periodic] • The work-place [e.g. Practice focus; Case study]

12. Categories Tasks Medium Who assesses? Cognitive skills Time-span Work-related

13. Multiple choice Open book IT based Interactive Group element Role play Oral Numeric Diagram/Pictorial Self assess Peer assess Self set element Analytic Evaluative Skills focus Primary research Theory focus Reflective Process/Periodic Portfolio Practice focus Case Study 22 Features

14. Results Some examples to give you an idea of the picture we built up across UH are :- • Broad categories across all schools at different levels • Individual features across UH • Examples of individual schools • Comparison of schools • Most commonly-occurring types of assessment

15. Tasks Multiple choice Open book IT based Interactive Group element Role play Medium Oral Numeric Diagram/Pictorial Who assesses? Self assess Peer assess Self set element Cognitive skills Analytic Evaluative Skills focus Primary research Theory focus Time-span Reflective Process/Periodic Portfolio Work-related Practice focus Case Study

25. Where and what next? • Further research to verify these findings • In-depth study of modules across UH • Tailoring teaching more carefully • Widen our own scope in generic classes

26. References Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment:: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 151-167 Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Brown, S. (2004). Assessment for Learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81-89 Brown, S., Race, P. & Smith, B. (1996). 500 tips on assessment. London: Kogan Page. Chambers, E. & Northedge, A. (1997). The arts good study guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press. Cottrell, S. (2003).Study skills handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Drew, S. and Bingham, R. (2004). The student skills guide (2nd ed.) Aldershot: Gower Publishing Limited Habeshaw, S., Gibbs, G. & Habeshaw, T. (1993). 53 interesting ways to assess your students. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services. Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates' gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324. Jackson, L., Meyer, W. & Parkinson, J. (2006). A study of the writing tasks and reading assigned to under-graduate science students at a South African university. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 260-281. Knight, P. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray Studies in Higher Education, 27, 275-286 Nesi, H, & Gardner, S. (2006). Variation in disciplinary culture: University tutors’ views on assessed writing tasks. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickens, H. Woodfield & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics. London: BAAL/Equinox. Northedge, A. (1990). The good study guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press. Northedge, A., Thomas, J., Lane, A. & Peasgood, A. (1997). The sciences good study guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press. Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004). Assessment grid. Higher Education Academy resource (available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources) Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page. Yorke, M. (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477-501