Alternative assessment in Higher Education: a preliminary approach

1. Alternative assessment in Higher Education: a preliminary approach EALTA Conference, Voss, Norway, 2nd - 5th June, 2005 Niovi Antonopoulou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Results There was minimal difference between teacher’s evaluation and peer- and self-assessment (see table below. Students’ names are removed for confidentiality). The instructor’s assessment appears slightly stricter, while self-assessment proved to be more lenient. The above mark counted for 50% of each student total score. The other 50% was the instructor’s mark from the final written assessment. The final score was the sum of the two above. What I can already do in testing/assessment and what I would still like to learn: Self-assessment checklists The checklists will help you assess your knowledge of testing and evaluation by yourself. You can get your estimates checked by other people, for example a teacher, and have them verified. The checklists will also assist you in selecting and defining which objectives are important for you and what you would still like to learn. Consult the completed checklists regularly to check your progress and to set new learning goals. • My objectives • Formulate your objectives and plans for the subjects you want to learn or to improve. • What do I want to learn? How do I want to learn? • Why do I want to learn more? What do I need to be able to do with it, and how would I like to go about it? • Am I learning these subjects for my work, for my research, etc? • Do I want to attend another, more advanced, course about testing and assessment? • Comments • Students: • were particularly enthusiastic and effective in their work; • found the whole procedure very interesting and useful (evaluative questionnaires, discussions); • would like to be evaluated for other courses in the same way; • benefited greatly from the effect of the procedure. • Writing Assignments • Topic:…………………………………………………………… • Name:………………………..………………………………… • Date:………………………..………………………………… • Course:……………………..………………………………… • 1-3 = Weak 4 = Moderately Weak 5 = Average • 1. The student introduces and states the subject in an interesting • manner. • 1 2 3 4 5 • 2. The student clearly identifies the subject being presented. • 1 2 3 4 5 • 3. The student develops a research plan, conducts a well organized • search and makes good use of research time. • 1 2 3 4 5 • The organization of the writing assignment is clear and easy to follow. • 1 2 3 4 5 Oral Presentations Self-Evaluation Topic:………………………………………… Name:………………………………. ……… Date:………………………..………………. • Disadvantages • Time-consuming preparation of material in this first application of the method; • Time spent for explanations and advice to students; • Time spent for the calculation of the final score. 1. The student introduces and states the subject in an interesting manner. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The student clearly identifies the subject being presented. 1 2 3 4 5 3. The student develops a research plan, conducts a well organized search and makes good use of research time. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The organization of the writing assignment is clear and easy to follow. 1 2 3 4 5 • Actions not taken • The portfolio’s pages were not completed by all students. • Final results do not include remarks of students who completed the portfolio’s pages. • Statistical analysis was not carried out. • Actions to be taken • Development of more elaborated criteria and checklists in line with the course objectives. • Implementation of the method in other courses and by other instructors. • Statistical analyses. • Questionnaires for students and instructors. • First stage • Introduction and discussion about the whole procedure. • Explanations and clarification about the implementation and the prospective benefits of the method. • Topics and dates for the oral presentations. • Detailed guidelines for the oral presentations. • Conclusions • Students: • participated actively and showed much interest throughout the course; • dealt with the assessment procedure effectively and responsibly; • became familiar with methods of alternative assessment in practice; • evaluated their own work throughout the course. • Second stage • Students presented their workthrough powerpointortransparencies. • Presentations lasted 40-50 minutes. • Handouts containing extensive summaries of presentations were disseminated to classmates • Presentations were followed by questions, clarifications by the instructor and discussion. • In the end students handed in their peer-assessment sheets and the speaker her/his self-assessment. • The assessment sheets were kept in a folder. • Later the instructor included her own assessment, based on the same criteria, without having looked at the participants’ sheets. • Third stage • Students were given subjects and checklists for their final written assignments • Consequently: • a. Students knew what they were going to be evaluated on and how they were expected to write their assignment and • b.The instructor would be able to apply the same general criteria to all students’ assignments.