|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:;
Ensure that your assessment scheme is visible to your students, from the criteria to the actual tools you use to apply them.
You are teaching in a structured educational situation and have a clearly defined .
Students often do not reflect on their work or evaluate it, either because they do not know how to do it or they don’t see value in doing so. This leads to unproductive work on both the student’s and the teacher’s side, as they didn’t do it right, didn’t do the right thing, or even both.
On the other hand, if students have the idea that they are on the right track but assessment shows they aren’t, then this can be very frustrating and demotivating for them. In that case students think they know how they will be assessed or assume that the assessment will match the way they validate their work themselves.
In some cases, students actually are on the right track, but still could perform better. But they often do not know how to improve their performance.
Students often have misconceptions about what you require of them. If students don’t know where you want them to go, how will they get there?
Therefore, share all elements of your assessment scheme with the learners, from the, through the patterns you use to apply them and the tools you use to implement those. Instruct learners to use these tools to self- and peer-assess their work, and encourage them to debug them, i.e. point out any ambiguities or inconsistencies.
Before the course (or learning activity) starts, provide students with the. These criteria are implemented through your : provide the students with these as much as you can of without compromising the integrity of your assessment. Explicitly demonstrate the of your and your .
In order to maintain your autonomy, you may include elements of. Sometimes you can give students access to the actual instruments you will use. For example, if you use a , you can provide it as is. However, some instruments, such as an exam, rely on concealment. In that case, you can provide equivalent examples such as a .
You may expect: Knowing the details of the assessment reduces student anxiety. Students will perceive the assessment as more fair.
“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants": your students have a clear interest in your assessment criteria and instruments. If these are unclear, ambiguous, incoherent, inconsistent or misaligned - they are sure to point this out to you.
Understanding the rationale behind the assessment will help students align their work (their epistemic practices) with the learning objectives.
Students will reduce their misconceptions of the assessment strategy and by extension of the content to be learnt. Disputes over assessment will be reduced to to a clearer understanding of the assessment criteria and procedures.
If yourand are well thought, they should be a good example for students to follow. By studying these, and using them for and , students will develop their meta-cognitive skills.
However, If your and are not carefully designed, exposing them will narrow the students’ learning to the cases captured in the assessment tools, and reduce the transfer of knowledge to unknown situations. In some cases, students may even “game" the assessment instruments, thus achieving high marks but missing the learning objectives altogether.
—Used byand .
—The University of Surrey provides students free access to Turnitin’s originality checking service.
—Christian Köppe provides students with ain the introductory programming course. This mock exam also contains a grading scheme which is similar to the one used in the real exam.
—OU UK’s course “H817: Openness and innovation in elearning" included a design studio component. Students were provided with the rubric used to assess this component.
—University of Haifa’s course on “Games and Learning" provided students with the scheme that the tutor would use to mark them, and asked them to use the same scheme to mark themselves. The grade they gave themselves was factored into their course grade.
See Also John Hattie’s book on Visible Learning
- 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
- 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.
- Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning. Routledge.