Correlating peer and tutor assessment on a low-stakes engineering assignment

Peer assessment has been a subject of great debate in recent years. The way students perceive assessment and what motivates them when assessing may differ significantly from the tutor. This paper discusses a study designed to correlate students marking with the marks awarded by their tutors when peer assessing one another from in-class oral presentations. A new and alternative approach to correlate results is presented, which is based on the normalisation of the quantitative judgements based on determined criteria. The methodology was blind and holistic, as described in previous works: some guidelines were provided to the students on what is considered acceptable without getting into detail (holistic marking), and peer-assessment marks were made confidential (blind approach). It was observed that students have a tendency to overrate fellow students - especially where lower marks might be awarded. There is, however, direct agreement with the tutors marking in terms of qualitative judgements, which is highlighted by the presented correlation method used to adjust students marks. The presented methodology to correlate marks between the students and tutor showed to be a promising one. After processing the data with this simple and straightforward algorithm, peer and tutor assessment practically showed a perfect match

Changing assessment practice in engineering: how can understanding lecturer perspectives help?

Assessment in engineering disciplines is typically oriented to demonstrating competence in specific tasks. Even where assessments are intended to have a formative component, little priority may be given to feedback. Engineering departments are often criticized, by their students and by external quality reviewers, for paying insufficient attention to formative assessment. The e3an project set out to build a question bank of peer-reviewed questions for use within electrical and electronic engineering. As a part of this process, a number of engineers from disparate institutions were required to work together in teams, designing a range of assessments for their subject specialisms. The project team observed that lecturers were especially keen to develop formative assessment but that their understanding of what might be required varied considerably. This paper describes the various ways in which the processes of the project have engaged lecturers in actively identifying and developing their conceptions of teaching, learning and assessment in their subject. It reports on an interview study that was conducted with a selection of participants. It is concluded that lecturers' reflections on and understanding of assessment are closely related to the nature of the subject domain and that it is essential when attempting to improve assessment practice to start from the perspective of lecturers in the discipline

Introducing a reward system in assessment in histology: A comment on the learning strategies it might engender

BACKGROUND: Assessment, as an inextricable component of the curriculum, is an important factor influencing student approaches to learning. If assessment is to drive learning, then it must assess the desired outcomes. In an effort to alleviate some of the anxiety associated with a traditional discipline-based second year of medical studies, a bonus system was introduced into the Histology assessment. Students obtaining a year mark of 70% were rewarded with full marks for some tests, resulting in many requiring only a few percentage points in the final examination to pass Histology. METHODS: In order to ascertain whether this bonus system might be impacting positively on student learning, thirty-two second year medical students (non-randomly selected, representing four academic groups based on their mid-year results) were interviewed in 1997 and, in 1999, the entire second year class completed a questionnaire (n = 189). Both groups were asked their opinions of the bonus system. RESULTS: Both groups overwhelming voted in favour of the bonus system, despite less than 45% of students failing to achieve it. Students commented that it relieved some of the stress of the year-end examinations, and was generally motivating with regard to their work commitment. CONCLUSIONS: Being satisfied with how and what we assess in Histology, we are of the opinion that this reward system may contribute to engendering appropriate learning approaches (i.e. for understanding) in students. As a result of its apparent positive influence on learning and attitudes towards learning, this bonus system will continue to operate until the traditional programme is phased out. It is hoped that other educators, believing that their assessment is a reflection of the intended outcomes, might recognise merit in rewarding students for consistent achievement

Between trust and control:Teachers' assessment conceptualisations within programmatic assessment

Programmatic assessment attempts to facilitate learning through individual assessments designed to be low-stakes and used only for high-stakes decisions when aggregated. In practice, low-stakes assessments have yet to reach their potential as catalysts for learning. Due to the powerful role teachers play in utilising assessment to support learning, we explored how teachers conceptualise assessments within programmatic assessment and how they engage with learners in assessment relationships.publishe