Scenario 3 ( group work)

Scenario three assignment

Scenario 3: Fair Assessment

Introduction:

The scenario appears to concern the nature of fair assessment.  At the outset we consider what is meant by ‘fair’ and how this is constructed in legislation, through QAA guidance and University policies.  The report then goes on to consider the importance of valuing difference across the student body, the place of such value within programme design and delivery, and finally suggests how assessment practices can be developed to achieve this aim.

Legislation and QAA / U of S guidance on fair assessment:

A major driver for fair assessment is the requirements of Equality and Diversity legislation (the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, now superseded by the Equality Act 2010) which set out that no public institution should discriminate against people who fall within certain protected categories.  For HE institutions and their assessment practices this requirement is codified within the QAA Code of Practice Section 3 (Students with Disabilities) (2006) which requires that ‘Academic assessment practices ensure that disabled students are given the opportunity to demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes and competence standards’ (precept 12).  It is notable that equality of assessment is limited here to students with disabilities and not a wider range of abilities and backgrounds.

Within Section 6 of the QAA code (Assessment of students) most of the wording around concepts of  ‘fairness’ relates to reliability and consistency of marking and elimination of marker bias, rather than addressing questions about the nature of assessment tasks and ensuring that these are accessible and fair for all students. In Precept 3 (encouraging effective learning), however, there is a recommendation to use a range of assessment types in order to recognise individual learning needs.  In Precept 10, issues of student difference are specifically addressed and this is to recommend staff training on cultural differences which may affect student perceptions of assessment tasks.  The section does not suggest that these cultural differences be taken into account in designing assessment tasks; nor indicate whether cultural difference relates solely to national cultures or embraces a wider concept of culture which potentially includes a wider group of student differences.

As a University, Salford has been successful in attracting students from a diverse range of backgrounds. However, within the University’s literature on equality and diversity, there remains an emphasis on disability rather than a recognition of the need to consider the diverse needs of all learners in relation to assessment and teaching. An example of this is the Equality and Diversity Strategy for 2010/12 within which the only reference made to difficulties with assessment is in relation to disabled students.  This is in spite of the same document highlighting a number of inequalities in the “student  journey” which relate to wider factors other than disability.

In summary, there seems to be an emphasis on inclusive teaching and assessment in order to meet the needs of disabled students.  However, with the increasing number of students entering higher education from a diverse range of backgrounds, the idea of inclusivity needs to broaden to include learners of all ages, from different ethnic backgrounds and social classes (Hockings, 2010). We need to go further than the notion of fairness to inclusivity, and move from attempting to ‘treat everyone the same’ to valuing individual difference and recognising achievement of different types within our programmes and assessments.  It is important that, as academics, we value the impact that students from a diverse range of backgrounds have on the teaching and learning environment.  Powney (2002) and Warren (2002) argue that the changes to curriculum provision and learning, teaching and assessment which have occurred as a result of the widening participation agenda benefit all students and can have a positive impact on higher level and critical thinking skills.

Inclusivity vs. Standards of achievement:

One objection to the development of more inclusive approaches to assessment is the tension with subject benchmarks or external professional standards.  If students need to demonstrate a particular competence which is not achievable by the nature of a disability or difference, then there is an argument that flexibility here is unrealistic.  Indeed, Sharp and Earle (2000) argue against compensatory adjustments to assessment for students with disabilities since they feel this renders assessment invalid..  However, in such cases there is a need to reconceptualise our subjects/ disciplines so that standards become more inclusive.  For example, within the assessment of languages, assessment primarily of accuracy of grammar and vocabulary can be widened to encompass fuller communicative competence, including fluency, pragmatic understanding and strategies for communication.  There is a need to recognise the requirements of real world practice, but again we can be creative about the flexibility we allow in the assessment of these elements of competence and the modes in which they are offered.

Responsibility to all students:

Alongside a need to provide more flexible assessment approaches, there is also a strong ethical requirement for institutions to consider their actions with respect to  the diverse needs of all students.  For individual students personal tutorials are the most common way of providing support.  In addition to providing pastoral care these tutorials should support students to develop strategies for academic development.  This will assist them to create individual, bespoke, pathways to navigate a learning programme and get the most out of it for themselves in terms of ambition, achievement and self-efficacy (sustainability/life-long learning transferable skill/application).

Fair assessment and curriculum design:

Consideration of inclusivity needs to run throughout design of the programme including decisions about admissions, programme design, delivery, assessment and follow-up to assessment. Curriculum Designers need to consider the objectives of their programme and enable students to demonstrate the Learning Outcomes through a wide variety of assessment formats to allow for fair assessment.  The provision of choice in assessment has been shown to be beneficial to student motivation, self-confidence, self-determination and in reducing anxiety (Cook 2001; Irwin and Hepplestone 2011).

Different types of assessment seem to encourage deep or surface approaches to learning.  Entwistle and Entwistle (1991) found that students are very strongly influenced by the form of assessment they expect. Many students felt quite unable to exercise any degree of control within the context of the assessment of their own learning.(Struyven K , Dochy F and  Janssens S 2002)  Multiple choice formats, or an emphasis on detailed factual answers, push students towards a surface approach, while open, essay- type questions encourage a deep approach. Therefore the assessment formats offered need to support both the Learning Outcomes and the Learning styles of individuals.  These formats include essays, presentations, exams, a body of work, group reports and portfolios.

Whilst all formats have their own advantages in terms of assessment of learning that has taken place, some formats such as portfolios are more flexible and therefore advantage a wider group of learners. Portfolios are personalised, longitudinal representations of a student’s own efforts and achievements, in which the integration of numerous facts to form broad and encompassing concepts is actively performed by the student instead of the instructor (Slater, 1996).  Portfolios are a useful assessment tool that enables learners to select and submit evidence that they believe matches up with the module objectives which incorporates reflection and self assessment within its framework, enabling constructive alignment. Friedman Ben-David et al (2001) acknowledge that portfolios have an important impact in driving student learning and they also have the ability to measure outcomes such as professionalism that are difficult to assess using traditional methods. This point is important when positioning Learning Outcomes within the context of being useful and transferable skills for life.

Students themselves appear to like portfolios as a method of assessment since they feel released from the anxiety of taking tests, whilst engaging with and internalising the learning from modules in order to produce the required portfolio.(Slater, 1996).  The benefits of portfolios in enabling students to apply their learning to real world situations is also highlighted (Arter and Spandel, 1992).  However, portfolio assessment will not be appropriate or relevant in all cases and Challis (2001) argues that portfolio assessment simply needs to be seen in terms that recognise its own strengths and its differences from other methods, rather than as a replacement of any other assessment methods and procedures.

Other flexible approaches to assessment include synoptic assessment and choice in timing.  “Synoptic assessment: A form of assessment which tests candidates’ understanding of the connections between the different elements of a subject.”  (Patrick, 2005 QCA, 2005). The aim of Synoptic assessment; the combining of two or more modules to form a single assessment, is to promote active learning as students ‘learn that a solution for a problem statement for one assessment, requires the knowledge and experience of the subject areas from different modules.(Kyaw P and Drummond S, 2007).  The format for assessment is usually a combination of formats and fosters group activities and peer learning.

The timing of assessment may also be important.  Delaying assessment of earlier modules until the students have had time to apply their knowledge encourages a deeper approach to learning and allows students to develop understanding at their own pace.  Students who are ready earlier to demonstrate competence in learning outcomes can then work on extension activities so that staff can devote more time to  students who have not yet reached the required level (Brown 1998).  Differentiation of this kind is expected in the compulsory eduction sector.

Achieving fair assessment for all:

In order to enable fair assessment of our diverse learners, principles of constructive alignment need to be considered to enable learners to arrive at meaning by actively selecting, and cumulatively constructing, their own knowledge, through both individual and social activity. (Biggs 1996). In practice, we need to allow learners to bring their own perspectives and experiences  to the classroom and to understand that it is through their personal and group engagement with the syllabus that learning happens. Thus, valuing of individuals is at the core of teaching and learning.

References:

Arter, J.A. and Spandel, V. (1992). Using Portfolios of Student work in Instruction and Assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Spring 11(1) pp36-44

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education 32 pp.347-364.

Brown, S. and Knight, P. (1998). Assessing Learners in Higher Education. Oxon: Routledge

Challis, M. (2001). Portfolios and assessment: meeting the challenge. Medical Teacher, 23 (5) pp.437-440.

Cook, A. (2001). Assessing the Use of Flexible Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26:6, 539-549

Entwistle, N. J., and Entwistle, A. (1991). Conceptions of understanding in the revision process. Paper presented at the Fourth Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Turku, 24th-28th August, 1991

Friedman Ben- David, M., Davis, M. H., Harden, R. M., Howie, P. W., Ker, J., and Pippard, M. J. (2001). AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 24: Portfolios as a method of student assessment. Medical Teacher, 23 (6) pp.535-551.

Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research. http://hca.ltsn.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Syntheses/inclusive_teaching_and_learning_in_he_synthesis_200410.pdf (Accessed 2.12.2011)

Irwin, B. and Hepplestone, S. (2011). Examining increased flexibility in assessment formats. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/02602938.2011.573842 Accessed 6/12/2011

Kyaw, P. and Drummond, S. (2007). Synoptic Learning and assessment: An Experience report. The 8th annual Conference of the Higher Education Academy, University of Southampton, 28th – 30th Aug 2007

Patrick, H. (2005). Synoptic Assessment: Report for QCA., University of Cambridge: London

Powney J. (Ed.) (2002). Successful student diversity. Case studies of practice in learning and teaching and widening participation. HEFCE: 2002/48

QAA Code of Practice 2006

Sharp, K. and Earle, S. (2000). Assessment, Disability and the Problem of Compensation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25:2, 191-199

Struyven, K., Dochy, F. and Janssens, S. (2002). Students’ perceptions about assessment in higher education: a review. Presented at the Joint Northumbria/ Earli SIG Assessment and Evaluation Conference: Learning communities and assessment cultures, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, August 28 – 30 2002.

Slater, T. F. (1996). Portfolio assessment strategies for grading first- year university physics students in the USA. Physics Education, 31 (5), 329-333.

Warren D. (2002). Curriculum design in a Context of Widening Participation in Higher Education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 1 (1) pp.85-99