Week 10: Forum – Application of Inclusivity to A&F Strategy

How and why, is what you have so far proposed in your A&F design enhancing inclusivity in assessment and feedback for diverse groups of learners in your teaching context?

What adjustments could you make to your design of your new strategy, to make it more inclusive for diverse groups of learners?

How and why would those adjustments make your strategy more inclusive?

What specific sources of pedagogical scholarship could you use to support your arguments? How does what is claimed in those sources support your rationale?

500words

• How and why does my A&F strategy enhance inclusivity?

  
  

Since reading scholarship from Bloxham & Boyd (2007) I am satisfied with my choice to bring in both individual and group A&F strategies to the formative assessment, particularly as this will be applied to Level 4 students early in the year. By changing the current formative assessment, which just has a single 1:1 with students, I wish to have a range of tasks to encourage students to build their confidence and encourage them to succeed (Krause, 2001). Further to this, scholarship from Volet and Mansfield (2006), has allowed me to appreciate how by providing a range of activities which involve students making, presenting, working independently and together, brings a greater inclusivity to the A&F strategy. Some students will find some of the assessment tasks more familiar and others more challenging. (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007)

Through different A&F strategies it will also enable me to not assume knowledge of disability or further learning support (Gibbs and Simpson 2004– 5). It will allow me to learn about the student cohort at the beginning of the year, in terms of specific areas of confidence and areas which students find more challenging. Adjustments at this formative level can be made in terms of supporting students to get early diagnostics and guiding them towards institutional student services (Cooke et al.  2005) before they reach summative assessment.

Prior to this week’s reading I had not considered the potential benefit that the peer feedback and group work curated exhibition would provide to our international exchange students and students in which English is not their first language. My having mixed groups of home students and international students it will promoting integration. (Lacina 2002). Scholarship from McLaughlin and Sutton (2005) shows the positive effects of providing the combination of a less formal assessment (with discussion and peer feedback), followed by timetabled feedback between student and teacher (1:1). Saying this, I do though realise the challenges which these group and peer strategies bring, and acknowledge these next.

• How and Why have I made adjustments?

  
  

Scholarship from Bloxham & Boyd (2007) has allowed me to reflect and consider the challenges I might face with these adjustments. I need to ensure that students who may be hard or hearing, have speech difficulties or may find it challenging to present in a group setting, are still able to partake in activities. I need to ensure that I follow guidance from Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA), by giving all students the same opportunities, the chance to succeed and achieve the learning outcomes. One approach I could take is to provide disabled students with an alternative approach or choice to this part of the assessment (South West Academic Network for Disability Support 1999– 2002; Robson 2005).  One issue I would then face, is ensuring that marking is fair across assessment, if the students’ outcomes are different. Also, ensuring that I do not single students out. This is still an area I hope to develop and decide upon, and look forward to feedback.

Another strategy I would like to incorporate, is the potential for students to re sit the 1:1 part of their assessment two weeks later. Scholarship from Lawrence (2005) shows enhanced student retention levels, allowing students to recover and adjust from their feedback. This will also provide students with a ‘safe’ place to develop their understanding, with support from the teacher, while they adjust to new student life (Krause 2001) and promote feelings of belonging within the course and institution (Volet and Mansfield 2006).

Reading this week (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007) has also made me review the weighting of marks across the formative assessment, particularly with the group work. I feel that weighting will now be structured as follows (although again, this is a work in progress),:

1.       Group mini curation exhibition and group presentation- 30%

2.       Peer assessment - 20% (word count to be decided)

3.       1:1 tutor: student critique of portfolio and artefacts - 50%

I have come to this conclusion after considering the balance between marking consistency and 1:1 student critique having the most weighting but still giving students the motivation to learn together, supporting each other through group assessment and deepening cohesion (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007). Considering there being little evidence as to whether discrimination occurs in peer assessment, I have decided a lower weighting in this area (Falchikov 2005).

References

Bloxham, S. & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw HillLinks to an external site..

Cook, A., Rushton, B.S., McCormick, S.M. and Southall, D.W. (2005) Guidelines for the management of student transition. www.ulster.ac.uk/star/resources/star_ guidelines.pdf (accessed 6 October 2006).

Falchikov, N. (2005) Improving Assessment through Student Involvement. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2004– 5) Conditions under which assessment supports student learning, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1): 3– 31.

Krause, K.L. (2001) The university essay writing experience: a pathway for academic integration during transition, Higher Education Research and Development, 20(2): 147– 68.

Lacina, J.G. (2002) Preparing international students for a successful social experience in higher education, New Directions for Higher Education, 117: 21– 8.

Lawrence, J. (2005) Re-conceptualising attrition and retention: integrating theoretical, research and student perspectives, Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 2(3): 16– 33.

McLaughlin, S. and Sutton, R. (2005) The STAR Project: Re-assessment Strategy. www.ulster.ac.uk/star/curriculum_development/Wolverhampton%20ReAssessment.pdf (accessed 6 October 2006)

Robson, K. (2005) Assessment – The final frontier – Just how valid, realiable and fair are assessments of disabled students?, in Quality Assurance Agency (ed.) Enhancing Practice, Reflections on Assessment: Volume II. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA)

(South West Academic Network for Disability Support 1999– 2002

Volet, S. and Mansfield, C. (2006) Group work at university: significance of personal goals in the regulation strategies of students with positive and negative appraisals, Higher Education Research and Development, 25(4): 341– 56.