Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Student assessment: lightening the load
while increasing the learning
Dr Chris Rust
Head, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development
Deputy Director, Assessment Standards Knowledge Exchange (ASKe)
Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Oxford Brookes University, UK
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
3 possible ways of reducing staff assessment
load
• Involve the students
• Mechanise
• Strategic programme decisions
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Self-assessment
Strengths of this piece of work
Weaknesses in this piece of work
How this work could be improved
The grade it deserves is…..
What I would like your comments on
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Marking exercise
Immediate results
Cohort 1 (99/00)
Cohort 2 (00/01)
Cohort 3 (01/02
participants av. mk
non participants av. mk.
59.78
59.86
55.7
54.12
52.86
49.7
57.91
56.4
51.3
51.7
Results 1 year later
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Rust, C., Price, M & O’Donovan, B.(2003) "Improving students’ learning by
developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 2
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Peer marking using model answers
(Forbes & Spence, 1991)
Scenario:
• Engineering students had weekly maths problem sheets
marked and problem classes
• Increased student numbers meant marking impossible
and problem classes big enough to hide in
• Students stopped doing problems
• Exam marks declined (Average 55%>45%)
Solution:
• Course requirement to complete 50 problem sheets
• Peer assessed at six lecture sessions but marks do not
count
• Exams and teaching unchanged
Outcome: Exam marks increased (Av. 45%>80%)
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Peer marking using model answers 2
8
7
6
5
1991-92
1992-93
4
3
91-92 tutor
assessed
92-93 self-assessed
(N=75)
2
1
0
1st Wk
2nd Wk
3rd Wk
4th Wk
Pharmacology practicals at Leeds
Hughes, I.E. (1995) “Peer Assessment”, Capability 1 (3)
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Peer feedback (Rust, 2001)
Scenario
• Geography students did two essays but no apparent improvement
from one to the other despite lots of tutor time writing feedback
• Increased student numbers made tutor workload impossible
Solution:
• Only one essay but first draft required part way through course
• Students read and give each other feedback on their draft essays
• Students rewrite the essay in the light of the feedback
• In addition to the final draft, students also submit a summary of how
the 2nd draft has been altered from the1st in the light of the feedback
Outcome: Much better essays
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Mechanise assessment
1.Statement banks
2.Assignment attachment sheets
3.Optical mark reader
4.Computer aided-assessment
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Mechanise assessment - 1 Statement Banks
Write out frequently used feedback comments,
for example:
1. I like this sentence/section because it is clear and
concise
2. I found this paragraph/section/essay well organised and
easy to follow
3. I am afraid I am lost. This paragraph/section is unclear
and leaves me confused as to what you mean
4. I would understand and be more convinced if you gave
an example/quote/statistic to support this
5. It would really help if you presented this data in a table
6. This is an important point and you make it well
etc…….
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Weekly CAA testing - case study data
Student
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
A
57
63
21
35
40
27
20
B
68
71
45
79
83
80
77
C
23
21
11
-
-
-
-
D
45
51
45
79
83
80
77
E
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F
63
-
51
-
47
-
35
G
54
58
35
50
58
60
62
(Brown, Rust & Gibbs,1994)
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
CAA quizzes (Catley, 2005)
Scenario
• First term, first year compulsory law module
• A new subject for most (75%) students
• High failure rate (25%), poor general results (28% 3rd class, 7% Ist)
Solution:
• Weekly optional WebCT quizzes (50% take-up)
Outcome:
Quiz takers: 4% fail, 14% 3rd class, 24% Ist
Non-quiz takers: same pattern as before
Overall:
14% fail (approx half previous figure)
21% 3rd class
14% 1st (double previous figure)
Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development
Assessing a selection (Rust, 2001)
Scenario:
• Weekly lab reports submitted for marking
• Increased student numbers meant heavy staff workload and
increasingly lengthy gap before returned so feedback of limited/no
use
Solution:
• Weekly lab reports still submitted
• Sample number looked at, and generic feedback e-mailed to all
students within 48 hours
• At end of semester, only three weeks’ lab reports selected for
summative marking
Outcome:
• Better lab reports and significantly less marking