Chapter 6: Students’ experiences of the participative assessment process 6.1 Introduction
6.3 Students’ experiences of developing the assessment criteria
98
99
enhanced their understanding of both the task requirements and the way it would be assessed (see Mok, Lung, Cheng, Cheung and Ng, 2006). “Not only did it make them feel that their opinions matter, but it increased the depth of their understanding of the requirements of the task” (FN: 1276-1282). Students also observed how developing their own assessment criteria impacted on the way they approached the assignment and the degree to which they became personally invested in their work. This, they said, was in stark contrast to previous university experiences, where assessment grids have been imposed with little, or no, discussion and engagement with criteria. In these respects the view expressed by one student was broadly representative:
[W]e talked about all the things that we wanted to be in the PLP [and these]
were in the marking grid.. if you do this you will get this mark, if you put this then you will get this mark. So, this was like an assignment where I said, ’Here Pete [the lecturer], this is how I want you to mark. This is my personal leadership philosophy.’ I think this was one of the modules where I have done my own work and not been just given an assignment … it was like, I’m doing my own work and I’m giving it to someone to mark it according to how I want to be marked … I have never seen something like this in all my career as a student. Then [in other assignments] it was like, ‘Hey, you are marked according to this and we are done’… but this one was like, ‘Here this is me and I want you to mark it [my work] this way’ and I thought, ‘Well, wow!’
(S05: 2830-2844).
A further significant finding was that the degree to which involvement in developing the CRA grid enhanced the students’ own recognition of the constructively aligned nature of the assessment task and the ways in which they could maximise the potential benefits of working within an aligned system. This view is supported by Ramsden (1992); Stefani (1998) and Biggs (1999) (see 4.2.3). As S04 suggested:
[T]he process of being involved in the writing of the assessment grid was useful and made an important contribution to my learning when I started thinking about what I wanted to write, when I was busy with the writing process and when the time came to assess my own work (SO4: 1090-1094).
As another student argued: “The grid gave us objectives and spelt out the expectations and when you have clear objectives then the whole process of learning becomes useful” (S02:
1077-1079). However, what made this aspect of the process particularly significant was the fact that the objectives S02 referred to had not been externally imposed, but represented standards students had set for themselves and, as S08 suggested:
When it’s the lecturer doing it then you are not involved in the setting of the criteria. I think it helped us, because you think, ‘this is where I want to reach to get this mark and this is what I have to do’ (S08: 262-264).
100
The process thus not only appeared to enhance students’ feelings of personal empowerment, but also clearly helped to advance their own sense of intrinsic motivation and autonomy as they pursued goals they had set for themselves.
A related finding was that in taking ownership of the grid, students made a deliberate effort to ensure that criteria were comprehensible to them and could contribute to their learning.
Students recognised the importance of having a clear understanding of the criteria, because these would not only define the competencies they would need to demonstrate in completing the task, but they would also need to use them in assessing both their own and their peers’
work. Drawing on past experience of using CRA grids handed down by lecturers, students confirmed Rust et al’s (2003) findings that a transparency of assessment criteria cannot be assumed (see 4.1.3.A). This general observation by the students is illustrated in the following widely shared opinion that:
Sometimes when the lecturer would set it [the CRA grid] I found that I would get lost in the language. I did not understand the phrasing, I did not understand exactly what he [the lecturer] meant by that word, sentence or paragraph. I struggled to decode what the lecturer was expecting (S11: 265- 268).
And to obviate such concerns the students actively sought to construct a CRA grid that was transparent and relatively simple to understand and work with, a strategy that was summarised by S06, who observed that:
[W]hile we were designing the grid I think it was in the back of everyone’s minds that we had to say that we are also going to use this. It’s not just Pete who is going to use this. We are going to use it. And that I think also was a factor in the design of it, because we had to think about what kind of language we were going to use, ‘How are we going to phrase these statements?’ It was quite difficult, but I think when … it was very eye-opening for me to actually sit and say, well … try and take a step back and say: ‘Well this is the marking grid and this is my work and how can we bring these two together.’ (167-175).
Despite the suggestion that being involved in the development of assessment criteria contributed to their understanding of the language criteria were written in, students also remarked that the grid they developed closely resembled other grids – developed by lecturers – they had previously encountered. However, the fact that the class had dedicated so much time to discussing the criteria and negotiating these among themselves resulted in students reporting that they had been able to internalise the grid and to develop a clearer understanding of what was expected. As one student suggested: “[I]t might not have been very different [from a grid imposed by a tutor], but the main factor was that we were involved and I think
101
that to no end brought about our understanding of it” (S06: 282-287). The direct involvement of students in the development of criteria thus offers a valuable strategy for enhancing transparency in assessment. This is not to suggest that students’ involvement in criteria development provides a panacea, but rather that it can contribute to a shared understanding.
During the peer feedback process several students found they had interpreted criteria differently; nonetheless, they were all convinced the process had helped to demystifying the grid (see Bloxham and West, 2004 and Orsmond, Merry and Reiling, 2000 in 4.2.3).
Another significant feature emerging from the criterion development process was the degree to which students experienced an enhanced appreciation of the benefits of working closely with criteria for their learning and how this contributed to their performance in completing the assessment task. In this respect there was common agreement that the process of constructing criteria and engaging deeply with these during the development process resulted in a heightened awareness of their importance. However, it was significant that students experienced this aspect of their learning-about-learning differently. For some the process had an immediate impact on the degree to which they took responsibility for their own learning and acted autonomously. These students remarked on the degree to which the grid had influenced each aspect of the process of completing the task: S8’s experience was representative of those that fell within this category:
I had them in my mind before I started the assignment. I knew what I was aiming for. I think for me it worked. It worked. I did not sit with the document, but I knew what I was expected to do. It really helped a lot. I applied everything and after finishing my assignment I sat down to think if I had done everything that was in the grid and I had (S08: 321-326).
For others, however, the process of learning how to make optimum use of the grid became clear only as the module evolved and they began applying the grid within the context of peer and self-assessment activities. These students remarked that, while they had understood the criteria and might have had them in the back of their minds, they had not actively worked with the grid while they were planning or writing their assignments. S11 captured the general experience of these students in the following observation: “That was my mistake. I think I did the … we set them in class… I remembered them but I think I should have had them as I was writing and constantly referred to them” (S11: 297-299). While these students did not benefit from using the grid in the same way as their peers, they recognised their own failings and were able to see how they could benefit from working closely with criteria in completing future assessment tasks. This was evident in S13’s remarks that:
102
[The process of being involved in developing the CRA grid] brings more importance to the assessment grid … than you just receiving it on the first day of the lectures and … you know sometimes you just throw it away ... but us having to bring it back again and having to do some work on it … that’s the only time we begin to realise that, ‘wait a minute, this is really important’ … It makes things more relevant (3695-3704).
It should be clear from the above findings that the involvement of students directly in the development of assessment criteria forms an important component of a process intended to promote student involvement in participative assessment. If students are expected to develop the skills of autonomous and responsible learners who jointly seek to create meaning through their learning processes, then there is clearly value in involving them in constructing the criteria against which they are going to be assessing their own work. As Mok et al. (2006) suggest, such processes enable students to “develop a more relevant benchmark of quality”.
This is in keeping with both communicative and emancipatory conceptions of the curriculum.
Furthermore, this aspect of the process appears to provide important opportunities for enhancing students’ learning and encouraging them to adopt deep approaches to learning, both in relation to the immediate tasks and future learning.