Consistency and feedback: two winning elements for quality assessment

Higher education requires learners to give a frequent account of their achievements through a wide range of assignments, research, tests and examinations. Yet one question is regularly asked by some teachers, students and members of the university administration: how can we ensure the relevance of assessment systems at higher level?

On September 8, 2009, the Association Internationale de Pédagogie Universitaire Suisse(AIPU Suisse) organized a study day on the following theme: "Innovating in the evaluation of learning. Why and how?" A few weeks later, Amaury Daele, Pedagogical Advisor at the University of Lausanne, wrote an account of this activity on his blog Pédagogie Universitaire. From his text, we'll retain two major ideas for effective evaluation: consistency and the existence of feedback.

Choosing the right assessment system and being clear about how to implement it

One of the problems with assessment in the university environment is the distortion between what is announced as potentially assessable and what is actually graded once the copy is in the hands of the teacher. For example, on a question such as "Define Nietzsche's nihilism", one teacher will want a copy that reproduces almost word for word the definition of Nietzschean nihilism as found in the textbook, while another will want the student to appropriate it and explain it in his or her own terms. Subjective differences that can explain major discrepancies in grading, especially if the instructions were not sufficiently explicit.

This is why A. Daele advises teachers to target the skills and knowledge to be assessed by developing measurable learning objectives. The Pédagogie Universitaire blog offers a good text and some external resources on the subject.

A second tip on the subject of coherence: use an assessment procedure that is consistent with what you want to assess. As Mr. Daele points out, it would be ridiculous to ask students to give an oral presentation as part of a course on written writing... So you need to choose an appropriate tool. Authentic Assessment Toolbox, a very comprehensive site on the subject, underlines the importance of this choice and provides pointers on how to choose a suitable means of assessment. For French speakers, the Pédagogie Universitaire post offers examples of different evaluation grids from the École Polytechnique de Montréal.

Feedback from the teacher... and from peers

Another important component of evaluation is feedback, or if you prefer, feedback on what the student has done. It seems obvious. Yet some teachers still don't understand the importance of such feedback on what has been done, what seems to have been achieved and what needs to be developed further. Many of us former students probably remember notes arriving several months after the exam paper was handed in, accompanied by a few brief comments at best.

In fact, Mr. Daele has contributed to a document on feedback for UNIL (University of Lausanne), which is available in PDF format. In this text, he stresses that feedback should:

• Be accompanied, prior to assessment, by a list of the teacher's requirements and the criteria he or she will use to assess the copy;
• Provide clear information for students;
• Support their motivation;
• Enable dialogue between learners and teacher;
• Give students the opportunity to assess themselves.

The last point is interesting because it reveals a new trend in higher education, particularly in the English-speaking world: peer andself-assessment. For example, Queens University Belfast uses this type of assessment in some of its courses. Another example is the European MALT project (Motivating Adult Learners & Teachers) , which puts forward the idea of language learning via a blog, where learners can use feedback from other readers to self-assess their mastery of the language.

Another document is a fine example of the positive aspect of peer-to-peer feedback in assessment. In a dissertation written for Rhodes University, Professor Du Toit describes an experiment he carried out in one of his courses. After forming pairs of students, he asked each member to assess the other on a practice assignment. This allowed the students to break the ice and take on the role of assessor, which impressed them greatly. Following this exercise, the students worked together to draw up an evaluation grid for the work they would be doing next, and then applied it.

In their feedback, the students had to respect the following points:

• Be specific in their assessment.
• Provide detailed feedback.
• Focus on the work, not the person.
• Be sensitive, especially as the work in question was rather personal.
• Learn to distinguish the value of the work, the good from the not-so-good.

The students' feedback on this peer evaluation experience was astonishingly positive, since in the end, the teacher noted that evaluating others also meant improving oneself, and being more demanding with one's own work. Many of them realized the impact of what they had written, what was missing from their work, and so on. The marks awarded to the various pieces of work were higher than those usually given by the teacher when assessing alone, without any hint of complacency on the part of the student assessors.

Whether delivered by the teacher or by peers, feedback not only helps the learner understand his or her mistakes, but also valorizes his or her successes. As one of Mr. Du Toit's students put it:"We will all have to deal with feedback, whether in the workplace or elsewhere. So it's important to learn how to deal with criticism now."

Clarity of instructions, consistency of assessment methods with their purpose, existence of feedback: essential elements for improving assessment in higher education.

Assessment strategies in higher education, Amaury Daele, November 4, 2009

Illustration : luminastock - DepositPhotos