Evidencing Area of Activity 3 - Assess and Give Feedback to Learners

The module specifications from our partner universities show the summative assessment methods to be employed. For example, I teach the University of XXXX’s science and materials module unit to Level 4 civil engineering students, and its specification stipulates two assignments (70% weightage) and an exam (30% weightage) for the summative assessment. Internal verification (IV) sheets are used to ensure the assessments are fit for purpose, the timescales are appropriate, the learning outcomes are evidenced, and the tasks are explained in enough detail. (K6).

I employ varied questions to accommodate the various learning communities: students who are not native English speakers and students with arithmophobia (V1, V2). An example is the summative assessment I designed for the HNC science and material unit. The calculation-based part of one of the tasks was an application type of learning to determine the total heat transfer from a building. This would achieve specific learning outcome three (SLO 3) with the assessment criterion of determining the thermal performance of buildings regarding heat gains and heat losses. The essay part of the task was an analysis type of learning to describe factors that would influence heat loss and explain the significance of the thermal quantities in heat transfer processes. This would achieve SLO 3 with the assessment criterion of relating scientific principles to the human comfort level.

I always explain how the objectives of the lessons and their associated formative assessments link with their summative assessments. For example, to answer the summative assessment tasks above, I designed two weeks of lessons to develop their understanding of the scientific principles behind thermal comfort. The lesson objectives were to produce thermal power calculations by determining fabric and ventilation heat loss from a building and explaining the heat transfer processes. I incorporated the use of direct questions, peer-marking, and formative assessment questions to help them comprehend the requirements of the assignment, provide corrective instruction, and involve the students in the learning process (Yorke, 2003) (K1, K2, K4, K5, V2). Also, I gave feedforward on the drafts submitted by some of the students so I could guide their thinking and reflection. This approach is critical for the future development of the students, as discussed by Gonzalez (2018), rather than waiting for their final assignment submission before pointing out all their mistakes and grading the work (K3, V3).

Assessment One results showed that of the 12 students, 4 achieved a distinction grade, 3 achieved a merit grade, and 5 achieved a pass grade. To improve performance, I would encourage the submission of draft assignments, targeted one-to-one tutorial sessions, and make early referrals to the Math and English learning support centre to receive additional support.

The assignments are submitted through Turnitin, a plagiarism detection tool, created on the units' Moodle pages; a virtual learning environment (K4). My feedback is given within the required three working weeks and always shows future improvements that can be made and reveal their performance in comparison with the threshold assessment criteria visible on the assignment briefs. Informal conversations with my students reveal that they are primarily interested in the grade, rather than my feedback. I would delay their final grades by a week and encourage them to reflect and internalise my feedback while in class to influence their subsequent learning (V3).

Also, samples of students' works are second-marked by the internal verifier and recorded on the IV sheet to adhere to the quality requirements of the partner institutions (UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment, 2018) (V4). This process has been effective because the assessment criteria and marking scheme standards are available to the internal verifier, who possesses the required technical skills.

(600 words)

References

Gonzalez, J (2018) Moving from feedback to feedforward. Available at: https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/feedforward/ (Accessed: 5 March 2020).

Higher Education Academy (2011) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education - The UKPSF. York: Higher Education Academy.

UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment (2018). The revised UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Available at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code (Accessed: 28 December 2019).

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher education, 45(4), 477-501.