Assessment in higher education A case study of one course in Australia.pdf

Mahboob, A. (2008). Assessment in higher education: A case study from Australia. In M. Sajidin & B. Khurram (Eds.) Quality
Enhancement in Higher Education in Pakistan. Karachi: University of Karachi Press.
Assessment in higher education: A case study of one course
in Australia
Ahmar Mahboob
Department of Linguistics
University of Sydney
Introduction
It is an honor to have been asked to contribute to this volume. In writing this chapter, I was
cognizant of the fact that I have not taught university courses in Pakistan for quite some time. I
therefore do not feel qualified to write about issues of higher education in Pakistan. In
realization of this, I have focused this paper on ways of assessing and evaluating assessment
practices by lecturers in their own setting. I hope that this paper contributes to a discussion of
assessment in higher education in Pakistan and guides academic staff in Pakistan as they reflect
on various assessment practices within their own contexts.
This paper presents a case study of assessment practices in one PG unit of study being taught
by the author in the last 2 year. Based on an understanding of assessment in terms of
constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) and consequential validity (Boud, 1995; Linn, Baker, &
Dunbar, 1991; Messik, 1989), this paper evaluates the current assessment protocols in this unit.
Biggs (1996) argues that learning is best achieved if there is a constructive alignment between
the learning goals, teaching approaches, and assessment techniques. Each of these should
relate to the other. It is when these three elements are finely calibrated that learning is at its
peak. In this paper, I evaluate the degree of constructive alignment in the unit of study under
focus. Assessment documents are studied in relation to the theoretical insights gained from the
literature and related to the course aims and objectives. In addition, students’ evaluation of
these assessment protocols are examined and these are compared to the unit coordinator’s
goals and understanding. The results help outline future directions in assessment practice for
this unit.
In a different approach to understanding assessment, Boud (1995) argues that assessment is
most effective and leads to learning when broader consequences of a given assessment are
considered. To be consequentially valid, assessments should not be seen in terms of the

immediate results, but in terms of how they impact students’ study habits and how they relate
to deeper approaches of learning (Ramsden, 2003). A ‘deep approach to learning’ is one in
which students’ intention is to understand the content and to relate theoretical ideas to other
experiences. A deep approach to learning is contrasted with a ‘surface approach to learning’ in
which the intention is to complete a particular task/assignment. A surface approach does not
help students relate the knowledge that they are currently engaging with to previous
knowledge; instead, it leads to memorization of facts and concepts unreflectively. It is argued
that the goal of higher education is to encourage deep approaches to learning because the
knowledge thus gained can be transferred to other contexts and therefore contribute positively
to learners’ future paths. It is further argued that deep learning may be boosted by using
consequential assessment practices and by considering how learners engage with assessment
(Segers, Nijhuis, & Gijselaers, 2006; Tang, 1994; Scouller, 1998).
In a recent paper, Harlen (2007) evaluates formative and summative assessments. He defines
formative assessment as one that “promotes learning by using evidence about where students
have reached in relation to the goals of their learning, to plan the next steps in their learning
and know how to take them” (p. 16). On the other hand, summative assessment is seen as
being comprehensive in nature and its purpose is seen as providing cumulative information on
which levels of achievement are determined at exit from the course of study. Harlen evaluates
these forms of assessment based on four criteria: 1) reliability, 2) validity, 3) impact, and 4)
resources. Reliability is understood as the consistency of measurement, or the degree to which
an instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same condition with the
same participants. Validity refers to the degree to which a particular test and/or assessment
truly measures what is intended it to be measured. Impact for Harlen is defined in terms of
consequential validity (Messik, 1989). And finally, resources include tangible and intangible
things such as material required, cost to school, teachers’ time and expertise etc. Harlen argues
that “resources required to provide an assessment ought to be commensurate with the value of
the information for users of the data” (p. 19).
Harlen’s paper is important in that it brings together some of the key concepts and issues
involved in assessment. However, there are several limitations of this work as well. We will
discuss two of the more significant ones here. Harlen analyzes formative and summative
assessments based on an abstract understanding of what these forms of assessment should
assess. No actual assessment tasks or materials are evaluated. This questions the validity of the
analysis: how can we validly review or evaluate an abstract type of assessment without
referring to its implementation? The second significant issue with this paper is that it does not
take the role of students into account. An assessment needs to be evaluated in terms of how
students view it and engage with it (Race, 1995). Its validity, reliability, impact, and resources

need to be understood in terms how students relate to it, how they understand it, how they
prepare to complete it, and how they evaluate it. By not integrating a student perspective into
his analysis, Harlen leaves a major gap unfilled. However, regardless of these problems, the
paper is useful as it shows one way in which assessment can be evaluated.
Several studies have investigated the impact of the method of assessment on student
performance and on the choice of learning strategies (e.g. Segers, Nijuis, & Gijselaers, 2006;
Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, Schelfhout, & Gielen, 2006; Scouller, 1998; Tang, 1994). Struyven et.
al. studied the relationship between student performance and four assessment modes:
protfolio, case-based, peer assessment, and multiple choice evaluation and found that the
assessment method does make a differnce. More importantly, they observed that student-
activating instruction efforts do not automatically result in more extensive learning gains” (p.
217). This result is in line with another paper published in the same journal. In their work,
Segers, Nijuis, & Gijselaers (2006) compare students learng strategies when using assingment-
based assessment and problem-based assessment in an international business program. Their
findings showed that students are aware of their strategy choices and their intentions to
employ particluar learning strategies correlated with actual strategy used. They further found
that these strategy choices were based on students perception of assessment demands. Segers,
Nijuis, & Gijselaers (2006) report that students in a problem based learning – an approach
which provides greater student autonomy – did not necessarily result in deep learning
strategies. They explained the discord between PBL and deep learning approach as a result of
work overload. This is an important finding and relates to the present study in that students
also raised concerns about being overloaded and not finding time to sufficiently revise or polish
off their work.
In this introduction, the goals of this study as well as some of the key terms and concepts used
in research on assessment were outlined. A brief discussion of some recent research that
relates to the current project was also presented. The following section outlines the research
methodology used in this study. The author then looks at the results of the study and discusses
them in light of current research. Finally, to conclude, the key lessons learned through this
study are shared.
Methodology
In this section, I will describe the unit under consideration, the students who participated in the
study, and the instrument used to elicit students’ feedback.
Description of unit

The unit in focus, ‘Additional Language Teaching’, is one of the four core units for the MA in
Applied Linguistics. The specific goals of this unit are outlined in the syllabus (Appendix A). In
addition to the course syllabus, detailed assessment descriptions and rubrics also form the
material used in this study. Seven distinct types of assessment tasks are used in the course.
These include: portfolio, teaching philosophy (2 drafts), class observation report, quizzes (5
online quizzes), WebCT participation, article reviews (2 reviews), and poster presentations (See
Appendix A for details). These tasks were distributed over the course of the semester and
students were given detailed descriptions for each of these. In addition, students were
provided with (good) sample responses to the tasks from previous years (if available). Good and
clear descriptions of assignments have been listed as one of the core criteria for making
assessment supportive of learning goals (Knight, 1995). This information is relevant to this study
because it forms part of the material used to explore the nature and quality of (constructive)
alignment (Biggs, 1996) in this unit.
Participants & Instrument
In addition to the course material, data for this study were collected from the students enrolled
in the unit using a survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire asked for detailed input on
each of the assessment tasks used this semester. Participation in the survey was voluntary and
anonymous. 12 (out of 30) students completed the survey used in this study. These participants
all hope to become English language teachers in the future and are enrolled in the unit to
develop a critical understanding of the approaches in additional language teaching.
Results and Discussion
Results of the study showed that the coordinator had planned the unit aims to be aligned with
the assessment. It was also noted that, in most cases, the students found the assessment
helpful in achieving their learning goals. However, there were some tasks for which students
chose to adopt a surface approach.
In critically reflecting on the process of course development, it became clear that the unit
coordinator was conscious of the needs for constructive alignment (although not familiar with
this term). In order to achieve alignment, the coordinator had related the aims of the unit to
the assessment tasks. These are visually represented in Appendix B, which shows how the each
of the unit goals were linked to one or more assessment tasks. In designing the tasks and
relating them to the unit goals, the coordinator attempted to increase the consequential
validity of the assessment (Boud, 1995).

The results from the students were diverse and both supported and contradicted the
coordinators understanding. Appendix C provides a summary of the key results from the
surveys. The results of the survey show that students varied in their appreciation of the various
assessment tasks.
Class observation reports
Although class observation reports were not submitted by the students at the time of data
collection, many students did respond to the survey items related to this task. Five students
(out of six who responded to the item) stated that they found that they had/will learn from this
activity. Student 5 wrote, “Not sure because I have not conducted to the observation. However,
I'm quite keen about it as I would really like to see if what I've learnt in theory is practiced in the
real world.” This student’s observation of how this task may impact their learning positively
before they have engaged in it relates to Clark and Rust (2006) who provide a useful heuristic
device to evaluate the impact of assessment. Clark and Rust (2006) point out that assessment
should present at least opportunities to learn: “(1) while preparing for the assessment activity;
2) during the assessment activity; and, (3) while reflecting on the assessment after the
measured results are known and made available” (p. 74). Student 5’s comments shows that this
activity contributes to stage (1) of Clark and Rust’s framework (and will hopefully contribute to
the rest – a follow up study can shed better light on this).
Article reviews
Of all the assessments evaluated, the article reviews received the most positive comments. 11
of the 12 students who completed the survey liked this activity (with 1 student reserving
judgment). One student wrote, “Sure it makes me consider in more detail the issues raised in
the article and transforming them into a summary helps me clarify my ideas about them and
other related issues” (S #9). This student, like most others, found that the activity helped them
not just expand their breadth of knowledge and current research on the topic, but to relate it to
other issues. Thus, the students’ and the coordinator’s perception were aligned in this case (see
Appendix C) and the assessment led to a deep approach to learning (Ramsden, 2003).
Portfolios
Student portfolios are due in the last week of the semester and therefore students had not
completed it. Their perceptions are thus based on what they expect and not on experience.
Eight students responded to this item: 4 liked it and 4 were not sure. Regardless, most of them
felt that it will contribute to their learning because it is a “good way to review the things I've
done in this semester” (S #3). Students were concerned that this task was difficult because it is

“a highly autonomous work. I think it a good idea to keep daily diary of thinking or summary
weekly”(S #6). This statement suggests that this student was considering strategies to cope
with it. The strategy that this (and other students) developed was to work slowly over the
semester to develop a pool of material that could be used in the portfolio. Students’ evaluation
of the task aligned with what the coordinator had in mind and therefore had a positive
backwash effect. The positive evaluation of portfolios in this study is in line with previous
research which also documents that students like this mode of assessment (Tiwari & Tang,
2003; Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, Schelfhout, & Gielen, 2006). While students felt that this
activity will be useful, they were conscious that it took considerable time and impacted their
work on other tasks and courses.
Teaching philosophy
Students are required to submit two teaching philosophies over the semester: one in the
second week of the semester and one in the eleventh week. The purpose of the two drafts is to
help student reflect on their own beliefs about language teaching and to challenge and engage
with these over the course of the semester (Brookfield, 1995). As such, the assessment was
meant to help students relate their readings and discussions to their own teaching experiences
and practices and thus lead to a deeper approach to learning. All students, even the ones who
were not sure if they liked this activity, stated that they learnt through it. Student 10 wrote, “It
helps me to think and reflect on my own experience and through the process I noticed
strengths and weaknesses of my teaching”. This activity appeared to be well-aligned and has
high consequential validity.
Poster presentations
Of all the assessment, this one was the least popular. Only 2 students liked it, 3 others were not
sure, and 5 did not like it. The coordinator had chosen this assessment task because it would
critically expose students to a wide variety of current literature and at the same time would
give students a chance to present material to small groups – which was considered one way of
building some teaching/lecturing practice within the course structure. The assignment was
developed as a formative assessment tool with only a small contribution toward the final grade.
However, students’ evaluation clearly showed that this activity was not well aligned with the
lecturer’s objectives. Several students stated that it did not contribute to their learning. One
student who was critical of the task provided constructive feedback and wrote,
Although I can see the benefits of poster presentations, I do not think that doing them
every week is worthwhile. A couple of poster session during the course, perhaps
followed by a discussion about what we have learnt, would be good. Doing them every

week, however, is exceedingly laborious. I feel we would get more out of the lectures if
we had a variety of activities in them e.g. discussions, presentations, etc. I also feel that
I learn a lot about an often irrelevant, badly written article while not being able to
absorb the huge amount of information presented by the other students. (S #12)
This remark points out that the activity does not contribute to deep learning. Students view and
respond to other posters using a shallow approach to learning – thus, the task has a negative
washback effect and carries a low consequential validity. Students’ negative evaluation of a task
that they see as detrimental to their learning process is also noted in previous research
(Sambell, McDowell, & Brown, 1997). The key argument against this activity is one of
‘resources’ (Harlen, 2007). Students feel that the time and energies spent on this activity was
disproportionate to their learning. This is a valid rejection of the activity and the coordinator
has already made radical changes to the way that this activity is conducted. More revisions will
be made if this task is used in the future.
Quizzes
All students surveyed found that the quizzes helped them learn. Even the one student who was
not sure if they liked this form of assessment or not found this assessment aided their learning.
One student said, “[quizzes] are an excellent way to review material & ensure that the key
areas of the weekly readings have been grasped. I would be happy if there were more of them
& if they counted for a bigger proportion of the final marks” (S # 12). The overwhelming
support for the quizzes at first strikes odd because literature on assessment identifies that
quizzes lead only to surface learning and that student do not find them very useful. For
example, Sambell, McDowell and Brown (1997) show that students negatively evaluated
traditional testing and “set out, quite consciously, to achieve second-rate or ‘poor’ learning for
the purpose of a particular assessment point” (p. 358). Some possible reasons that students
liked the quizzes in the current unit are: 1) these quizzes are online, 2) contain only 5 randomly
selected items, and 3) students can retake the quiz as many times as they liked/needed until
they received the passing score of 4 out of 5. These characteristics, especially students’ ability
to retake the quiz as many times as needed, makes these quizzes non-traditional. The function
of the quizzes then becomes formative, i.e. to help students monitor their own learning by
allowing them to reread the texts and retake the quizzes.
Students’ evaluations on this assessment suggests that they find tasks where they are able to
review and revise without penalty to be more conducive to learning even if they need to
memorize and remember specific items to do well in the assessment. This is contrary to Zoller
and Ben-Chaim (1988) who claim that students prefer “examinations in which emphasis is on
understanding and analyzing rather than on knowing and ‘remembering’” (p. 65). In the present

study, students like the fact that quizzes help them identify and remember the key
terms/concepts/issues in the field and help them “read more details of each week's reading.
May be doing some notes” (S #7). Perhaps, the difference in the findings is, once again, a result
of the non-traditional format of the quizzes. This is an area that needs further research.
WebCT participation
WebCT participation is designed to encourage students to continue class discussion in an
informal extension of the class and also to allow students to raise issues that our limited time in
the class does not allow us to discuss. It is meant also to help students relate their readings and
discussions to other experiences and hence to encourage a deep approach to learning. These
goals were achieved to some degree, but not to the extent hoped for. Students were evenly
distributed in terms of whether they liked this activity or not (like = 4/12; not sure = 4/12; don’t
like = 4/12). However, most of the complaints about this assessment were about the
technology, and not the task itself. For example, one student stated the activity can be
improved “by making WebCT more organized - the threads are very confusing but I know this is
something we cannot really do anything about” (S #8). This remark raises an important point
about using technology in assessment: poorly designed or slow/limited access to e-learning
components can result in negative washback [WebCT has been redesigned by the University
this semester and there are many bugs that are still being fixed and that impact access and
availability of the site- this is beyond the control of the course coordinator as the student
notes]. However, when the technology does work, students find this activity useful, as
documented in the following statements: “Yes, [WebCT discussion board] engages me critically
and it extends beyond the coverage of our lessons in class” (S #5).
One other issue raised by the students in relation to the WebCT is time. One student wrote,
“WebCT used to be my favorite part last semester, while this time I feel I cannot spare much
time due to the excessive work, which is a regrettable loss” (S #6). This student (like many
others) points out that the time demands of the multiple assessment tasks in this unit (as well
as those in the other units) impact their ability to engage with the issues as they would like to.
This is indeed “regrettable”, as the student points out, and needs to be considered when this
unit is offered in the future (and, in fact, in evaluating the curriculum for the whole MA).
Conclusion
This brief study has raised a number of key points. In the context of Pakistan, I hope that both
the approaches to assessment used in the course discussed and the evaluation of these
assessment practices provide a direction for university lecturers to consider as they design and

evaluate their own pedagogical practices. Finally, in conclusion, some of the key lessons learnt
through this study are:
- Assessment impacts learning and can have either positive or negative washback
- Good assessment practices should have high consequential validity
- Good assessment practices should receive positive evaluation from the students and
should be seen by the students as positively influencing their learning
- Assessment validity, reliability, impact, and resources should be evaluated not just in
terms of the staff and institution, but also in relation to the students
- Lecturers should engage in reflective practice and collect and use student evaluation to
help develop more learning-centered pedagogy
- Assessment distribution needs to be considered across the curriculum and not just a
single unit: the variety and breadth of assessment tasks should be balanced both in
terms of learning goals and it terms of student time (and time needed to provide
formative feedback).

References
Biggs, J. (1996). Assessing learning quality: Reconciling insitutional, staff and educational
demands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 21, 5 - 15.
Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In D. Boud,
Assessment of Learnign in Higher Education (pp. 35 - 48). London: Kogan Page.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, C., & Rust, F. (2006). Learning-centered assessment in teacher education. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, Vol. 32, 73 - 82.
Harlen, W. (2007). Criteria for evaluating systems for student assessment. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, Vol. 33 , 15 - 28.
Knight, P. (Ed.). (1995). Assessment for Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Linn, B., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: expectations
and validation criteria. Educational Researcher , 20 (8), 15 - 21.
Messik, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn, Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Race, P. (1995). What has assessment done for us - and to us? In P. Knight, Assessment for
Learning in Higher Education (pp. 61 - 74). London: Kogan Page.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). But is it fair? An exploratory study of student
perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Education Evaluation, Vol.
23, 349 - 371.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches:
Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 4, 453 - 472.
Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redsigning a learning and assessment
environment: The influence on students' perceptions of assessment demands and their learning
strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 32 ol. 32, 223 - 242.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Gielen, S. (2006). The overall effects of
end-of-course assessment on student performance: A comparison between multiple choice
testing, peer assessment, case-based assessment and portfolio assessment. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, Vol. 32, 202 - 222.
Tang, C. (1994). Effects of modes of assessment on students' preparation strategies. In G. Gibbs,
Improving Student Learning: Theory and Practice (pp. 151 - 170). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff
Development.
Tiwari, A., & Tang, C. (2003). From process to outcome: The effect of portfolio assessment on
student learning. Nurse Education Today, Vol. 23, 269 - 277.
Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1990). Gender differences in examination-type performances, test
anxiety, and academic achievements in college science education - A case study. Science
Education, Vol. 74, 597 - 608.

Appendix A
Syllabus: Additional Language Teaching
LNGS 7273 Semester XXXX
Dr. Ahmar Mahboob Transient #245
ahmar.mahboob@arts.usyd.edu.au 9351-3548
Office Hours: Monday and Wednesday: 2:00 - 4:00 pm
Please sign-up for an appointment by signing up on the appointment sheet outside my
office. If you need an appointment outside these hours, please e-mail me to set up a
time.
A large number of students with a degree in Applied Linguistics take up ESL/EFL as their
profession. This course introduces participants to the principles and theories of teaching
English as an additional language. The course is designed to give participants a broad
introduction to the current theories, issues, and practices in additional language
teaching. It will outline the popular trends in TESOL and critically evaluate their
contribution and application. The course will also explore the recent World Englishes
and NNEST literature and critically examine related research that language teachers
need to be aware of. In addition to the theoretical aspects, this course give participants
ample opportunities to create, demonstrate, and evaluate various teaching
activities/tasks.
Textbooks:
• Readings will be made available on the library server for the unit
• Many of the readings will need to be photocopied. I will keep the books in my office and you
may come in to copy them during my office hours.
• Additional material will be introduced as needed.
Course Objectives / Aims:
At the end of the course, the participants will:
• be familiar with the current trends/issues in ALL (and of some of the key teaching approaches
of the past)

• be sensitive to local/contextual aspects of the profession
• be aware of the global implications of the profession
• be able understand how linguistics relates to language teaching/learning
• be able to design and create suitable activities that can be used in classes
• be able to teach various language skills at the appropriate level
• be able to critically read and use research literature in related fields
• be able to critically evaluate commercially available textbooks/resources
• have a critical understanding of language learning research and its application to language
teaching
Assessment
The assessment used in the course is designed to be in congruence with the aims of this
course. The various assignments are designed not only to test the students but also to
help them with developing their understanding of additional language teaching. Student
grades in the unit will be based on:
• 2 article reviews: 500 words each – 10 pts each
• observation report – 500 words – 10 pts
• portfolio: 1000 word + supporting material - 25 pts
• completion of weekly individual and group assignments and poster presentations – 10 pts
• five quizzes (online) – 5 pts
• teaching philosophies: 2 drafts: 1st
draft 500 words (10 pts); 2nd
draft 750 words (15 pts)
• participation in the discussions on WebCT - 5 pts
Review of 2 articles – 20 points (10 points each)
The purpose of this assignment is to boost your critical reading abilities and expose you to
current research in TESOL. You should select your articles from a recent issue of TESOL
Quarterly (2005+)
Your reviews will be graded on your ability to:
1. summarize and highlight the key issues raised in the article
2. critically discuss the issues raised
3. organize your thoughts and present them in an orderly fashion
Each review should be approximately 500 words in length.

Please see the document ‘Writing an Article Review’ in the “Additional Resources” section of the
class website for additional information on this assignment. You might also want to read the
two sample reviews that I have posted in the resources section.
For this class, I highly recommend a process-based approach to writing article reviews. In order
to facilitate this, I will provide web-space that will be available to you to post your draft
reviews. I suggest that you read and send comments to at least two other students’ reviews.
This process will help you get tips on how to improve your review by both reading other
peoples’ reviews and your colleagues comments on your review.
Final versions of your reviews will be due on: April 4 and May 2. (I may deduct 1 point/day for
late submission.)
Observation report – 10 pts
In order to complete this assignment, you will need to observe an ESL or a foreign language
class, take notes, and then write a report on your observation.
When observing a class, you should first ask permission from the instructor. During the
observation, you should make sure not to create any interference. Do not talk or ask questions
during the class session.
The observation report should be approximately 500 words.
Portfolio – 25 points - Due May 30
Through out the course, we will develop and evaluate various teaching material. There will also
be individual and group projects – such as poster presentations. You should collect all your
work and choose representative samples from this work to include in your portfolio. A more
detailed explanation of what I expect in a portfolio is given below.
A portfolio is a good opportunity for students to demonstrate what they learnt during the
course and how and why it was important / relevant. A portfolio is not simply a collection of all
the work that you carry out during the semester; it comprises of a selection of your work that
showcases what you have learnt during the semester and demonstrates how you have achieved
the aims and objectives of the course. The selected work is preceded with a reflective essay
that summarizes one’s experiences during the semester and elaborates on the rationale for
selecting the work submitted.
The purpose of a portfolio is at least three-fold:
1. It helps the lecturer to evaluate the progress made by a student over the semester,

2. It provides an opportunity for less vocal students to show their understanding of the subject,
and
3. It helps students’ develop an appreciation of their own learning/achievements.
A strong portfolio includes (not in this order):
1. A collection of students’ best work and effort. The work to be included in the portfolio is
selected by the student (You do not need to include everything that you did in your portfolio – choose
your favorite/representative work that functions as evidence of your learning/development).
2. A rationale for the selection of this work. You should be able to show: Why was this material
selected as a representative of your work? What were the learning goals of this work? How were they
achieved? (A good portfolio should provide a rationale for the selection of the work and illustrate the
learning goals/outcomes of the activities.)
3. A reflection of your (learning) experiences during the semester and an elaboration on how you
achieved the learning outcomes of the course.
The total length of your portfolio should be approximately 1000 words. This word limit does
NOT include the activities that you attach as evidence of your learning (these were done as
classroom assignments). Thus, the 1000 word limit applies to items ‘b’ and ‘c’ above (and not to
any activities etc. that were developed previously and are included as evidence).
For your portfolio, you should consider:
1. adding all teaching material that you develop
2. adding critique/review of published/available teaching material
3. adding samples of other work that you did (either individually or in groups) that you think
helped you in achieving some of the objectives of this course
For additional information on portfolio assessment, you may visit the following websites
(and/or google ‘portfolios’ to find other sources):
http://www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/literacy/assess6.html
http://www.pgcps.pg.k12.md.us/~elc/portfolio.html
Feel free to talk to me if you have any questions about your portfolio. I can also let you have a
look at some of the portfolios composed by students in the previous semesters. If you want to
browse through them, please set up an appointment and then come to my office.

Poster presentations – 10 points
Each week, starting week 4, you will be required to read and develop a poster
presentation on a specified chapter. You will present your posters during a short exhibit
that we will have each week.
Chapters for these presentations are available in my office and you will need to copy these
for your use.
Students will be graded on:
1. clarity and organization of the presentation
2. appropriate use and quality of any handouts/AV equipment
3. confidence, eye contact, and ability to engage students
4. engaging students
I highly encourage you to include your posters (or pictures of your posters – in case they
are large) in your portfolio.
Online weekly quizzes – 5 points
There will be 5 short online quizzes based on the core readings for the semester. These quizzes
will include short questions and/or MCQs. The format of the quiz might change over the
semester, but they should not take you more than 5-7 minutes to complete. The combined
score on these quizzes will account for 5% of the final grade. The deadline for completing a quiz
will be Wednesday (midnight) of each week.
To successfully pass a quiz, you will need to achieve a score of at least 80%. If you do not
achieve this score in the first attempt, you may retake the quiz as many times as needed. You
will have to wait at least 2 hours before attempting to retake a quiz. (Quiz 2 includes a few
short answer items and you will therefore be allowed only one attempt.)
You will get one point for each successful quiz (that is a quiz in which you score 80% or more; I
will not consider the number of attempts).
The first quiz is a practice quiz. The scores from this quiz will NOT be counted towards your final
grade. This first practice quiz will be due on Wednesday, March 14.

Teaching philosophy – 2 drafts – 25 points (10 pts for the 1st draft and 15 for the 2nd)
A teaching philosophy is a personal understanding of teaching and learning. There is no explicit
format for writing this and each individual will vary. Some may choose a more narrative style,
while others may choose an academic style. You are free to write this in your preferred style.
The main purpose of this activity is to make you think and document your ideas about teaching
and learning an additional language.
Draft 1 – 10 points – This first draft will be due in the 2nd week of the semester (March 14).
Keeping in mind that we are just starting the semester and that you might not have thoroughly
thought out your teaching philosophies, I do not expect a sophisticated paper. The 1st draft
should not be more than 500 words. The purpose of this draft is to get you thinking about what
you believe is the process of teaching/learning. You should consider questions like: What is
teaching/learning? What is the role of a teacher in a class? What are some suitable ways of
teaching? How do I teach? How do various teaching practices impact students’ learning? What
should a teacher do to make their class good/better? (These are just some sample questions;
you do not need to answer these. Focus on the questions that you think are more
important/relevant to you.)
Draft 2 - 10 points - The second draft is not a simple revision of the first draft. You should
consider writing this draft from scratch. This second draft will be due towards the end of the
semester after we have had ample opportunity to think and talk about issues in language
pedagogy. As a result of this exposure, I expect the draft to be more developed. While you will
still be addressing questions that are similar to the ones that you discussed in your first draft,
you do not have to stick to them. It is possible that your focus/interests/philosophies might
have shifted/evolved during the semester. Therefore, feel free to focus on different issues or
take a different stance. Once again, I expect variability in the style and content of each essay.
The only restriction that I will impose is on the length. Your 2nd draft should not exceed 750
words in length and will be due on May 16.
I will grade your essays on the clarity and organization of your writing. I will not be evaluating
individual beliefs. You are free to write what you believe is right. However, for the second draft,
you should consider supporting your beliefs with your readings and understanding of the issues
in the field. (I should warn you that I will not read any material that exceeds the word/page
limit.)
Web participation - 5 points - Due June 6
The purpose of creating a web-discussion forum is to provide us with an opportunity to
continue interesting discussions that we are unable to finish in the class, or to initiate other
discussions that we are unable to hold during class time. I expect all of you to participate

regularly on the Discussions forum by initiating new discussion threads and responding to items
posted by your colleagues.
Towards the end of this semester, I will ask you to select five of your favourite postings and
submit them to me for evaluation. I will evaluate these postings based on the following criteria:
- quality of submission: are the posting well thought out and well organized? do these postings
contribute to the ongoing discussion?
- time distribution: are the selected postings distributed over time? (I want to see that you
contributed regularly over the semester.)
Grade Descriptions
The following Grade Descriptors are to be read in conjunction with the specific criteria
for each assignment. Taken together, these will indicate to you how we have gone about
assessing your work.
High Distinction 85-100
• Intelligent critical analysis of evidence;
• Demonstrates high level of initiative in research and reading;
• Impressive command of underlying debates and assumptions;
• Properly documented;
• Precise, clear writing;
• All criteria addressed to a high level.
Distinction 75-84
• Intelligent critical analysis of evidence;
• Demonstrates initiative in research and reading;
• Good command of underlying debates and assumptions;
• Precise, clear writing;
• All criteria addressed clearly,
• and most to a high level.
Credit 65-74

• Good analysis of evidence;
• Demonstrates control of research and reading;
• Shows an understanding of the underlying debates and assumptions;
• Precise, clear writing, with few grammatical errors;
• All criteria addressed clearly.
Pass 50-64
• Satisfactory analysis of evidence;
• Demonstrates control of research and reading;
• Work is adequately written, with some grammatical errors;
• Most criteria addressed adequately.
Fail 0-49
• Work not of acceptable standard
• Most criteria not clearly or adequately addressed;
• Written style inappropriate to task;
• Major problems with expression.
Work may fail for any or all of the following reasons:
• Failure to demonstrate understanding of content;
• Irrelevance of content; Unacceptable paraphrasing;
• Absence of referencing where assignment requires this;
• Unreadability (including major grammatical or structural problems);
• Late submission without adequate explanation.
Academic Integrity
Part of learning to write in a scholarly way is to learn how to refer to other people’s
work. If you use other people’s work in your own work, you must acknowledge this
properly. Not acknowledging the sources of the words and ideas that you use in your
work is unacceptable in academic work, and is called plagiarism. The University has
procedures for penalising students who do not follow principles of academic honesty.
We ask you to read the University’s policy, which is available at:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/ab/policies/Academic_Honesty_Cwk.pdf

Appendix B
Alignment of unit aims and assessment tasks as seen by the course coordinator.
Unit aims (as stated in the syllabus) Assessment task(s) as developed
by the coordinator*
be familiar with the current trends/issues in ALL (and of some of the key
teaching approaches of the past)
1, 6, 7
be sensitive to local/contextual aspects of the profession 1, 2, 3
be aware of the global implications of the profession 1, 5
be able understand how linguistics relates to language teaching/learning 7
be able to design and create suitable activities that can be used in classes 1, 7
be able to teach various language skills at the appropriate level Weekly tutorials
be able to critically read and use research literature in related fields 6, 7
be able to critically evaluate commercially available textbooks/resources 1
have a critical understanding of language learning research and its application
to language teaching
4, 5, 6, 7
*Key: 1) portfolio, 2) teaching philosophy, 3) class observation report, 4) quizzes, 5) WebCT
participation, 6) article reviews, and 7) poster presentations.

Appendix C
Summary/sample of student responses to key items in the survey.
Assessment Did you like it? Does it support learning? How can it be improved?
Article
reviews
Yes – 11/12
Not sure – 1/12
This assignment is a great way to
improve academic writing & allows
me to use analytical & critical
thinking skills. (S #12)
Clearer instructions that explicitly state
what kind of article you wish us to
choose + techniques as to how to write
(more examples). Only 500 words! (S
#4)
Class
observation
Yes – 4 / 6
Not sure – 2/6
Yes, one can learn a lot by observing
other teachers, there should be
more activities like this. (S #8)
None listed
Note: For most students, this was a
project in progress.
Portfolio Yes – 4/8
Not sure – 4/8
Keep track of the learning and
develop ideas in my own time. (S
#10)
Each week, we should look at a teaching
method. For example: Suggestopedia +
the adv/dis so that we can explore a
whore range of ideas which will then
help us put together our own portfolios.
(S #4)
Note: For most students, this was a
project in progress.
Poster
presentation
Yes – 2/10
Not sure – 3/10
No = 5/10
Yes, I've learnt how to read the
articles better to find the key points
of each article. (S #2)
I felt that it is a great pity that we
cannot get to listen to all the
presentations especially if it’s our
session. We could only stay and miss
out the other posters for the same
session. Maybe we can have everyone
give a very brief summary for each
chapter or give the class the main ideas
or even raise a question from the
chapter for us to think further in a panel
discussion style. (S #10)
Quizzes Yes – 11/12
Not sure – 1/12
They are an excellent way to review
material & ensure that the key areas
of the weekly readings have been
grasped. I would be happy if there
were more of them & if they
counted for a bigger proportion of
the final marks. (S # 12)
After the quiz is over a page could be
displayed with the correct answers so
that we can see where and how we
went wrong. (S #9)
Teaching
philosophy
Yes – 9/12
Not sure – 2/12
No – 1/12
It helps me to think and reflect on
my own experience and through the
process I noticed strengths and
weaknesses of my teaching. (S #10)
It will be good if we know what is
expected to be written whether we
should use some theories or anything.
(S #1)
WebCT
participation
Yes – 4/12
Not sure – 4/12
No - 4/12
Yes, engages me critically and it
extends beyond the coverage of our
lessons in class. (S #5)
By making WebCT more organized - the
threads are very confusing but I know
this is something we cannot really do
anything about. (S #8)

N = 12. Please note that not all students responded to all items.

Assessment in higher education A case study of one course in Australia.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessment in higher education A case study of one course in Australia.pdf

Similar to Assessment in higher education A case study of one course in Australia.pdf (20)

More from Mary Montoya

More from Mary Montoya (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessment in higher education A case study of one course in Australia.pdf