Engaging students in assessment

1. Engaging students in assessment Chris Rust Deputy Director, ASKe Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange) Head, Oxford Centre for Staff & Learning Development Oxford Brookes University ASKe Directorate: Margaret Price, Jude Carroll, Berry O’Donovan and Chris Rust

2. Why engagement? Social-constructivist view of assessment the social-constructivist view of learning argues that knowledge is shaped and evolves through increasing participation within different communities of practice the social-constructivist process model of assessment argues that students should be actively engaged with every stage of the assessment process in order that they truly understand the requirements of the process, and the criteria and standards being applied, and should subsequently produce better work(Rust C., O’Donovan, B., & Price, M., 2005) Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

3. Active engagement with feedback Active engagement with criteria Completion and submission of work Explicit Criteria Students Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

4. Active engagement with feedback Completion and submission of work Explicit Criteria Active engagement with criteria Students Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

5. Marking exercise Immediate results participants av. mk non participants av. mk. Cohort 1 (99/00) 59.78 54.12 Cohort 2 (00/01) 59.86 52.86 Cohort 3 (01/02 55.7 49.7 Results 1 year later Cohort 1 57.91 51.3 Cohort 2 56.4 51.7 Rust, C., Price, M & O’Donovan, B.(2003) "Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 2 Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

6. Peer marking using model answers (Forbes & Spence, 1991) Scenario: • Engineering students had weekly maths problem sheets marked and problem classes • Increased student numbers meant marking impossible and problem classes big enough to hide in • Students stopped doing problems • Exam marks declined (Average 55%>45%) Solution: • Course requirement to complete 50 problem sheets • Peer assessed at six lecture sessions but marks do not count • Exams and teaching unchanged Outcome: Exam marks increased (Av. 45%>80%) Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

7. Peer feedback - Geography (Rust, 2001) Scenario • Geography students did two essays but no apparent improvement from one to the other despite lots of tutor time writing feedback • Increased student numbers made tutor workload impossible Solution: • Only one essay but first draft required part way through course • Students read and give each other feedback on their draft essays • Students rewrite the essay in the light of the feedback • In addition to the final draft, students also submit a summary of how the 2nd draft has been altered from the1st in the light of the feedback Outcome: Much better essays Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

8. Peer feedback - Computing (Zeller, 2000*) The Praktomat system allows students to read, review, and assess each other’s programs in order to improve quality and style. After a successful submission, the student can retrieve and review a program of some fellow student selected by Praktomat. After the review is complete, the student may obtain reviews and re-submit improved versions of his program. The reviewing process is independent of grading; the risk of plagiarism is narrowed by personalized assignments and automatic testing of submitted programs. In a survey, more than two thirds of the students affirmed that reading each other’s programs improved their program quality; this is also confirmed by statistical data. An evaluation shows that program readability improved significantly for students that had written or received reviews. [*Available at: http://www.st.cs.uni-sb.de/publications/files/zeller-iticse-2000.pdf] ] Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

9. Active engagement with criteria Completion and submission of work Explicit Criteria Active engagement with feedback Students Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

10. Potential of feedback Feedback is the most powerful single influence that makes a difference to student achievement Hattie (1987) - in a comprehensive review of 87 meta-analyses of studies Feedback has extraordinarily large and consistently positive effects on learning compared with other aspects of teaching or other interventions designed to improve learning Black and Wiliam(1998) - in a comprehensive review of formative assessment Students are hungry for feedback to develop their learning (Higgins et al, 2002) Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

11. Feedback problems • Unhelpful feedback (Maclellan, 2001) • Too vague (Higgins, 2000) • Subject to interpretation (Ridsdale, 2003) • Not understood (e.g. Lea and Street, 1998) • Don’t read it (Hounsell, 1987) • Damage self-efficacy (Wotjas, 1998) • Has no effect (Fritz et al, 2000) • Seen to be too subjective (Holmes & Smith, 2003) Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

12. Improving feedback - prepare students (in Yr 1 esp.) • Aligning expectations (of staff & students, & between teams of markers) - often a mismatch of expectations e.g correcting errors, advice for the future, diagnosis of general problems, comments specific only to that piece of work. These mismatches occur frequently with no particular pattern about who holds which view/perspective but problems arise when the the two don't coincide. Purpose of feedback may vary from assignment to assignment so would need to be clarified each time. (Freeman & Lewis, 1998) • Identifying all feedback available • Model the application of feedback - e.g. using previously-marked assignments to show how feedback was used to improve later assignments • Encourage the application of feedback - e.g. in a subsequent piece of work the student is required to show how they have used prior feedback to try to improve their work and some marks allocated for this. • Require and develop self-assessment it is the interaction between both believing in self-responsibility and using assessment formatively that leads to greater educational achievements (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008) Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange

13. Improving feedback - ensuring engagement • Ensure students have MOM - Motive, Opportunity, Means (Angelo, 2007) • Draft-plus-rework - feedback effort (for markers and students) is located at the draft stage, and possibly only a summative grade is given for the final submission • Improve the linkage of assessment strategies across programmes and between modules/units • Increase student engagement and understanding through dialogue - in-class discussion of exemplars, peer-review discussions supported by tutors, learning-sets, etc. • Identify what is feasible in a given assessment context - written feedback can often do little more than ‘diagnose’ development issues and then direct students to other resources for help and support • Ensure it is timely - ‘quick and dirty’ generic feedback, feedback on a draft, MCQs & quizzes, etc. (using technology may help) • Consider the role of marks - they obscure feedback • Reduce over-emphasis on written feedback - oral can be more effective (McCune, 2004). But individual F2F can be resource intensive • Review resource allocations (N.B. OU 60%) Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange