Programme Assessment: Insights about student learning from TESTA

Dr Tansy Jessop, TESTA Project LeaderPresentation to the SDG Course Leaders

University of West of Scotland12 May 2014

1)Assessment drives what students pay attention to, and defines the actual curriculum (Ramsden 1992).

2)Feedback is significant (Hattie, 2009; Black and Wiliam, 1998)

3)Programme is central to influencing change.

TESTA premises

Thinking about modules

modulus (Latin): small measure

“interchangeable units”

“standardised units”

“sections for easy constructions”

“a self-contained unit”

How well does IKEA 101 packaging work for Sociology 101?

Furniture Bite-sized Self-contained Interchangeable Quick and instantaneous Standardised Comes with written

instructions Consumption

Student Learning Long and complicated Interconnected Distinctive Slow, needs deliberation Varied, differentiated Tacit, unfathomable,

abstract Production

HEA funded research project (2009-12) Seven programmes in four partner

universities Maps programme-wide assessment Engages with Quality Assurance processes Diagnosis – intervention – cure

What is TESTA?Transforming the Experience of Students through Assessment

TESTA ‘Cathedrals Group’ Universities

Edinburgh Edinburgh

Napier

Greenwich

Canterbury Christchurch

Glasgow

Lady Irwin College University of Delhi

University of West ScotlandSheffield Hallam

TESTA

“…is a way of thinking about assessment and feedback”

Graham Gibbs

Time-on-task Challenging and high expectations Students need to understand goals and

standards Prompt feedback Detailed, high quality, developmental

feedback Dialogic cycles of feedback Deep learning – beyond factual recall

Based on assessment principles

TESTA Research Methods(Drawing on Gibbs and Dunbar-Goddet, 2008,2009)

ASSESSMENT EXPERIENCEQUESTIONNAIRE

FOCUS GROUPS

PROGRAMME AUDIT

Programme Team Meeting

Case Study

Number of assessment tasks Summative/formative Variety Proportion of exams Oral feedback Written feedback Speed of return of feedback Specificity of criteria, aims and learning

outcomes.

Audit in a nutshell

Quantity of Effort Coverage of content and knowledge Clear goals and standards Quantity and Quality of Feedback Use of feedback Appropriate assessment Learning from exams Deep and surface learning

Assessment Experience Questionnaire

Focus Groups

Student voice and narrativeExplanation Corroboration & contradictionCompelling evidence with the

stats

Case Study X: what’s going on?

Mainly full-time lecturers Plenty of varieties of assessment, no exams Reasonable amount of formative assessment (14 x) 33 summative assessments Masses of written feedback on assignments (15,000 words) Learning outcomes and criteria clearly specified….looks like a ‘model’ assessment environment

But students: Don’t put in a lot of effort and distribute their effort across few topics Don’t think there is a lot of feedback or that it very useful, and don’t

make use of it Don’t think it is at all clear what the goals and standards are …are unhappy

Case Study Y: what’s going on?

35 summative assessments No formative assessment specified in documents Learning outcomes and criteria wordy and woolly Marking by global, tacit, professional judgements Teaching staff mainly part-time and hourly paid….looks like a problematic assessment environment

But students: Put in a lot of effort and distribute their effort across

topics Have a very clear idea of goals and standards Are self-regulating and have a good idea of how to close

the gap

Two paradigms…

Transmission Model

Social Constructivist model

AuditAEQFocus Groups

Research Methods

1) Any interesting patterns?2) Anything particularly striking?3) Any dangling questions, curiosities,

scepticisms?4) Any predictions, hunches, thoughts

about what other data might throw up?

Task 1: Audit data

Audit Variables Humanities

(Mean)

Sciences(Mean)

Professional

(Mean)Total number of assessments

54 67 42

Number of summative assessments

42 43 32

Number of formative assessments

12 31 10

Varieties of assessment (n) 11 15 14Proportion of examinations 14.3% 30.6% 15%Time to return feedback 23 days 20 days 23 daysAmount of oral feedback 3hrs

17mins4hrs

56mins10hrs

33minsAmount of written feedback 7,382

words3,615 words

7,040 words

Discipline Effects

a) Fill in an AEQ from the vantage point of being a student in the past, or one of your own students

b) Cluster the questions into scales using the Scales Exercise.

c) What’s a ‘good’ score?d) Any thoughts, issues, comments,

questions?

Task 2: The AEQ

In pairs, explore programme audit and AEQ data from one programme.

Triangulation: Audit and AEQ data

In pairs/groups, read through quotes from student focus group data on a particular theme.

What problems does the data imply? What solutions might a programme develop

to address some of these challenges? A3 sheets provided to tease out challenges

and solutions.

Focus Group data

Challenges Solutions

Student voice data

If there weren’t loads of other assessments, I’d do it.

If there are no actual consequences of not doing it, most students are going to sit in the bar.

I would probably work for tasks, but for a lot of people, if it’s not going to count towards your degree, why bother?

The lecturers do formative assessment but we don’t get any feedback on it.

Theme 1: Formative is a great idea but…

We could do with more assessments over the course of the year to make sure that people are actually doing stuff.

We get too much of this end or half way through the term essay type things. Continual assessments would be so much better.

So you could have a great time doing nothing until like a month before Christmas and you’d suddenly panic. I prefer steady deadlines, there’s a gradual move forward, rather than bam!

Theme 2: Assessment isn’t driving and distributing student effort

The feedback is generally focused on the module.

It’s difficult because your assignments are so detached from the next one you do for that subject. They don’t relate to each other.

Because it’s at the end of the module, it doesn’t feed into our future work.

You’ll get really detailed, really commenting feedback from one tutor and the next tutor will just say ‘Well done’.

Theme 3: Feedback is disjointed and modular

The assessment guidelines is a formal document so the language is quite complex and I’ve had to read it a good few times to kind of understand what they are saying.

Assessment criteria can make you take a really narrow approach.

They read the essay and then they get a general impression, then they pluck a mark from the air.

It’s a shot in the dark. We’ve got two tutors – one marks completely

differently to the other and it’s pot luck which one you get.

Theme 4: Students are not clear about goals and standards

1. Too much summative; too little formative2. Too wide a variety of assessment3. Lack of time on task4. Inconsistent marking standards5. ‘Ticking’ modules off6. Poor feedback: too little and too slow7. Lack of oral feedback; lack of dialogue about

standards8. Instrumental reproduction of materials for marks

Main findings

1. Students and staff can’t do more of both.2. Reductions in summative – how many is

enough?3. Increase in formative – and make sure it is

valued and required.4. Debunking the myth of two summative per

module.5. Articulating rationale with students, lecturers,

senior managers and QA managers.

1. Summative-formative issues

The case of the under-performing engineers (Graham, Strathclyde)The case of the cunning (but not litigious) lawyers (Graham, somewhere)The case of the silent seminar (Winchester)The case of the lost accountants (Winchester)The case of the disengaged Media students (Winchester)

1. Examples of ramping up formative

The case of low effort on Media StudiesThe case of bunching on the BA Primary

2. Examples of improving ‘time on task’

The case of the closed door (Psychology)The case of the one-off in History (Bath Spa)The case of the Sports Psychologist (Winchester)The conversation gambit

3. Engaging students in reflection through improving feedback

The case of the maverick History lecturer (a dove)

The case of the highly individualistic creative writing markers

4. Internalising goals and standards

Programmatic Assessment Design

Feedback Practice

Paper processes to people talking

Changes

Improvements in NSS scores on A&F – from bottom quartile in 2009 to top quartile in 2013

Three programmes with 100% satisfaction ratings post TESTA

All TESTA programmes have some movement upwards on A&F scores

Programme teams are talking about A&F and pedagogy

Periodic review processes are changing for the better.

Impacts

www.testa.ac.uk

Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 1(1): 3-31.Gibbs, G. & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2009). Characterising programme-level assessment environments that support learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 34,4: 481-489.Hattie, J. (2007) The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. 77(1) 81-112.Jessop, T. and Maleckar, B. (in press). The Influence of disciplinary assessment patterns on student learning: a comparative study. Studies in Higher Education.Jessop, T. , El Hakim, Y. and Gibbs, G. (2014) The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: a large-scale study of students’ learning in response to different assessment patterns. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 39(1) 73-88.Jessop, T, McNab, N & Gubby, L. (2012) Mind the gap: An analysis of how quality assurance processes influence programme assessment patterns. Active Learning in Higher Education. 13(3). 143-154.Nicol, D. (2010) From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35: 5, 501 – 517Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.

References