Assessment: reports from the ATN Conference (III)
Assessing in the disciplines: focus is on self and peer assessment
Three papers, across three disciplines (nursing, media, education), each providing an example of how these assessment forms are working.
Using peer and self-assessment with academic moderation… (Warland)
This approach was based on literature that asserts peer and self assessment improves quality of learning; generates reflection on learning; gives increased confidence and independence and responsibility. Literature also provides some negatives – lack of comfort and confidence from students in judging; worries about doing it accurately and correctly for grading. Thus Warland only used the peer assessment for formative (not grading) assessment. The context is a real-world ward setting for student nurses to learn practical skills (time management, people skills etc); two-day workshop, with simulation day (playing roles of nurse, patient, relatives, doctors, etc) and activities on second day, more independent, less closely monitored by the teacher (increasing chance of peer feedback). Use of assessment rubric – students judged themselves and a peer – also provided open-ended comment. Rubric based on nursing profession / university graduate attributes (scale 1-10). Surey of students about their experience indicated high levels of agreement with the value of the approach and the effectiveness of the way it was conducted. Little worry reported about the process. Concludes with useful comment re ‘imperfect’ feedback – rapid, and located within the students own world; quicker and closer to the students and their activity. From academic perspective, the rubrics speeded up the marking – teacher used the rubrics to guide her assessment and do it more quickly (essentially moderating the feedback and giving a grade on it). Notably, by taking the pressure off ‘the grade’, students happy to give feedback – what perhaps this conclusions implies is that lecturers may themselves do better in feedback if not grading.
Transitioning media students for self and peer directed assessment (Wilson)
A key idea: the need for programs (courses) to develop consistent narratives which sustain approaches to student assessment and learning. The idea of a program narrative is vital, but also should be understood as an iterative process based on changes from year to year. There need to be consistent transitional processes, moving students from a presumed lack of knowledge about self assessment through to a more mature, adult and independent mode of assessment (based on Kift’s work on the first-year experience).
Context is the media program, and the assessment change was part of a broader review of what the outcomes should be, the focus of the curriculum and so on. Clear that the program renewal involved debates and arguments among staff about the extent of self and peer assessment: for example, the initial expectation was that by 3rd year peer assessment would be at 75%. This goal proved hard to achieve. Claims that CEQ and other surveys prove the benefit of the approach; recognition from ALTC.
Heart of the change and the commitment to peer assessment (in the face of opposition from staff and students) is the shared vision of what the professional media workers needs to be. To sustain the commitment to peer assessment, also, cites the work of Perry (in Nilson, 2003) about the way students and people move from a position of imagining there are right and wrong answers, judged by authorities, through various stages of relativism, to an end point of commitment – of making judgments of what is right, according to self perception of broader contexts. One of the critical links between this assessment approach and the graduate attributes is the idea that students are forming a community of peers and that peer judgments of their self assessment practices are essential. The students learn the ethics, practicalities and similar process issues involved in assessing oneself. Concludes by emphasising the consistency of the narrative across the program, and the need for legitimate rationales that are sensible in terms of graduate outcomes.
Using self and peer assessment to enhance students’ future learning in higher education (Thomas et al.)
Context: it is part of an ALTC distributed leadership project around assessment; nice quote “some assessment even seems to encourage learning”, but as Thomas asks “does our assessment actually encourage learning that is important in the future (post-graduation)?” To achieve this, assessment needs to require students to judge their own learning: “part of becoming an accomplished and effective professional”. Notes the way these approaches involve academic socialisation.
One critical issue: teacher-driven self assessment might socialise students into being ‘like the teacher’; in terms of looking beyond graduation, perhaps the way students will assess needs to be not at all like the teacher might do. [Yet this raises the inevitable conflict between education for practice, and education for certification].
Notes another barrier to acceptance by students – can be seen as laziness by lecturer (Cassidy, 2007 cited); need to actively promote a shift in responsibility and yet also power. [ I would, on reflection, add that making the powerless (students) responsible makes the situation worse; empowering students such that they expect the responsibility leads to success]. As with other speakers, resistance from other staff was encountered, especially around the question of reliability: [what generates this obsession with reliability? Is it fear of negative comments from outside, or a desire to remain empowered to judge the worth of others and thus sustain one’s own self-construct as important?]
A key point: while electronic peer assessment tools appear to offer advantages, they all come with in-built assumptions about the process which, for Thomas, did not sit well; he therefore used manual processes but judged that the time taken was no more than other methods.
Evidence from the research into effectiveness of process: yes, many students enjoy it or accept it; others though point to a major hurdle – the lack of quality in peers’ work – if they read work which indicates a peer is not good at the subject, they lack the confidence in their judgment.
Must clarify the intentions and purposes: students do NOT understand why we do innovative and different approaches and need to assisted to learn;