|Contributors||Joseph Bergin, Christian Kohls, Christian Köppe, Yishay Mor, Michel Portier, Till Schümmer, Steven Warburton|
|Last modification||June 6, 2017|
|Source||Bergin et al. (in press 2015); Warburton et al. (2016)|
|Pattern formats||OPR Alexandrian|
Also Known As:, ,
Undocumented assessment criteria are both unfair and impossible to apply. Rate all refined criteria on a sheet.
You have an and found already .
Fairness requires that there be at least rough correspondence between your evaluation of one student and another.
If you must evaluate work at different times, such as a performance or presentation, it can be hard to keep track of how you evaluated the earlier ones. It is possible to get inconsistent.
Some students will surprise you, doing something out of the ordinary, either better or worse than expected.
Undocumented assessment criteria are both unfair and impossible to apply.
Therefore, prepare a sheet (digital or print-out), that lets you easily enter the performance for each of the finer level criteria.
Have fields that let you aggregate the finer level criteria of. By making the performance sheet available to student you support . However, you may consider to skip the criteria refinement to not overwhelm the students. You should also not put on published sheets so that the students are not distracted or misguided by them.
Be sure not to forget any criteria.
You may expect: It is easy to compare between students. Having a standardized performance sheet makes it easier to grade work by two independent reviewers.
However, be aware of mechanic scoring that does not take the individual cases and skills into account.
—Students Define Criteria
—Multiple Paths (allowing different achievements to reach the goal.)
—Performance Matrix (making explicit in team work who was responsible for what)
—Realized by Open Instruments of Assessment.
Examples —One of us used the printed out sheet shown on the left in figure below to write down the detailed performances of teams presenting their project results. The presentation was one criteria of the overall performance. Using an Excel sheet (shown on the right in the figure below) he rated the project results according to several criteria. Another tutor used the same sheet and rated the students independently.
- Bergin, J., Kohls, C., Köppe, C., Mor, Y., Portier, M., Schümmer, T., Warburton, S. (in press 2015). Assessment-Driven Course Design - Fair Play Patterns. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP 2015). New York:ACM
- Pattern also published in Bergin, J., Kohls, C., Köppe, C., Mor, Y., Portier, M., Schümmer, T., & Warburton, S. (2015). Assessment-driven course design foundational patterns. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (EuroPLoP 2015) (p. 31). New York:ACM.
- Patlet also published in Warburton, S., Mor, Y., Kohls, C., Köppe, C., & Bergin, J. (2016). Assessment driven course design: a pattern validation workshop. Presented at 8th Biennial Conference of EARLI SIG 1: Assessment & Evaluation. Munich, Germany.
- Patlet also published in Warburton, S., Bergin, J., Kohls, C., Köppe, C., & Mor, Y. (2016). Dialogical Assessment Patterns for Learning from Others. In Proceedings of the 10th Travelling Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (VikingPLoP 2016). New York:ACM.