Self- and Peer-Assessment - UCL - London's Global ?· using self- and peer-assessment in their learning…

  • Published on
    28-Jul-2018

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Transcript

<ul><li><p>Teaching BioscienceEnhancing Learning SeriesEdited by Stephen Maw, Jackie Wilson &amp; Heather Sears</p><p>Self- and Peer-AssessmentGuidance on Practice in the Biosciences</p><p>TheHigher</p><p>EducationAcademy</p><p>Centre forBioscience</p><p>Paul Orsmond</p></li><li><p>Teaching Bioscience Enhancing Learning is a series ofguides intended to be an accessible introduction togood learning and teaching practice within the contextof competing research and institutional pressures. Theaim of each publication is to provide a persuasiveoverview of the pedagogic reasons for adopting aparticular practice and support these reasons withsufficient practical guidance and information to turnideas into reality. The guides are structured around acommon format; Chapter 1 provides a generalintroduction to the topic, Chapter 2 advice on how toimplement the topic and Chapter 3 more in-depthinformation on the topic and the opportunity toinvestigate it further. In addition, each guide contains acollection of bioscience case studies highlighting howothers have introduced the topic into their teachingpractice. It is intended that the guide will be useful toacademics in their first year of lecturing, particularlythose who are studying for Postgraduate Certificates inLearning &amp; Teaching in Higher Education, as well as tothose with many years of teaching experience.</p><p>First published in Great Britain in 2004by Centre for Bioscience, The Higher Education Academy, Leeds LS2 9JT.</p><p>ISBN 0 9548751 0 9</p><p>Copyright of this Guide resides with The Higher Education Academy of which the Centre for Bioscience is part. Thematerial in this Guide is subject to copyright protection and may be reproduced free of charge in any format or mediawithout requiring specific permission, subject to it being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatorymanner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the sources and copyrightstatus should be acknowledged. This permission does not extend to any material in the Guide that is identified as beingthe copyright of a third party. Copyright over this material sits with the original author.</p><p>Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided is accurate, it does not constitute legal orother professional advice. The Higher Education Academy does not accept any legal responsibility for any errors,omissions or misleading statements (caused by negligence or otherwise). The Higher Education Academy does notassume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this Guide.</p></li><li><p>INTRODUCTION 4</p><p>CHAPTER 1 INVOLVING STUDENTS IN ASSESSMENT 6</p><p>CHAPTER 2 GETTING STARTED WITH SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT 12</p><p>CHAPTER 3 GOING DEEPER 21</p><p>CLOSING THOUGHTS 26</p><p>BIOSCIENCE CASE STUDIES 27</p><p>CASE STUDY 1THE EFFECT OF MARKING CRITERIA AND EXEMPLARSON STUDENTS LEARNING DURING PEER- AND SELF-ASSESSMENTOF SCIENTIFIC POSTERS 28 </p><p>CASE STUDY 2ON-LINE CALIBRATED PEER-ASSESSMENT STUDENT LEARNING BY MARKING ASSIGNMENTS 31</p><p>CASE STUDY 3PEER-ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC POSTERS THE LEAGUE FIXTURE APPROACH 33</p><p>CASE STUDY 4PEER-ASSESSMENT OF GROUP WORK IN A LARGE CLASS 35DEVELOPMENT OF A STAFF AND STUDENT FRIENDLY SYSTEM</p><p>CASE STUDY 5PEER-ASSESSMENT OF PRACTICAL WRITE-UPSUSING AN EXPLICIT MARKING SCHEDULE 37</p><p>CASE STUDY 6WRITING AND REVIEWING AN ARTICLE FOR A SCIENTIFIC MAGAZINE 41A PEER/SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE</p><p>CASE STUDY 7PEER-ASSESSED PROBLEM-BASED CASE STUDIES 43</p><p>REFERENCES 45</p><p>TEACHING BIOSCIENCE ENHANCING LEARNING</p><p>3</p><p>CONTENTS</p></li><li><p>This guide is for those bioscientists teaching in higher education who are interested inusing self- and peer-assessment in their learning and teaching activities, but who mayfeel they have little understanding of how to go about doing so. Some of the reasons forchoosing self- and peer-assessment as opposed to other assessment methods areoutlined in Table 1 on page 5.</p><p>This book is written to a specific format, made up of three chapters:</p><p>Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter that discusses some concerns about the mostcommon assessment practices within higher education today. Through this under-standing, we can proceed towards illustrating how self- and peer-assessment can be apositive instrument for change. In order to be used effectively, it is helpful to understandthe theoretical learning framework which underpins these student-centred assessmentpractices. Chapter 1 concludes with a discussion on effective learning through self- andpeer-assessment. This chapter is very much about providing a rationale for the need forchange and provides a way in which meaningful change can be brought about. </p><p>Chapter 2 considers in detail how you can get started with self- and peer-assessment.Specific issues related to the effective design, implementation and evaluation of self- andpeer-assessment, such as the central role played by students engaging with markingcriteria are discussed in detail. Here we take a deeper look at those requirements, fromdeveloping marking criteria to the development of a community of practice, providingpractical suggestions in undertaking self- and peer-assessment, whilst illustrating somerequirements for good practice.</p><p>Chapter 3 reflects the world in which students are being prepared. This is a world whichrequires the achievement of complex learning outcomes in order to meet the demands ofemployment and engagement in lifelong learning. Such learning outcomes are part-icularly well served by the application of self- and peer-assessment. The Chapter thenmoves from learning environments that use self- and peer-assessment, such as problem-based and reflective learning, to consider the role of formative and summative assessmentand finally to considering how students and tutors perceive each assessment source.</p><p>The structure of the book is therefore to look at the rationale for using self- and peer-assessment, to outline effective application and finally to see how effective a learning toolboth self- and peer-assessment can be.</p><p>In order to illuminate the role of self- and peer-assessment in practice, this book alsocontains seven bioscience case studies. Expanded versions of these and other casestudies, marking criteria, and video streams of peer-assessment in action, are availablefrom the website supporting this guide (http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/TeachingGuides/). In addition, the chapters draw on a number of specific examples frompublished research of practice, each chosen because they illustrate a particular aspect ofthe assessment process well. Whilst some of these examples are from bioscience, anumber are not, but in these cases the examples can be readily transferred into abiosciences setting.</p><p>SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT PAUL ORSMOND</p><p>4</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/TeachingGuides/</p></li><li><p>TEACHING BIOSCIENCE ENHANCING LEARNING</p><p>5</p><p>TABLE 1. A COMPARISON BETWEEN SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENTAND OTHER ASSESSMENTS</p><p>Self- and Peer-Assessment Other Assessments</p><p>Student-centred. Students often excluded.</p><p>Clear transparent criteria.Norm referenced assessment. Or ifcriteria used, these may be given tostudents without discussion. </p><p>Student empowered. There is a strongsense of personal ownership.</p><p>Students isolated from the assessmentand therefore from the learningprocess.</p><p>Likely to encourage a deep approach tolearning.</p><p>Likely to foster a surface approachto learning.</p><p>Allows students to actively constructtheir learning.</p><p>Does not provide the incentives toconstruct own learning.</p><p>Encourages discussion betweenstudents and tutors. Little discussion, sometimes none.</p><p>Formative feedback.Feedback misunderstandings due tolapse of time or loss of ongoing comm-unication between student and tutor.</p><p>Opportunity to revise or review weakareas of learning.</p><p>Results final, with little point in goingback over boxes ticked.</p><p>More trial and less error in studentlearning.</p><p>Results received too late in the methodto revisit or be useful in learningprocess. Little trial anda lot of error in learning.</p><p>Prepares students for the lifelongongoing journey of learning.</p><p>Often end-point destination onlylearning.</p><p>For peer-assessment often severalassessors.</p><p>One assessor and a moderator or atmost two assessors.</p><p>Provides good opportunities forformative assessment. Little formative assessment.</p><p>Likely to increases studentsconfidence.</p><p>Limited or negative effect onconfidence.</p><p>Increased performance/learning qualityof the learning output. </p><p>Often authentic learning tasks. Rarely authentic learning tasks.</p></li><li><p>SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT PAUL ORSMOND</p><p>6</p><p>1I INVOLVING STUDENTS IN ASSESSMENTThe reason why it is desirable and infinitely sensible to have students involved and central to theassessment process is well illustrated by Boud and Falchikov (1989), teachers have limited access tothe knowledge of their students and in many ways students have greater insights into their ownachievements. The fact that this is not normally recognised in higher education is a serious concern,as reflected by Boud (1995) there is probably more bad practice and ignorance of significant issues inthe area of assessment than in any other aspect of higher education. Assessment acts as a mechanismto control students that is far more pervasive and insidious than most staff would be prepared toacknowledge. This is unfortunate, as assessment is a foundation of student achievement andtherefore regarded as a measure of institutional success. Why, if assessment is so important toundergraduate learning experiences, should bad practice exist?</p><p>There may be a number of reasons for a lack of student involvement. Increasingly in highereducation, there is greater cross-disciplinary teaching taking place. Courses like forensic scienceinvolve tutors from different departments such as biology, chemistry and law, and each departmentmay have their own understanding of assessment within their own structure of assessment policies.Institutions may also be presenting tutors with too many assessment options without looking into orunderstanding them fully. In a recent publication, Knight (2001) presented fifty assessment techniques.For some, this diversity may be heaven sent, but for others it could be thoroughly overwhelming; andwithout guidance, many excellent tutors can be left not knowing where to begin. </p><p>Because of this mix of practice, assessment processes in higher education generate a mixtureof concerns, such as:</p><p>Criteria concerns</p><p> Norm referenced marking; grading students according to how they compare against eachother as a class. Norm referencing may still be the naturally preferred model of assessmentby most markers, Rust et al. (2003).</p><p> Criteria referenced marking, where grading is expressed according to each studentsperformance, may have criteria and individual weightings that are often unclear and notconstructed with the involvement of students. </p><p>Assessment deficiencies</p><p> Learners ill-informed about what they need to know in order to understand or do. Interestingly,Gabb (1981) reported that the only piece of assessment information given to a cohort of studentspreparing to undertake final year projects was the name of the assessor. In response to thislimited information, students deduced and developed their own sets of assessment rules, bywhich they tried to work out how best to pass the assessment.</p><p> The development of a truly hidden and non-transparent curriculum, described by Sambell andMcDowell (1998) as the shadowy, ill-defined and amorphous nature of that which is implicit andembedded in educational experiences in contrast with formal statements about curricula andthe surface features of educational interaction.</p><p>A CONSIDERATION OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT PRACTICE IN HIGHER EDUCATION</p></li><li><p>Tutor folklore</p><p> Community discussions between academics ina field developed through years of experience,concerning assessing and teaching (Edwardsand Knight, 1995).</p><p>Feedback concerns</p><p> Feedback can be given too late to be of benefit.</p><p> Feedback can be diminished in usefulnessbecause students do not understand it orperceive its importance (Chanock, 2000). </p><p>Traditionally, so-called summative assess-ment, (for example, end of module examinations), hasbeen used to determine how much learning hastaken place. Used here, summative refers to an end-point mark, which influences student progression andmay contribute towards their degree classification.Failing an assessment may mean students do notprogress, yet passing does not always indicatemeaningful learning, as demonstrated by thesestudent interview quotes from Brown et al. (1998);you shallow learn for an exam but you dont know thestuff. Its poor learning which you quickly forget, andyou think just let me remember this for the next hourand a half. Then you dont care. These studentsappear to see learning as an end product of assess-ment and view the learning quantitatively, whichmeans that to be a good learner is to know more. Thestudent learning which higher education needs toencourage is qualitative learning, where new materialcan be interpreted and incorporated, so that under-standing is progressively changed through an on-going, updating process (Biggs, 1996).</p><p>Underpinning many existing assessment pro-cesses is the issue of ownership and hence power.When referring to the goal of education, Rogers (2003)made the distinction between authoritarian ordemocratic philosophies. Heron (1992) distinguishedauthority in education as being either benign, lumin-ous and truly educative, or punitive, indoctrinatingand intimidating. It is the latter which formed thebasis for his authoritarian model (so called because ofthe unilateral control of assessment by staff). ForHeron (1988), power lay with those who makedecisions about other people. Students are consider-ed rationally competent to grasp a major discipline,but perversely are not considered competent toengage with the educational decision-making, where-by this grasp may be fully achieved. If, as Heronbelieved, the objective of the process of education isthe emergence of a self-determining person, i.e.someone who can set their own learning objectives</p><p>(outcomes), devise a rational programme to attainthem, set criteria of excellence by which work isassessed and assess their own work, then theunilateral control and assessment of students bystaff means that the process of education is at oddswith the objective of that process (Heron, 1988).</p><p>A NEED FOR CHANGE IN ASSESSMENT PRACTICE</p><p>Sixteen years ago, Heron (1988) thought the time wasripe for an educational change from the authoritarianmodel to one which is student inclusive. Almost tenyears after Herons call for change, came thepublication of Higher Education in the Learning Society.The Dearing Report (1997), as it became known,perhaps noting that little, or no change had occurred,attempted to prime teaching staff in universities tomake a professional commitment to teaching. Dearingaddressed as a priority the improvement of thestudent learning environments, recommended thatlearning and teaching strategies should now focus onthe promotion of student learni...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >