Fostering a culture shift in assessment and feedback

through TESTA

Professor Tansy JessopBirkbeck College

15 February 2017

Checking in

1. One thing you already know about TESTA2. One problem you have faced with assessment3. One problem you have faced with feedback4. One blue skies idea to address a problem

This session

1. Brief overview of TESTA2. Why people find it useful3. Three problems TESTA addresses4. Four themes in the data5. Solutions: a taster

Mixed Methods approach

Programme Team

Meeting

Assessment Experience

Questionnaire(AEQ)

TESTAProgramme

Audit

Student Focus Groups

Sustained growth

TESTA….

“…is a way of thinking about assessment and feedback”

Graham Gibbs

It enables you to see the whole elephant

Three problemsThree problems

Problem 1: Something awry not sure why

Problem 2: Curriculum design problem Problem 3: The problem of educational change

Problem 1: ‘Not sure why’ problem

Problem 2: Curriculum design problem

Does IKEA 101 work for complex learning?

Curriculum privileges ‘knowing’ stuff

“Content is often the most visible aspect for students, the control of which is frequently devolved to individual academics, who receive little or no training in curriculum design and planning”

(Blackmore and Kandiko 2014, 7).

Blunt instrument curriculum

Problem 3: Educational change problem

Three misguided assumptions:

1. There is not enough high quality data.

2. Data will do it

3. Academics will buy it.

http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/study-overview/

Proving is different from improving

“It is incredibly difficult to translate assessment evidence into improvements in student learning”

“It’s far less risky and complicated to analyze data than it is to act”

(Blaich & Wise, 2011)

Paradigm What it looks like

Technical rational Focus on data and tools

Relational Focus on people

Emancipatory Focus on systems and structures

TESTA themes and impacts

1. Variations in assessment patterns2. High summative: low formative3. Disconnected feedback4. Lack of clarity about goals and standards

Defining the terms

• Summative assessment carries a grade which counts toward the degree classification.

• Formative assessment does not count towards the degree (either pass/fail or a grade), elicits comments and is required to be done by all students.

1. Huge variations

• What is striking for you about this data?

• How does it compare with your context?

• Does variation matter?

Assessment features across a 3 year UG degree (n=73)Characteristic Range

Summative 12 -227

Formative 0 - 116

Varieties of assessment 5 - 21

Proportion of examinations 0% - 87%

Time to return marks & feedback 10 - 42 days

Volume of oral feedback 37 -1800 minutes

Volume of written feedback 936 - 22,000 words

Theme 2: High summative: low formative

• Summative ‘pedagogies of control’

• Circa 2 per module in UK

• Ratio of 1:8 of formative to summative

• Formative weakly understood and practised

Assessment Arms Race

What students say about high summative

• A lot of people don’t do wider reading. You just focus on your essay question.

• In Weeks 9 to 12 there is hardly anyone in our lectures. I'd rather use those two hours of lectures to get the assignment done.

• It’s been non-stop assignments, and I’m now free of assignments until the exams – I’ve had to rush every piece of work I’ve done.

What students say about formative

• If there weren’t loads of other assessments, I’d do it.

• If there are no actual consequences of not doing it, most students are going to sit in the bar.

• It’s good to know you’re being graded because you take it more seriously.

• The lecturers do formative assessment but we don’t get any feedback on it.

Good cop, bad cop?

1) Low-risk, more frequent opportunities for students to learn from feedback (Sadler, 1989)

2) Helps students to fine-tune and understand requirements and standards (Boud 2000, Nicol, 2006)

3) Feedback to lecturers from formative tasks helps to adapt teaching (Hattie, 2009)

4) Engages students in cycles of reflection and collaboration (Biggs 2003; Nicol & McFarlane Dick 2006)

5) Encourages and distributes student effort (Gibbs 2004).

Why formative matters

So, how do we do it?

Five case studies of successful formative

Your task will be to identify the principles that make them work

How could you adapt them?

Case Study 1: Business School

• Reduction from average 2 x summative, zero formative per module

• …to 1 x summative and 3 x formative• Required by students in entire business school• All working to similar script• Systematic shift, experimentation, less risky

together

Case Study 2: Social Sciences

• Education, Sociology and PGCAP degrees• Problem: silent seminar, students not reading• Public platform blogging• Current academic texts• In-class• Threads and live discussion• Linked to summative

Case Study 3: Media degree

• Media degree• Presentations formative• Students get feedback (peer and tutor)• Refines their thinking for…• Linked summative essay

Case study 4: Film and TV

• Seminar• Problem: lack of discrimination about sources• Students bring 1 x book, 1 x chapter, 1 x

journal article, 2 x pop culture articles• Justify choices to group• Reach consensus about five best sources

Case study 5: Engineering

• Engineering• Problem low averages• Course requirement to complete 50 problems• Peer assessed in six ‘lecture’ slots• Marks do not count• Lectures, problems, classes, exams unchanged• Exam marks increased from 45% to 85%

Your task

• In groups, identify five principles for making formative work. Write them down on flipchart paper.

• Devise one or two adaptations for your discipline, using the principles, and make one poster which outlines/draws your adaptation. You can be creative!

Theme 3: Disconnected feedback

Take five

• Choose a quote that strikes you.

• What is the key issue?

• What strategies might address this issue?

What students say…

It’s difficult because your assignments are so detached from the next one you do for that subject. They don’t relate to each other.

Because it’s at the end of the module, it doesn’t feed into our future work.

Because they have to mark so many that our essay becomes lost in the sea that they have to mark.

It was like ‘Who’s Holly?’ It’s that relationship where you’re just a student.

Actions based on evidence

• Conversation: who starts the dialogue?• Iterative cycles of reflection across modules• Quick generic feedback: the ‘Sherlock’ factor• Feedback synthesis tasks• Technology: audio, screencast and blogging• From feedback as ‘telling’…• … to feedback as asking questions

Theme 4: Confusion about goals and standards

• Consistently low scores on the AEQ for clear goals and standards

• Alienation from the tools, especially criteria and guidelines

• Symptoms: perceptions of marker variation, unfair standards and inconsistencies in practice

What the literature says…

Marking is important. The grades we give students and the decisions we make about whether they pass or fail coursework and examinations are at the heart of our academic standards (Bloxham, Boyd and Orr 2011).

Grades matter (Sadler 2009).

What the papers say…

https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/examiners-give-hugely-different-marks/2019946.article

QAA: a paradigm of accountability

• Learning outcomes• Criteria-based learning• Meticulous specification• Written discourse• Generic discourse (Woolf 2004)• ‘Validating practices’ (Shay 2004) • Intended to reduce the arbitrariness of staff

decisions (Sadler 2009).

What students say…We’ve got two tutors- one marks completely differently to the other and it’s pot luck which one you get.

They have different criteria, they build up their own criteria.

It’s such a guessing game.... You don’t know what they expect from you.

They read the essay and then they get a general impression, then they pluck a mark from the air.

What’s going wrong here?

There are criteria, but I find them really strange. There’s “writing coherently, making sure the argument that you present is backed up with evidence”. Q: If you could change one thing to improve what would it be?A: More consistent marking, more consistency across everything and that they would talk to each other.

Is this quite ‘normal’?

Differences between markers are not ‘error’, but rather the inescapable outcome of the multiplicity of perspectives that assessors bring with them (Shay 2005, 665).

The tension between ‘the scientific aspirations of assessment technologies to represent an objective reality and the unavoidable subjectivities injected by the human focus of these technologies’ (Broadfoot 2002, 157).

Explicit WrittenI justify

Co-creation and participation

Active engagement by students

Having ‘an eye for a dog’

The Art and Science of Evaluation

Judging is both an art and a science: It is an art because the decisions with which a judge is constantly faced are very often based on considerations of an intangible nature that cannot be recognized intuitively. It is also a science because without a sound knowledge of a dog’s points and anatomy, a judge cannot make a proper assessment of it whether it is standing or in motion.

Take them round please: the art of judging dogs (Horner, T 1975).

Marking as social practice

The typical technologies of our assessment and moderation systems – marking memorandum, double-marking, external examiners – privilege reliability. These technologies are not in themselves problematic. The problem is our failing to use these technologies as opportunities for dialogue about what we really value as assessors, individually and as communities of practice

(Shay 2005).

Marking as social practice

Taking action: internalising goals and standards•Regular calibration exercises•Discussion and dialogue•Discipline specific criteria (no cut and paste)Lecturers

•Rewrite/co-create criteria•Marking exercises •Exemplars

Lecturers and students

•Enter secret garden - peer review•Engage in drafting processes•Self-reflection

Students

From this educational paradigm…

Transmission Model

Social Constructivist Model

ReferencesArum, R. and Roska, J. 2011. Academically Adrift. Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.Blaich, C., & Wise, K. (2011). From Gathering to Using Assessment Results: Lessons from the Wabash National Study. Paper #8. University of Illinois: National Institution for Learning Outcomes Assessment.Boud, D. and Molloy, E. (2013) ‘Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), pp. 698–712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions r which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 1(1): 3-31.Harland, T., McLean, A., Wass, R., Miller, E. and Sim, K. N. (2014) ‘An assessment arms race and its fallout: High-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Jessop, T. and Tomas, C. 2016 The implications of programme assessment on student learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Published online 2 August 2016. Jessop, T. and Maleckar, B. (2014). The Influence of disciplinary assessment patterns on student learning: a comparative study. Studies in Higher Education. Published Online 27 August 2014 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075079.2014.943170Jessop, T. , El Hakim, Y. and Gibbs, G. (2014) The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: a large-scale study of students’ learning in response to different assessment patterns. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 39(1) 73-88.Nicol, D. (2010) From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35: 5, 501 – 517.Perry, William 1981. Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning. In Chickering, A. (1981) The Modern American College. San Francisco. Jossey Bass. O'Donovan, B , Price, M. and Rust, C. (2008) 'Developing student understanding of assessment standards: a nested hierarchy of approaches', Teaching in Higher Education, 13: 2, 205 — 217Sadler, D. R. (1989) ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional Science, 18(2), pp. 119–144. doi: 10.1007/bf00117714.