Making meaning

1
Making meaning of assessment criteria and
standards
Berry ODonovan Deputy Director ASKe Centre for
Excellence in Teaching Learning Assessment
Standards Knowledge exhange
2
Workshop outline

• Introducing ASKe Assessment Standards Knowledge
  exchange
• Issues in sharing understandings of assessment
  criteria and standards
• Ways forward and steps back - mapping and
  explaining approaches to developing student
  understanding of assessment standards
• A practical intervention to share standards and
  criteria that works!

3

The nature of the problem understanding criteria
and level

• 5 minute activity
• Individually briefly write down what analytical
  means to you.
• 15 minute activity
• 1.) With a colleague, look at your two
  definitions of analysis, are they similar?
• 2.) Two students are given the same written
  assessment task (e.g. an essay in your
  discipline). In the tutor feedback on the task
  both students are congratulated on producing a
  highly analytical piece of work. One student
  is a postgraduate, the other a first year
  undergraduate.
• Does the term highly analytical mean something
  different at these two levels? And, if so, what
  is the difference? How do you explain to
  students the standard of work expected? Be
  prepared to feedback on this difference.

4
ODonovan, Price Rust 2008
5
ODonovan, Price and Rust. 2008
6
The Explicit Model benefits and problems
surfaced in an early research project

• Positive benefits
• (from research with staff and students Price
  Rust, 1999 ODonovan, Price Rust, 2001)
• can support marking consistency
• can help focus feedback to students
• can shed light on assessment criteria
• but these benefits are captured only when the
  Grid was discussed with students and staff.
• The problems
• Multiple interpretations of criteria
• Difficulties in making all knowledge explicit
• The same criteria and descriptors were applied
  at different levels with seemingly no difficulty
  

7
Making meaning requires explicit and tacit
knowledge

• Meaningful understanding of standards requires
  both tacit and explicit knowledge (ODonovan, B.,
  Price, M., Rust, C., 2004)
• we can know more than we can tell (Polanyi,
  reprinted 1998, p.136).
• Verbal level descriptors are inevitably fuzzy
  (Sadler 1987)
• There is a cost (in terms of time and resources)
  to codifying knowledge which increases the more
  diverse an audiences experience and language
  (Snowdon, 2002).
• Tacit knowledge is experience-based and can only
  be revealed through the sharing of experience
  socialisation processes involving observation,
  imitation and practice (Nonaka, 1991)
• making sense of the world is seen as a social
  and collaborative activity (Vygotsky, 1978).

8
Price, ODonovan and Rust. 2004
9
making meaning a practical intervention
Step 1 Exemplar assignments Step 2 Students
mark assignments Step 3 Tutor discusses and
provides annotated copies of assignments (leaflet
will be provided)
10
Price, ODonovan and Rust. 2004
11
Why community?

• Recent literature highlights the importance of
  community centred activity and pedagogies to
  facilitate learning
• (e.g. Brook Oliver, 2003 Fink, 2003 Johnson,
  2001 Dawson 2006 Cousin Deepwell, 2005)
• The process of learning is facilitated through
  individual participation in social interactions
• (based on the work of Dewey 1938/1963 Vygotsky,
  1978 Lave Wenger, 1991 Wenger et al, 2002)
• Social Interaction between students and students
  and staff is the most significant predictor of
  students success
• (Astin, 1997)
• Encouraging contact between students and faculty
  (Chickering and Gamsons (1987) first principle
  for good teaching and learning in HE)

12
What is community

• Community A "set of relations among persons,
  activity, and world" (Lave Wenger, 1991, p. 98)
  
• Powerful environments for learning
• (Lave Wenger, 1991 Gibbs et al, 2004,
  Northedge, 2003)
• 3 attributes communal resources, mutual
  engagement and joint enterprise
• (Wenger, 1998)
• Informal but can be cultivated
• (Wenger, 1998)
• Dimensions of academic communities
• Spirit belonging, support, reference to others
• Trust self disclosure, identity building,
  personal reflection
• Learning the co-construction of knowledge,
  critique, debate, discussion.
• (Rovai, 2002)

13
How cultivating community in the Business
School

• A multifaceted and intentional process involving
  3 main aspects
• Place - Social learning or affinity spaces,
  both physical and virtual
• Social learning processes and initiatives that
  encourage richer and less hierarchical
  staff/student interaction both within and outside
  the curricula
• Developing pedagogical awareness/intelligence in
  students to underpin 2 above.

14
references

• Astin, A. (1997) What Matters in College? Four
  Critical Years Revisited, San Francisco
  Jossey-Bass
• Baumard, P. (1999) Tacit Knowledge in
  Organizations, London Sage Publications
• Barton, D. Tusting, K. (Eds.) (2005). Beyond
  Communities of Practice Language, Power and
  Social Context (Cambridge, Cambridge University
  Press).
• Brook, C., Oliver, R. (2003) Online learning
  communities Investigating a design framework.
  Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
  19(2), p. 139-160
• Chickering, A.W. Gamzon, Z.F. (1987) Seven
  principles for good practice in undergraduate
  education, American Association of Higher
  Education Bulletin, pp.3-7
• Chism, N.V.N. (2006) Challenging traditional
  assumptions and rethinking learning spaces in
  (Ed) Diana G. Oblinger Learning Spaces (USA,
  Educause)
• Cousin, G. Deepwell, F. (2005) Designs for
  network learning a communities of practice
  perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 20, pp.
  55-64
• Dawson, S. (2006) Relationship between student
  communication interaction and sense of community
  in higher education. Internet and Higher
  Education, 9(3), pp. 153-162
• Dewey, J. (1938/1963) Experience and education.
  New York collier.
• Fink, L. D. (2003) Creating significant learning
  experiences An intergrated approach to designing
  college courses. San Francisco Jossey-Bass
• Gibbs, P., Angelides, P. Michaelides, P. (2004)
  Preliminary thoughts on a praxis of higher
  education teaching Teaching in Higher Education,
  9(2), 183-194.
• Hutchings, P. (2005) Building Pedagogical
  Intelligence, Carnegie Perspectives. Available
  online at http//www.carnegiefoundation.org/persp
  ectives/ (accessed 28 July 2005).
• Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J.
  Associates (2005) Student success in college
  Creating conditions that matter (San Francisco,
  Jossey-Bass)Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1991) Situated
  Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation,
  (Cambridge, University of Cambridge Press).
• Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning.
  Legitimate peripheral participation, (Cambridge,
  University of Cambridge Press).
• Lomas, C Oblinger, D.G. (2006) Student
  practices and Their Impact on Learning Spaces in
  (Ed) Diana G. Oblinger Learning Spaces, USA
  Educause
• Nonaka, I. (1991) The Knowledge-Creating Company,
  The Harvard Business Review, November-December,
  pp. 96-104.
• Northedge, A. (2003) Rethinking teaching in the
  context of diversity Teaching in Higher
  Education Vol 8, Iss 1, pp. 17-32
• Oldenberg, R. (1991) The great good place, (New
  York Paragon House)