Reading Time: 4 minutes

Introduction

Assessment is core to all study – all students expect to be assessed on the work that they do. While we aim not to “teach to the test” – teaching to ensure students can succeed is critical.

We’ll be looking today at both formative assessment or, as it’s also called, “assessment for learning”, and summative assessment.

A silhouette of a head - facing a questionmark, with cog wheels in the brain area.

Links to the Exemplary Module Framework

Section 5 – Assessment:  The module orientation/module engagement plan should clearly outline how students will be assessed including submission and feedback information as required and should align with the module descriptor 
There are clear links between this and section 6 – Learning Materials and Resources

Links to Blend Your Module

In Blend Your Module, we looked at the whole process of blending a module. Assessment and Feedback are critical throughout the process – and indeed, there are a lot of overlaps, particularly with Learning Materials (which we will look at in the next post). In this post we’ll particularly think about

Summative Assessment

When asked about Assessment, most staff and students focus on exams / coursework / research projects etc. – those elements that you have linked to the final overall module grade. These will have already been through a series of reviews, so at the point of designing a module,  you should already know what they’re going to be.

In the module template, you have an assessment folder, placeholders for the overall assessment schedule, space to add in assessment briefs and submission points. It’s also a good idea to include guidance to any tools you’ll be using for assessment, whether that’s Turnitin for similarity checking, or a different external tool such as Mobiius

If you’ve read “The Bigger Picture” in Blend your Module, you will already be familiar with ideas of alignment; do the activities in your course make it possible for the learners to succeed in the assessment.

Formative assessment

While you may not have the ability to change the summative assessments for this academic year, you can look at the formative assessments. For many of these, they’re often assessment for learning

In many cases, what’s of real value to students is the feedback, not the grade (though students may think otherwise…)

There are many things that can help with informal assessment – talking to colleagues around the university here are just some of them.

In the class

  • Using Mentimeter to get quick feedback on content
  • Blackboard mobile quizzes
    • We even have staff in the Medical school who create a quiz that students do twice – firstly individually, and then in a group -to discuss the questions. They’re doing it as part of their team based learning
    • Remember, to really make multiple choice quizzes useful for students, don’t just tell them if they’re right or wrong, rather remind them of why the answer was correct (in case it was a lucky guess) and give them hints to point them to the right answer if not.
  • Peer feedback. In DJCAD, students frequently give each other feedback as part of their crits; but it’s also possible to use Turnitin to allow students to give each other feedback on drafts of work. Students often learn as much from others’ work as they do from comments on theirs.
  • Could you get students to create questions, based on this week’s work to be used with the rest of the class? Perhaps you could use Padlet to enable this?
  • How about getting students to co-create part of the assessment criteria?

In their own time

We’ve mentioned quizzes above, and often quizzes are done independently. Other ideas that can be useful for independent activities may include

  • Reflective journals – should you be marking these, or should you encourage students to use them to help draw together aspects of the course; perhaps as a useful talking point in meetings with advisors of study?
  • Using the narration tools in Windows/Office/Mac – can be very powerful to do proof reading for students. It’s often easy when reading your own work to read what you thought you wrote. Hearing it read out loud, even by an automated voice, can show quirks
  • One of Turnitin’s strengths is to allow students to see their similarity report – often students can see where they’re made errors, though they’ll probably need support initially to understand how to rectify the issue.
  • If you use the Padlet LTI tool, to integrate into My Dundee, you can set it to give each student their own (private) padlet – though it might be too soon to add that in as a summative assessment, it could be another way to support student reflection.

 

Accessibility and Legal considerations

How can you ensure parity in assessment? Will giving students the choice between media to submit content in (e.g. the choice between a podcast, or a reflective essay) ensure that students can focus just on the reflection, rather than the production of it?

Resources

Relevant 101 sessions

Other LearningX series

External Resources

Mary Washington Refocus – Assessment

Interesting ways to support online learning(Library login required), This book by Rhona Sharpe has long been a staple of an online tutor. There are many suggestions in here – which you may find useful for formative assessment. 

Edinburgh Reflection Toolkit. If you are asking your students to reflect, you may find some of the ideas in this tool kit invaluable.

Crowd sourcing Technology Enhanced Assessment – this was a session at the ALT summer conference – it’s a video of about 22 minutes.

Slade, C., Curtis, G. J., & Thomson, S. (2024). Understanding how and why students use academic file-sharing and homework-help websites: implications for academic integrity. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2349290
Ellis, C., & Murdoch, K. (2024). The educational integrity enforcement pyramid: a new framework for challenging and responding to student cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2329167
Vallor, S. (2022). The AI Mirror: Reclaiming our Humanity in an Age of Machine Thinking. Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3539567
Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. Oxford and Cambridge Review190. https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/Machine_stops.pdf
Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(06). https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Vu, B. H., Postma, D., Hickerson, D., McGaughran, J., & Khuat, H. Q. (2024). GenAI Detection Tools, Adversarial Techniques and Implications for Inclusivity in Higher Education (No. arXiv:2403.19148). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.19148
Kaur, A., Noori Hoshyar, A., Saikrishna, V., Firmin, S., & Xia, F. (2024). Deepfake video detection: challenges and opportunities. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(6), 159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10810-6
Roe, J., & Perkins, M. (2024). Deepfakes and Higher Education: A Research Agenda and Scoping Review of Synthetic Media (No. arXiv:2404.15601). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.15601
Slade, C., Curtis, G. J., & Thomson, S. (2024). Understanding how and why students use academic file-sharing and homework-help websites: implications for academic integrity. Higher Education Research & Development, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2349290
Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(06). https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36
Blog, S. N. (2024, March 28). My Marking Life: The Role of Emotional Labour in delivering Audio Feedback to HE Students. SRHE Blog. https://srheblog.com/2024/03/28/my-marking-life-the-role-of-emotional-labour-in-delivering-audio-feedback-to-he-students/
Anders. (n.d.). C2C Digital Magazine (Spring/Summer 2023): The SHARE technique for designing assignments and assessments in the age of AI. C2C Digital Magazine (Spring/Summer 2023). Retrieved April 22, 2024, from https://scalar.usc.edu/works/c2c-digital-magazine-springsummer-2023/share-technique
Gilani, D. (2024). Student attitudes and preferences towards communications from their university – a meta-analysis of student communications research within UK higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2024.2344234
McCarthy, G., & Rogerson, A. (2009). Links are not enough: Using originality reports to improve academic standards, compliance and learning outcomes among postgraduate students. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v5i2.613
Gottardello, D., & Karabag, S. F. (2024). Understanding How Faculty Members Act When Faced with Plagiarism: A Cross-Cultural Study. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1201–1222). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_131
McCarthy, G., & Rogerson, A. (2009). Links are not enough: Using originality reports to improve academic standards, compliance and learning outcomes among postgraduate students. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v5i2.613
Gottardello, D., & Karabag, S. F. (2024). Understanding How Faculty Members Act When Faced with Plagiarism: A Cross-Cultural Study. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1201–1222). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_131
Eaton, S. E. (Ed.). (2024). Second Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5
Eaton, S. E. (Ed.). (2024). Second Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5
Masterman, E. (2017). Addressing inconsistency in use of the LMS: A collaborative approach. H. Partridge, K. Davis, & J. Thomas.(Eds.), Me, Us, IT, 312–321.
Hamill, D. (2020). Using Blackboard (VLE) to support teaching practice of academic staff in response to COVID-19. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 12(3). https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/485
Baines, S., Boucas, S. B., & Otermans, P. C. J. (2023). Using a Survey and Discussion Forums on Students’ Satisfaction and Experience to Inform the Development of a New Virtual Leaning Environment (VLE): A Data-Driven Approach to Technology Use in Learning and Teaching. International Journal of Technology in Education, 6(4), 620–634. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1408879
McMullan, T., Williams, D., Ortiz, Y. L., & Lollar, J. (2022). Is Consistency Possible? Course Design and Delivery to Meet Faculty and Student Needs. Current Issues in Education, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol23iss3.2092
Stephen, D. (2019, January 8). Card sorting has informed a new information architecture for Learn courses – Website and Communications Blog. https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/website-communications/card-sorting-has-informed-a-new-information-architecture-for-learn-courses/
Gribble, Z., & Jisc, J. S. (n.d.). VLE review report 2020.
QAA Scotland. (2023). Quality Enhancement and Standards Review University of Dundee. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/reports/university-of-dundee-qesr-23.pdf?sfvrsn=a8caac81_6
Anthology. (2023). Anthology Exemplary Course Program Rubric | Anthology. https://www.anthology.com/material/anthology-exemplary-course-program-rubric
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321
QAA Scotland. (2019). Enhancement-led Institutional Review of  University of Dundee (ELIR, p. 26) [Technical Report]. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/reports/university-of-dundee-elir-technical-18.pdf?sfvrsn=d416c381_8
QAA Scotland. (2019). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: University of Dundee, Outcome Report, November 2018 (ELIR) [Outcome Report]. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/reports/university-of-dundee-elir-outcome-18.pdf?sfvrsn=211fc381_14
Petrie, K., & Lafferty, N. (2017). Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Review, 2017 (p. 26) [L&T Committee].
YSJ Tel Blog. (2015, April 2). Minimum Expectations in Moodle - Student Survey. Technology Enhanced Learning. https://blog.yorksj.ac.uk/moodle/2015/04/02/minimum-expectations-in-moodle-student-survey/
Reed, P., & Watmough, S. (2015). Hygiene factors: Using VLE minimum standards to avoid student dissatisfaction. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753014558379
institutional VLE template and guidance. (n.d.).
uch VLE policies typically stipulate to staff the required or recommended course information and content to be provided for students. (n.d.).
These expectations concern the consistent use of the VLE for course administration and content. (n.d.).
Brew, M., Taylor, S., Lam, R., Havemann, L., & Nerantzi, C. (2023). Towards Developing AI Literacy: Three Student Provocations on AI in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.8032386
Ellis, C., & Murdoch, K. (2024). The educational integrity enforcement pyramid: a new framework for challenging and responding to student cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2329167
Moniz, J. R. A., Krishnan, S., Ozyildirim, M., Saraf, P., Ates, H. C., Zhang, Y., Yu, H., & Rajshree, N. (2024). ReALM: Reference Resolution As Language Modeling (No. arXiv:2403.20329). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.20329
Zeivots, S., & Shalavin, C. A. (2024). Codesigning Meaningful Engagement with Online Course Readings: Implications for Teaching Management Courses. Academy of Management Learning & Education, amle.2022.0364. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2022.0364
Mennella, T., & Quadros-Mennella, P. (2024). Student Use, Performance and Perceptions of ChatGPT on College WritingAssignments. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.53761/pgwk1a93
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., Saddiqui, S., & Rozenberg, P. (2019). Contract cheating and assessment design: exploring the relationship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892
Luo (Jess), J. (2024). A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment: a call to reconsider the “originality” of students’ work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963
Eaton, S. E. (2024). Decolonizing academic integrity: knowledge caretaking as ethical practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2312918
Newton, P., & Xiromeriti, M. (2024). ChatGPT performance on multiple choice question examinations in higher education. A pragmatic scoping review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2299059
Drumm, L., Illingworth, S., Graham, C., Calabrese, P., Taylor, S., Dencer-Brown, I., & van Knippenberg, I. (2023). “ChatGPT & Me” Student Padlet Data With Reactions. https://doi.org/10.17869/enu.2023.3200728
Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2023). Navigating the generative AI era: Introducing the AI assessment scale for ethical GenAI assessment (No. arXiv:2312.07086). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.07086

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *