[Skip!] [Why?]

AISHE Readings : 2007 Number 1
Case Studies of Good Practices in
Assessment of Student Learning in Higher Education

Case 24
Engaging with the Standards: Using Feed-forward and Feedback

24.1 Context

This assessment method is used with a group of 1^st year health science students at the University of Sydney (Australia) undertaking an introductory subject in physical sciences. There are currently about 160 students, in total, enrolled in generic health science, generic behavioural health science, or the oral health program.

The students, in the introductory subject in physical sciences, undertake a series of three simple, lab-based research projects that begin from their second day at university and lasting two weeks each. In groups of two or three students, they decide on a research question, then design and carry out an experiment to answer their question. Individually, the students write up and submit reports of each of the experiments.

This structure was chosen to provide small-group interaction, and early, regular feedback on the scientific method and some written communication skills.

24.2 Learning Outcomes being Assessed

The subject aims to assist students develop some generic skills in application of the ‘scientific method’, and in relation to technical report writing. In particular, the students are assessed on their ability to formulate, to carry out, to interpret and to report on a small experiment. They are assessed on these dimensions using their written report.

The subject, as a whole, is based on standards referenced assessment and the grading of student performance in these reports is explicitly based on published standards.

24.3 Assessment Procedures/Details

24.3.1 The Students

The students submit each report with an attached cover sheet. The cover sheet includes a grid that describes the standards for the various grades of the report’s main components. This part of the cover sheet is shown in the sample (see Appendix A). The students are required to self-assess their report against these standards and use ticks to indicate their judgments on the cover sheet before submission. Thus, the students not only submit their reports, but they also have to engage in a meta-analysis and ‘feedforward’ their understanding of what they have done.

24.3.2 The Staff

The staff use the same cover sheet to indicate their judgments and grading of each component of the report. These completed report sheets, together with other comments on the report, are then used as ‘feedback’ to students.

24.4 Strengths and Limitations

24.4.1 Strengths

The assessment procedure helps the students to actively engage with the standards. The students give an indication of what they think they have done, and this allows the staff to provide individualized and specific feedback. The assessment, therefore, becomes a more useful tool for teaching and learning.

24.4.2 Limitations

• The staff are not blinded to the students’ self-assessment, consequently, they might be influenced by the student judgements in their application of the standards to a piece of work.
• It is clear that a small fraction of students do not think about their self-assessment but rather just quickly tick the highest levels for all sections.

24.5 Contributor’s Reflections on the Assessment

The University’s Academic Board has embraced standards referencing as the preferred model of assessment and most of our undergraduate students are very familiar with its principles as a result of its use in matriculation assessments since 2001. However, informal observation suggests that, when given the chance, both the students and the staff can quickly revert to norm-referenced thinking and modes of operating. This is a shame, since well-executed standards referencing is far more transparent and can shape productive dialogue between the students and the staff.

In previous years, I had published and drawn students’ attention to the standards used in assessing their reports. However, it was clear that many students did not actively engage with the standards. The requirement of feedforward self-assessment has meant that most of the students give thought to what they have written—and now also actively use the standards to help craft their submissions.

Discrepancies between the student and the staff judgments can form the basis for individualized feedback, addressing particular student misconceptions about what they have done. The assessment of the students’ written work is time-consuming, and this is also the case here. However, it does make the provision of unstructured feedback more targeted and, therefore, more efficient since misconceptions about achievement are primarily addressed. For instance, there is no need to tell a student that they have not ‘integrated their conclusions with other research’ if they have already indicated this in their feedforward.

The students are positive about the clarity of the standards and the fact that these are also taught.

24.6 Bibliography

• Rust, C., Price, M., and O’Donovan, B. (2003) Improving student’s learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 28:pp. 147–164.
• Taras, M. (2001) The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: towards transparency for students and tutors. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 26:pp. 605–614.

Appendix A

A sample assessment table showing checked boxes (☒) indicating a student’s feedforward and checked circles (Ⓧ) showing the structured component of the assessor’s feedback. Discrepancies between the student’s and the assessor’s judgments can form the basis for other targeted feedback in the form of comments.

University College Dublin (UCD)
University of Dublin, Trinity College (TCD)
Dublin City University (DCU)