B
A
(H
)
F
Y
A
R
Prepared by
Margaret Macleod
Project Officer
Commissioned by Professor Keithia Wilson as part of an Australian Learning and Teaching (ALTC)
National Fellowship
Funded and sponsored by the School of Humanities
Draft Report – not for distribution 
November 2010

1.OVERALL SUMMARY …………………………………………………………...1
2. SUMMARY OF KEY PRINCIPLES FOR FIRST YEAR ASSESSMENT …...2
3. ASSESMENT RE VIEW…………………………………………… ...………….
4
APPENDIX1……………………………………………………………………..…
.8
APPENDIX 2……………………………………………………………………….
10
APPENDIX 3 …………………………………………………………………...…11
0

Semester One
1007HUM Social Sciences in Australia (N)
1009HUM Intro to Screen Analysis (N, GC)
1021HUM Cultural perspectives 1 (GC)
1105HUM Youth and S ociety (GC, L)
1405HUM Creative Practices (GC)
1603HUM Islam in the Modern World (N)
1702HUM Styles and genres of journalism (N)
1703HUM Effective Writing (N,GC,L )
1705HUM Foundations of Western Culture (N, GC)
1802HUM Writing for the Web (GC)
Semester Two
1007HUM Social Sciences in Australia (GC,L)
1013HUM Great Books B (N,GC)
1015HUM Screen History and Research (N,GC)
1022HUM Cultural Perspectives 2 (GC)
1104HUM Creative Writing 1 (GC )
1105HUM Youth and Society (N)
1117HUM World History (N,GC)
1306HUM Art and Cultural Work (GC)
1501HUM New Communication Technologies (N,GC )
1502HUM Communication Performance (GC)
1503HUM News and Politics (N,GC)
1510HUM Intro to Public relations (N,GC)
1603HUM Islam in the Modern World (N,GC)
1704HUM Intro to Social Enterprise (N,GC,L)
1802HUM Writing for the Web (GC)
This review of first year Humanities written assessment tasks is based largely on the writer’s experience as an Academic Skills Learning Adviser for the past 10 years. It has enabled some common patterns in both positive and problematic practices to be identified from a student perspective.
The review has focused on written tasks. It has found that the first year written tasks are relevant to the learning outcomes and overall aims of the courses. A mix of assessment tasks is provided in the courses, providing students with a variety of ways to demonstrate their learning and achievement. Most tasks are clear and unambiguous and meet the students’ level of skills development.
The review has found that there are three areas where some revision is recommended in order to enhance the first year assessment experience for
Humanities students. These are:
1. Inconsistencies in expected overall word counts (see Appendix 2).
2. Inconsistencies in the weighting of items (see Appendix 3).

Both of these inconsistencies can confuse students, and lead to disengagement.
3. Lack of specific resources to assist students with their assessment tasks.

Further development or enhancement of resources to assist with tasks, especially those involving comparative analysis tasks, reflective writing tasks, and case study tasks would significantly enrich the learning experience for these students and moderate some of the assessment pressures that contribute to poor student retention. It is also recommended that these resources be placed in the same location on the course L@G websites.
1

SUMMARY OF KEY PRINCIPLES FOR FIRST YEAR ASSESSMENT
(BASED ON STUDENT FEEDBACK)
Students value transparency in assessment tasks .
This is because initially most students do not have the confidence or skills to be able to ‘interpret’ tasks. Valued assessment includes:

Assessment tasks that are clear, straightforward and unambiguous.

Assessment information (e.g. task description and marking criteria) that is in concordance.

Marking criteria that guide students to understand what parts of the task are most important/worth the most marks. Students do not consider generic marking criteria helpful.

Assessment that clearly relates to the course and overall degree. That is, students value being able to see how a particular task is beneficial to understanding the course content, and how it is relevant (in terms of skills and content) to the degree as a whole . ‘Why am I being asked to do this?’ is unfortunately a common student question.
Students value consistency .
Lack of consistency can contribute to a sense of personal inadequacy, disempowerment and perceived inability to negotiate the complexities of university culture. To enhance consistency students find it helpful if:

All members of the teaching team in a course ensure they are giving the same messages to students about assessment tasks. A frequent complaint is that ‘the lecturer told us to do X, but our tutor told us to do
Y’.

All members of the teaching team in the same course commit to a single referencing format.

All members of the teaching team within and across courses commit to the same message about general rules (e.g. use of quotes, permitted word length, use of headings etc).

All members of the teaching team in a course taught across campuses ensure they are providing students with the same resource assistance.

Assessment tasks of a similar word length attract similar weighting in different courses.

Information about assessment appears in the same place on the L@G website. Beginning students need time to navigate the complexities of university websites.
Assessment defines what students see as important, and directs how they manage their time .
Given that many are juggling work and family commitments, this is not surprising. Therefore, assessment tasks that are disproportionately complex or demanding or focus on just one small part of the overall content will undermine students’ engagement with the content of the course as a whole.
Students value assessment tasks that sequentially build on academic skills as well as content knowledge .
2

This applies to assessment tasks within a course and assessment tasks across the courses.
In first semester, students value essay tasks that initially

Are relatively short (e.g. 750-1000 words)

Are relatively simple (e.g. summary/description and simple interpretative analysis – such as answers to how/why questions)

Include limited research requirements (e.g. simple searches of readily obtainable information)
By second semester, students feel more capable of writing essays that

Are longer (1200-2500 words)

Incorporate more complex analysis (e.g. critical analysis/evaluation tasks)

Include more rigorous research
Students prefer a mix of tasks
This can include quizzes, short answer tests, essays, exams etc. Different tasks enable students to show their understanding of content in different ways.
Students value resources that model the desired outcome
Resources can include example essays, paragraphs etc. In the first semester, an example essay structure is also considered useful. A FAQ resource is also valued (and for academics, can help reduce time spent answering questions).
Students appreciate assessment tasks that are staggered.
Beginning students can become overwhelmed if, for example, they are expected to submit three essays in the same week. Beginning students need time to acquire good university time management skills. If this is not possible, they prefer that a mix of tasks (e.g. different weighting, word length or complexity) be required within a short period.
Students prefer course readings to be intelligible .
Readings that are complex and loaded with unfamiliar and highly specialised academic terminology (i.e. those written for a learned academic audience) can challenge beginning students, especially non-traditional students, who may have poor general reading skills. This can lead to disengagement and a self perception that they are not capable of handling university study. It makes sense therefore to ensure that their initial readings are at an appropriate level and are comprehensible in order to build their reading and comprehension skills and general confidence.
3

ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Clarity
– Are assignment tasks clear and unambiguous?
Most first year Humanities assessment tasks are very clear and unambiguous. This is particularly the case for tasks in 1009HUM , 1013HUM and 1015HUM (semester 1) and 1117HUM and 1510HUM (semester 2).
However, the task for 1802HUM (website with critical reflection) could be seen by students as ambiguous. The directive given is to “provide reflective critique in light of the course content. Written analytical skills, self-reflective evaluation skills and developed web aesthetic are the desired outcomes in learning of this item”. Students may need more direction than this to understand exactly what is required.
I could not find any detailed information about tasks for semester 1 courses
1021HUM and 1603HUM in either their course outlines or L@G websites. One possible reason is that tasks were provided in tutorials or lectures. If this is the case, one potential problem is that students who are unable to attend classes may be disadvantaged. Students prefer to have the full assessment task easily locatable, preferably in either the course outline and/or their L@G website.
Recommendations – It is recommended that the task for 1802HUM be reworded to clarify what is required. It is also recommended that detailed information about assessment tasks for 1021HUM and 1603HUM be located in the course outline and L@G website.
Criteria
– Do the marking criteria assist in understanding the assignment task?
Students value marking criteria that relate clearly to the task and guide them in understanding exactly what is expected of them and what parts of the task are most important and/or worth the most marks. Assessment tasks in 1105HUM and 1009
HUM
(Aurora’s Tute) are particularly well supported with highly relevant marking criteria.
Most courses have marking criteria of moderate specificity, that is, the criteria relate to the task, although a breakdown of individual percentages for each criterion is not supplied. Not all academics agree that this is necessary, although students have expressed a preference for this. A breakdown of marks or some other technique that that guides students towards and highlights rewards for analysis over description, for example, can be particularly useful for students.
Students usually do not consider generic marking criteria helpful. Some courses
( 1703HUM , 1013HUM, 1015HUM, 1104HUM, 1802HUM only offer generic marking criteria.
I was not able to locate any marking criteria for tasks in 1021HUM or 1603HUM.
4

Recommendations – It is recommended that marking criteria for courses
1703HUM, 1013HUM, 1015HUM, 1104HUM, 1802HUM be updated to provide more task guidance for students. If marking criteria exist for tasks in 1021HUM and 1603HUM, these should be made easily locatable for students.
Weighting - Is weighting appropriate for assignment tasks?
As Appendix 3 illustrates, there are some significant inconsistencies in the weighting of tasks. Although it is reasonable to expect weighting variations in assessment across a first year array of courses, it is important to consider the message that is being given to the student by assessment weighting. For example, assessment tasks in 1021HUM and 1306 HUM allocate only 10% weighting to tasks of 1500 word length. Similarly, a 2000 word output attracts only 20% weighting in 1021HUM and
1022HUM . This could send a message to students that these assignments are comparatively not very important, and that their time and effort is much better spent elsewhere on higher weighted tasks in other courses.
Recommendations – It is recommended that course convenors across the first year courses discuss the relative weighting of assessment tasks across the first year.
Level of Difficulty
– Are assignment tasks suitable for students’ level of skill development?
General Comments
Most tasks appear suitable for students’ level of skill development. They are relatively simple tasks incorporating basic interpretative analysis and limited research requirements.
However, tasks that include more complex analysis, such as case study tasks
( 1510HUM ) , comparative analysis tasks ( 1007HUM, 1013HUM, 1015HUM,
1603HUM and 1702HUM ) and critical analysis tasks ( 1802HUM ) can challenge beginning students, especially non-traditional students, unless they are particularly well supported with specific resources that explain how to achieve the desired outcome. This is also the case for reflective journals ( 1105HUM, 1022HUM,
1501HUM and 1704HUM ) if critical analysis is required as part of the task, which it is in these tasks.
Recommendations
– It is recommended that resources be developed to assist students in achieving the desired outcomes . This issue of suitable resources to assist in scaffolding skills is discussed further in 6. Resources below.
Course Specific Comments
1105HUM : The Reading Analysis task in 1105HUM (Semesters 1 and 2) could be potentially difficult for beginning students because of the requirement that students
5

make connections between complex quotations and their reflexive journal. However, this complexity or difficulty could well be mitigated by good teaching and supportive lectures and tutorials. Nevertheless, the risk is always that teaching staff will change, and therefore this kind of support could be lost. Further, when large numbers of sessionals are teaching in a first year course, the quality of teaching can vary.
Recommendations
–To ensure the sustainability of this task, it is recommended that this task be simplified, and/or excellent resources are developed that model the kind of support required in lectures and tutorials.
This will ensure that in the future this task is manageable for students regardless of who comprises the teaching team.
1007HUM : The essay task in 1007HUM ( semester 1 and 2) includes a bank of questions . However, there is a larger bank of questions in the semester 2 course than there is in the semester 1 course. Many of these additional questions are considerably simpler, which suggests that they may be more suitable for beginning
Semester 1 students.
Recommendation – It is recommended that these easier questions be added to the Semester 1 essay task.
1021HUM and 1603HUM : As I could not find specific information about the tasks in
1021HUM and 1603HUM, I cannot comment on their difficulty. However, the brief details about the research task in the Course Outline for 1021HUM do indicate that an ethics clearance will be required. How suitable this is for beginning students is unclear.
Recommendations
– It is recommended that the issue of a task necessitating an ethics clearance be discussed.
Relationship to Course Learning Outcomes: Do the assignment tasks clearly relate to/develop the learning outcomes for the course?
There are no significant disparities between Learning Outcomes and assignment tasks in any of the assessment tasks in the courses
6. Workload: Is the overall assessment workload manageable for the students?
Depending on the courses that students select, students who are just developing time management skills may find themselves overwhelmed by the need to submit several assessment tasks in the same week (see Appendix 1). Another issue is the overall disparity in course expectations of total written words (see Appendix 2). For example, in Semester 1, one course expects students to write over 4 times the amount of total words than another course does. Again, it is expected that there will be variations depending on the type of course offered, but a high total wordage can be viewed as an excessive workload. This perceived excessive workload may
6

contribute to a sense of unfairness and lead to disengagement. It may also lead to a disproportionate amount of time being spent on the one course.
Recommendation
– It is recommended that course convenors across the first year courses discuss both these issues.
7. Resources: Are there sufficient appropriate resources provided to assist students with their tasks?
Students value resources that model the desired outcome and assist with the specific task. These resources can include information on how to organise information, example essays, paragraphs etc. In the first semester, students also consider an example essay structure useful. A FAQ resource is also valued, and for academics, can help reduce time spent answering questions).
Several courses provided specific resources to assist students with their tasks which can be regarded as exemplars. For example,
 1105HUM provided resources that explained how to approach their tasks

1009HUM (
Note: ‘Aurora’s Tute’ only
) provided an example essay
 1503HUM provided a tips sheet
 1015HUM (Note: Nathan campus only) provided three example essays
 1117HUM provided a guide to writing a briefing note.
Recommendation – It is important for equity reasons that course resources provided to assist students with tasks are provided to all students on all campuses.
The following courses ( 1702HUM, 1703HUM, 1705HUM , Semester 1; 1007HUM,
1013HUM, 1704 HUM Semester 2) provided generic resources, or links to generic resources, to assist students with writing in general. Although these are useful, they do not necessarily assist with specific tasks that require specific approaches or structures, and/or more complex tasks. It should be noted that the Course Outline for
1704HUM suggested that a Reflective Writing Guide was available on L@G.
However, I was unable to locate this resource .
Recommendation
– It is recommended that specific resources, such as example essays and information on how to approach and write specific tasks
(reflective essays, comparative analysis essays etc) be developed.
In several courses ( 1021HUM, 1603HUM, 1802HUM Semester1; 1104HUM,
1306HUM, 1501HUM, 1510HUM, 1603HUM, 1802HUM Semester 2) I could not locate resources to assist students with their tasks.
Recommendation – It is highly recommended that appropriate resources be developed to enable scaffolding of skills and assistance with these tasks.
7

4
5
6
7
8
9
APPENDIX 1 week
1007
1
Sem Tutorial presentation
10%
2
3
1009
Weekly Worksheets
30%
1021
10
11
12
13
Exam MC
20%
Research Essay
1500w, 40%
Narrative Report
1500w, 35%
14
15
Open Book Exam
1500w, 30%
Essay
1500w, 35%
Presentation
10%
Essay
1500w, 30%
Major Project a. Essay 2
1500w, 30% b. Research
Portfolio
1500w, 10% c. Reading Journal
2000w, 20%
Essay
1500 w
40%
1105 1405
Class exercises
30%
Digital narrative
20%
Reflective journal and reading Analysis
40%, 500+ words
Artist book
30%
Semester One
1603
Attendance
10%
Short answer test
20%
1702 1703
Oral pres
Weeks 3-12
20%
Current affairs Test
20%
Exercises weeks 3-
8
1500 w, 40%
1705
Participation
10%
Short tests
250w
5%
Short tests
250w
5%
Essay
1500w, 35%
Experimental book
30%
Quiz
10%
Short answer test
20%
Major essay
2000 w
50%
Essay
1500 w
30%
Essay
1000w
25%
Short tests
250w
5%
Short tests
250w, 5%
Exam MC
30%
Essay
1500w, 35%
Open Book Exam
1500w, 35%
1802
Sem class exercises
20%
Web page
500w, 20%
Web page
500w, 20%
Web site
1200 w
40%
8

we ek
1007
1
Sem presentat
2
10%
3
4
5
6
1013
Participati on
20%
1015
Weekly worksheets
30%
1022 1104
Participation
20%
Semester
Presentation
20%
1105 1117
Participation
20%
Online
Discussion
5%
Briefing notes
500w,10%
Semester Two
1306 1501
Work book
500w30%
Blog
20%
7
8
9
12
Exam MC
20% exam
1000w,25
%
Review
1000w, 30%
Essay
2000w,40%
10
Research
Essay
1500w, 40%
11
Assignme
30%,1000w
Reflective journal
2000w,20%
Short story folio
1500w,25%
13
14 O Book
Exam
1500w,
30%
Digital narrative
25%
Reflective journal
800w,20%
Reading analysis
500w,25%
Briefing notes
500w,10%
Online
Discussion
5%
Sound
Project
30%
Essay
1500w
10%
THome exam
25%,100
0w
Essay
1500w,40
%
Personal mapping
2000w,40%
Short story folio
2500w,35%
Essay
1500w,30%
Briefing notes
500w,10%
Team
Project
20%
Exam
2000w
40%
Exam
Practical
10%
Blog
20%
Essay
1000w
20%
Exam MC
40%
1502
Presentation
10%
Exam
MC,SA
40%
1503
Semester
Debate
20%
News story
300w
20%
News story
300w
20%
Exam MC
25%
1510
Tutorial
Participation
10%
Presentation
20%
Video Task & evaluation
30%
News story
300w,
15%
Case study
1000w,25%
Oral present
Weeks8-12
20%
Exam
25%; Presentat
1500w,20%
1603
Attendance
10%
Test
20%
Essay
2000w,50%
Exam
20%
1704
Participation
20%
1802
Semester exercises 20%
Web page
500w
20%
Presentation
30 mins
40%
Web page
500w,20%
Web site
1200 w
40%
Reflective
Journal
1250w
40%
9

Appendix 2
Total Word count/course (essays, written exams)
Semester 1 Semester 2
Words Course code
1500 1702
2000
2000+
2200
3000
1603
1105
1802
1007, 1009
4000
6500
1703, 1705
1021
Words
900
1000
1500
1250
2000
2200
2500
2800
3000
3500
4000
6000
Course code
1503
1501
1702
1704
1306, 1603
1802
1015, 1510
1105
1007,1013
1117
1104
1022
10

APPENDIX 3
Weighting/Word Length Breakdown (semesters 1 and 2)
Weighting Word Length
(Written tasks)
Course code/semester
5%
10%
15%
20%
250
500
1500
300
1705/1
1117/2
1021/1,1306/2
1503/2
300
500
800
1000
1500
2000
1503/2;
1802/1&2
1105/1&2
1501/2
1510/2
1021/1; 1022/2
25%
30%
35%
40%
500
1000
1500
500
1000
1500
1500
2500
500+
1200
1250
1500
1105/1&2
1702/1, 1703/1; 1013/2, 1510/2
1104/2
1306/2
1013/2, 1015/2; 1112/2
1009/1, 1021/1, 1105/1&2, 1500/1, 1702/1; 1007/2,1117/2
1009/1; 1705/1; 1703/1
1104/2
1105/1
1802/1&2
1704/2
1007/1&2; 1105/1,1703/1; 1015/2
50%
2000
2000
1022/2, 1117/2
1603/1&2
Word Length/Weighting Breakdown (semesters 1 and 2)
Weighting Course code/semester Word Length
(Written tasks)
250
300
500
800
1000
5%
20%
10%
20%
25%
30%
40%
20%
20%
25%
30%
1705/1
1503/2
1117/2
1802/1&2
1105/1&2
1306/2
1105/1
1105/1&2
1510/2
1702/1, 1703/1; 1013/2, 1510/2
1013/2, 1015/2; 1112/2
1200
1250
1500
2000
2500
40%
40%
10%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
20%
40%
50%
35%
1802/1&2
1704/2
1021/1,1306/2
1510/2
1104/2
1009/1, 1021/1, 1105/1&2, 1500/1, 1702/1; 1007/2,1117/2
1009/1; 1705/1; 1703/1
1007/1&2; 1105/1,1703/1; 1015/2
1021/1; 1022/2
1022/2,1117/2
1603/1&2
1104/2
11