Day 10: All about Assessment

Berfu Aydin Baskaya (Specialist Tutor from Economics); Christopher Bateman (Learning Innovation Officer), Lynn Currie (Lecturer in Accounting) and Danielle Durham (Learning Innovation Officer); and Peter Moult (Lecturer in the Psychology & Neuroscience Education Hub) share their thoughts and experiences on assessment within Higher Education. Before you read their insights, here’s blast from the past.

Using Self Assessments as Metacognition Tool by Ayse Berfu Aydin Baskaya

The term ‘metacognition’ was first defined by Flavell in 1970s which is defined as the awareness and control of one’s own cognitive processes in the learning process (Flavell, 1979)

Metacognitive processes include self-awareness, self-regulation, reflection, self-assessment, and the ability to modify and adapt cognitive and emotional functions towards their learning goal. (Drigas and Mitsea,2020) Briefly, it refers to what learners know about their own strengths and weaknesses about learning (Moritz and Lysaker, 2018)

The learners normally differ from each in terms of their strengths, weaknesses, awareness, attention, speed of learning and prior knowledge. The skill of monitoring learner’s own learning outcomes provides choosing the appropriate study strategies. Inaccurate self-assessment may result in the selection of ineffective study strategies and, ultimately, poor performance on classroom assignments and examinations (Grimes, 2002).

Considering the transition from a teacher-centred to a student-centred education system, the metacognition approach has become a crucial element in the learning process. Especially, encouraging students to actively track their self-assessment outcomes is necessary to achieve their goals.

Implementing Self-Assessment Tools for Metacognition in Higher Level Economics Courses

One approach for metacognition may be to start each course with some self-assessment activities which helps students to assess how much they know basic concepts and relevant skills that will be used in the course. Self-assessment tools to check what was covered in previous years can be valuable especially for the higher-level courses which require knowledge and skills from lower-level courses.

For instance, studying economic growth with a stylized model such as the Solow growth model requires utilization of the topics covered in earlier macroeconomics and microeconomics courses. These topics may include basic concepts of production functions with constant returns to scale which is typically covered in introduction and intermediate level microeconomics courses, and topics like determinants of investments and basic knowledge of consumption and saving, which are typically covered in introduction and intermediate level macroeconomics courses.

In such a setting, attaining higher level of cognitive skills may require students to review different relevant materials. However, different students may have different needs, and this may not be visible to the lecturer. As a result, attaining higher order cognitive skills may also benefit from students’ ability to own of their own learning journey and identify potential areas of development. They can further benefit from the flexibility for them to focus on areas where they need more preparation.

Furthermore, integrating ongoing monitoring activities alongside these initial self-assessments can facilitate the development of higher-order cognitive skills and improved overall learning outcomes. For example, each lecture may start and end with short self-assessment practices, mostly conducted with the help of technological tools, such as online quiz platforms so that learners can get a real-time feedback on how much they learned during that lecture.

In conclusion, the use of self-assessment tools in economics courses, by revisiting foundational concepts from prior courses and using self-assessments to identify areas for review, students can better prepare themselves for complex topics that integrate previous knowledge. This enables students to effectively plan, monitor, and evaluate their attainment of learning outcomes in a timely manner.

Reference:

Drigas, A. and Mitsea, E., 2020. The 8 pillars of metacognition. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(21), pp.162-178.

Flavell, J.H., 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), p.906.

Grimes, P.W., 2002. The overconfident principles of economics student: An examination of a metacognitive skill. The Journal of Economic Education, 33(1), pp.15-30.

Moritz, S. and Lysaker, P.H., 2018. Metacognition–what did James H. Flavell really say and the implications for the conceptualization and design of metacognitive interventions. Schizophrenia Research, 201, pp.20-26.

Ayse Berfu Aydin Baskaya

Specialist Tutor-Adam Smith Business School

Optionality in Assessment: How a small choice can make a big impact – Christopher Bateman, Lynn Currie and Danielle Durham

Optionality in Assessment: How a small choice can make a big impact 

What is optionality in assessment?  

Bovill et al. (2016) outline that ‘co-creation of learning and teaching occurs when staff and students collaborate with one another to create components of curricula and/or pedagogical approaches’. There are different levels of co-creation, as shown in the ladder of participation below. Offering options in assessment is a form of co-creation at the lower end of the ladder (limited choice from prescribed choices). 

Ladder of Participation in Curriculum Design​ (Bovill & Bulley, 2011, p180)​ 

Why implement optionality in assessment?

Lynn: I was initially drawn to doing this to help make presentations more inclusive for my second year Accounting and Finance course. For many students, whether due to disability or otherwise, presenting can be a daunting experience. Co-creation is a pedagogical approach which can enhance inclusivity of assessment (Bovill 2020), however the benefits of co-creation go far beyond inclusivity.  

The literature shows that staff/student co-creation can also increase student engagement/motivation, allow them to take more ownership of their learning, and enhance the relationship between staff and students; all areas that are essential to developing a life-long learner mindset (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). 

How did we implement optionality in assessment?

The ASBS learning innovation team (LIT) and I worked together to design in optionality to the summative assessment for a second-year course with approximately 120 students, with myself acting as the subject matter expert, and the LIT providing pedagogical advice/support. The students were offered choice in the delivery of their assessment; either an in-person presentation, or a recorded one.

We worked together to ensure the two options were equitable in terms of workload (a concern raised in the literature, O’Neill, 2017) and to design an assessment brief that would support students in making the choice, by highlighting the differences between the options, and what skills they would develop. We also worked together to design an appropriate rubric that could be used to assess either option.

What did students think? 

It was extremely well received by the students. 89% agreed or strongly agreed that the experience improved their engagement in the assessment. 93% agreed or strongly agreed that the assessment was inclusive to their needs which is in line with the benefits the literature highlights.

Some examples of comments from the students include:

 “It made me feel like I had a level of autonomy so getting involved felt more like a choice that a chore.”  

“The most beneficial part was that we felt that we had control over our assessment in the sense that we could pick the best assessment opportunity that would showcase our skills”  

“As you were given the opportunity for independence you felt more valued in your course and enthusiastic to participate. Also, when choosing your method of presentation, you now had a sense of responsibility to contribute as you chose this activity.” 

What did we think?

Lynn: It was really simple to incorporate optionality in the assessment and it was really valued by the students. I was able to offer students choice which in turn made for a more inclusive, engaged experience. It has given me the confidence to try new approaches in my teaching and to never underestimate the power of working with others. The ASBS LIT were invaluable in the success of this approach and they are a team I know I can reach out to for future teaching innovation support.  

I think it is important that when offering options in assessment that it is considered at a program level. For example, if everyone across a programme offered options there is the risk that students would never experience a particular skill or mode of assessment. It is also important to be mindful of the stage the students are at and how much choice is appropriate. If I was to offer complete flexibility in the mode of assesment for example, students could become overwhelmed.  

Danielle & Chris (LIT): This example of staff/student co-creation is a great entry point for anyone considering this approach, as it provided great benefits to the students without too much change for the course co-ordinator, allowing confidence to build. There are numerous possibilities for extending optionality to topics, assignment formats etc. but equity and consistency of marking are key considerations in design. We also found that spending time explaining the purpose and benefits of this approach was essential to the success of the intervention, although we would develop this further in the future to emphasise what skills students are developing through this activity.

References  

Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A Model of Active Student Participation in Curriculum Design: Exploring Desirability and Possibility. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations (pp. 176-188). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Educational Development. 

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felton, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016) 

Bovill, C. Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education. High Educ 79, 1023–1037 (2020) 

Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners 

O’Neill, G. (2017). It’s not fair! Students and staff views on the equity of the procedures and outcomes of students’ choice of assessment methods. Irish Educational Studies, 36(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2017.1324805 

Boosting engagement & employability skills:

Boosting engagement & employability skills: Co-designed practical classes and authentic assessment ignite student passion – Dr Peter Moult, University of Glasgow

The perfect storm?

After several years of teaching various Life Sciences courses across UK Higher Education institutes, one thing has become very clear to me; practical provision across degrees and across institutions is patchy at best. Wet laboratory classes form the cornerstone of any undergraduate life sciences degree. These lab classes are often designed by the educator, with limited consultation of the learner. They are often variations on historical classes taught over the years, not evolving to meet the ever-changing skillset demanded by employers within the Life Sciences sector.

Increasing student numbers across the sector has put pressures on capacity, resources, and staff, stifling the ability to become innovative in evolving laboratory class provision that links to authentic assessment. These same pressures are also reducing the capacity to provide meaningful, laboratory based, investigative final year projects for all those students who desire them.

Could this be a coming perfect storm which may fuel a Life Sciences skills shortage among graduates?

There have been many welcome reports and initiatives to increase participation in STEM¹, but are we meeting employability skills demand once we have the students on our degree programs? I would argue possibly not. We certainly are not evolving our provision fast enough to meet the constantly updating demands of the sector.

A perfect solution?

Co-creation of the curriculum with student partners fosters a greater sense of ownership and belonging to a course and has been widely linked to positive outcomes in terms of professional development and employability skills^2,3. The students are more likely to engage with the skills training if they’ve been an integral partner in the design.

Here I suggest a scalable solution that incorporates co-creation of the curriculum with final year student partners as part of our final year project provision enabling the evolution of junior Hons practical lab provision year on year without increased demand on staff.

We propose providing final year Hons project opportunities which involve the final year student spending a semester in the wet laboratory setting, under supervision, researching and designing new third year undergraduate lab classes. The lab class must incorporate data collection, analysis and employ essential laboratory skills which feed into our Royal Society of Biology accreditation skills tracker, thus also meeting the requirements of the intended learning outcomes of the Hons project.

The Pilot

We have piloted a small-scale run through of this proposal, from inception through to the embedding of the first practical class in our undergraduate neuroscience provision whilst garnering feedback and analysing student satisfaction and attainment data. We offered two Hons projects, one based around autonomic control of heart rate and the other focussed on the neural control of locomotion. This demonstrates the flexibility and variation we can offer our students whilst incorporating the same evolving set of laboratory skills within the Hons project, which will then feed to the junior Hons practical class (fig 1). The autonomic control of heart rate practical has now successfully run across two UofG UG degree programs and been successfully linked to an authentic lab report summative assessment which we can evolve year on year alongside the evolving lab and embedded skillset.

Fig 1: Co-creation model of continuous practical curriculum evolution

Employability skills requirements inform hons project design. We run the hons project designing and collecting data which creates the UG practical class. The lab report assessment is tweaked to fit the new lab design, we embed the class in the UG degree, run it and assess the lab skills. This provides the student with the employability skills sought.

The above approach systematically incorporates the three pillars of the University of Glasgow learning and teaching strategy addressing key issues facing the Life Sciences HE sector, successfully improving employability skills provision and crucially, evolving that provision year on year to meet changing demand. We incorporate student centred, active learning, transforming the curriculum and assessment, developing professional skills, and enhancing graduate attributes. The model is also scalable, increasing the ability to rapidly evolve the practical curriculum to meet demand and to simultaneously increase capacity to offer wet, investigative Hons projects without the necessary increased demand on staff supervisory commitments i.e., these projects can be run in groups with staff sharing supervisory responsibility between them.   

Two years of course satisfaction and assessment data suggest this model improves engagement, attainment and better meets the skills requirement from the Royal Society of Biology accreditation, helping to fill the graduate skills gap reported by employers⁴.

Reference

1. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/76561/pdf/
2. Billett, P., and D. Martin. 2018. “Engaging Students in Co-Creation of Sociological Knowledge and Curriculum Design as a Form of Deep Engagement.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 15 (5): 1–13.
3. Dickerson, C., J. Jarvis, and L. Stockwell. 2016. “Staff-Student Collaboration: Student Learning from Working Together to Enhance Educational Practice in Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education 21(3): 249–265. doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1136279.
4. https://www.rsb.org.uk/education/accreditation/Degree-Accreditation

Lead Editor: Louise Sheridan

Co-Editors: Eddie Beggan, Shaun Bremner-Hart & Colin Mack