Rough ready and rapid guide to TESTA
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•69 views
Workshop at First International Symposium on Unravelling Assessment and Feedback Literacy
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Rough ready and rapid guide to TESTA
Similar to Rough ready and rapid guide to TESTA (20)
More from Tansy Jessop
More from Tansy Jessop (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Rough ready and rapid guide to TESTA
- 1. A rough, ready and rapid guide to TESTA @solentlearning @tansyjtweets Tansy Jessop Unravelling A&F Symposium University of Surrey 18 June 2018
- 2. Workshop plan • Brief explanation of TESTA • Why a programme approach? • Mock audit • AEQ data • Focus groups • Changing the assessment narrative
- 4. Research and change process Programme Team Meeting Assessment Experience Questionnaire (AEQ) TESTA Programme Audit Student Focus Groups
- 5. Why take a programme approach? 1. A modular problem 2. A curriculum problem 3. An alienation problem 4. An engagement solution
- 7. IKEA 101: great for flat-pack furniture but..
- 8. Curriculum privileges knowing stuff
- 9. A state of alienation? Image, "Alienation Nightmare" © 1996 by Sabu
- 10. Motorways to alienation • M1: Modules • M2: Markets • M3: Metrics • M4: Mass higher education
- 11. TESTA improves students’ perceptions of A&F… 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 OS AVERAGENSSSCORES COMPARISON OF 32 PROGS IN 13 UNIVERSITIES WITH SECTOR SCORES NSS 2015 SCORES TESTA SCORES
- 12. …and improves the staff experience More engaging formative Less measuring Students learning more Curriculum less stuffed
- 13. Activity One: mock audit Programme Team Meeting Assessment Experience Questionnaire (AEQ) TESTA Programme Audit Student Focus Groups
- 14. The Audit: Caveats 1. Audit is not everything 2. Official discourse 3. Planned curriculum 4. Some better data, some weaker, some gaps
- 15. • Some context • Number of summative • Number of formative • Varieties of assessment • Proportion of exams • Written feedback • Speed of return of feedback Summary of audit data
- 16. TESTA definitions Summative: graded assessment which counts towards the degree Formative: Does not count: ungraded, required task with feedback
- 17. Mock Audit
- 18. Make sense of audit data 1) What is striking about the data? 2) What surprises or puzzles you? 3) What student learning behaviours might the assessment patterns foster? 4) What do you want to know more about? Each table look at: • 1 x overview data OR • 1 x discipline OR • 1 x university type. • Briefly discuss in relation to questions
- 19. Typical A&F patterns 73 programmes in 14 unis (Jessop and Tomas 2017) Characteristic Low Medium High Volume of summative assessment Below 33 40-48 More than 48 Volume of formative only Below 1 5-19 More than 19 % of tasks by examinations Below 11% 22-31% More than 31% Variety of assessment methods Below 8 11-15 More than 15 Written feedback in words Less than 3,800 6,000-7,600 More than 7,600
- 20. Characteristic Medium (Research- Intensive) Medium (Teaching Intensive) Mann- Whitney U test results Summative 41-79 (Median 50) 34-41 (Median 35) RI* Formative 1-26 (Median 3) 3-17 (Median 7) n.s. Proportion of Examinations 27-42% (Median 30%) 5-19% (Median 10%) RI* Variety assessment methods 8-10 (Median 8) 12-14 (Median 15) TI*
- 21. Research Tools 2: The AEQ
- 22. Lies, damned lies and statistics… • The AEQ constructs • Filling out the AEQ • The scales • Analysing AEQ & audit data
- 23. Why a questionnaire about assessment? • Weaker NSS scores • Weak NSS? • Quick and big data • Quant/qualitative
- 24. AEQ 3.3 (2003) • Designed to measure ‘conditions under which assessment supports learning’ • Based on theory and evidence + selected CEQ scales • Robust enough factor structure and scale coherence – measures what it’s meant to be measuring?
- 25. AEQ 4.0 (2018) • Fill in the AEQ 4.0 from the vantage point of being a student in one of your classes • Paper or online? • https://educ.sphinxonline.net/v4/s/ha2fbs
- 26. Comparing Audit and AEQ data from one programme In pairs or groups, explore programme audit and AEQ data from one programme. Does anything stack up? Are there loose ends, questions, contradictions?
- 27. Research Tools 3: Focus Groups
- 28. Where to find focus group guidance • How to run a focus group>resources>research toolkits http://www.testa.ac.uk/index.php • Role play>resources>focus group schedule www.testa.ac.uk
- 29. Main pointers for focus group • Questions are broad themes • Easy to complicated • Sit in a circle • It’s the discussion that matters • Go with the flow • But steer when off topic, direct, pass the ball • Troubleshooting • Ethics
- 30. Role play (5 minutes)
- 31. Getting students to attend… • Get the support of lecturers, programme team • Explore using student researchers • Use vouchers • Food • Between 3 and 8 students for one hour • Ethics and confidentiality
- 32. What the data looks like: …and the intelligent transcript texttoMP3 https://transcribe.wreally.com/
- 33. Coding 101 CODES • Marker variation • Written criteria • Peer feedback • Subjectivity • Formative feedback • Exemplars • Multi-stage assessment • Marking exercises CATEGORY Internalising standards
- 34. Raw focus group data • Read section of full transcript • Highlight relevant text • Develop a few codes • Suggest a few themes • Devise three headlines • Identify quotations under each headline
- 35. Have a go at triangulating data • Read through audit, AEQ and focus group data from one programme • Quick abstract/bullet points of what seems to be going on • Discuss with your group/flipchart a) What are the stand out themes? b) What jigsaw pieces fit together? c) What unresolved issues remain?
- 36. The tone of the case study • Build a narrative thread • Descriptive, non-evaluative tone • Empathetic • Surprises, puzzles, contradictions • Balancing weak and strong features • Admitting gaps, interpretation, errors • Not prescriptive, but give a steer & create options
- 37. TESTA is like fly fishing
- 38. Negotiating TESTA evidence with programme teams
- 39. How not to do it
- 40. What doesn’t work: lessons learned • Too much information • Too much negative information • Lack of soft stuff – food, drinks, chat, humour, empathy, conducive spaces • An inquorate team meeting • Focusing on modules
- 41. What has worked and why • Post-it predictions beforehand • Trust and confidentiality • Admitting gaps, listening • Respect for disciplines • Team ownership • One pages notes – “you said” • Focus on the whole programme
- 42. The TESTA effect • Helps teams to talk about whole programme design • Acting on evidence and principles • Formative assessment • Develops connections within/across modules • Feedback as dialogue • Greater knowledge and confidence among teachers about assessment for learning • And…improved NSS scores
- 44. References Barlow, A. and Jessop, T. 2016. “You can’t write a load of rubbish”: Why blogging works as formative assessment. Educational Developments. 17(3), 12-15. SEDA. Boud, D. and Molloy, E. (2013) ‘Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), pp. 698–712. Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 1(1): 3-31. Harland, T., McLean, A., Wass, R., Miller, E. and Sim, K. N. (2014) ‘An assessment arms race and its fallout: High-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Jessop, T. and Tomas, C. 2017. The implications of programme assessment on student learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Jessop, T. and Maleckar, B. 2016. The Influence of disciplinary assessment patterns on student learning: a comparative study. Studies in Higher Education. Published Online 27 August 2014 Jessop, T. , El Hakim, Y. and Gibbs, G. (2014) The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: a large-scale study of students’ learning in response to different assessment patterns. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 39(1) 73-88. Nicol, D. 2010. From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35: 5, 501 – 517. O'Donovan, B , Price, M. and Rust, C. (2008) 'Developing student understanding of assessment standards: a nested hierarchy of approaches', Teaching in Higher Education, 13: 2, 205 -217. Sadler, D. R. 1989. ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional Science, 18(2), pp. 119–144. Tomas, C and Jessop, T. 2018. Struggling and juggling: A comparison of student assessment loads across research and teaching-intensive universities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 18 April. Wu, Q. and Jessop, T. 2018. Formative assessment: missing in action in both research-intensive and teaching- focused universities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Published online 15 January.
Editor's Notes
- Tansy
- Disconnected seeing the whole degree in silos – my module, lecturer perspective (Elephant, trunk, ears, tusks etc) compared to student perspective of the whole huge beast. I realise that what we were saying is two per module
- Not so good for complex learning, integrating knowledge, lends itself to disposable curriculum fragmented learning. Amplified summative, less time for formative. Hard to make connections, difficult to see the joins between assessments, much more assessment, much more assessment to accredit each little box. Multiplier effect. Less challenge, less integration. Lots of little neo-liberal tasks. The Assessment Arms Race.
- Language of ‘covering material’ Should we be surprised?
- The TESTA report back of programme findings was by far the most significant meeting I have attended in ten years of sitting through many meetings at this university. For the first time, I felt as though I was a player on the pitch, rather than someone watching from the side-lines. We were discussing real issues. (Senior Lecturer, Education
- Tansy
- In the UK, assessment and feedback are primary areas of disquiet in the NSS. Provide very little diagnostic information to help course teams adopt more effective assessment strategies. Every year, routine charts red/green/orange – visual representation, accompanied by ritual humiliation of programmes, but not sure why or how to change! AEQ has been used in many countries
- Looked at in the overview – student effort; intellectual challenge, focused on understanding rather than memorising or ‘sufficing’; clear about goals and stds; feedback is effective – students read it, understand it, use it to improve what they do next. Cronbach’s Alpha – sounds like a disease to me but a test to measure the internal consistency of items – do all items measure the same construct?
- Tansy
- Codes look at small units of meaning – a student says – it takes 4 weeks to get it back, so you’ve already handed in the next one, or the tasks are different one after the other, or I never bother at the end of the course because it’s over. All of these are partly to do with timing, and they contribute to the theme of students not using their feedback. Another sub reason is that students don’t use feedback is because they don’t trust it so they say things like If x marks it you’ll get a good grade, if y a bad, or if you get her on a good day, or it’s so subjective etc
- Please stay on the same data set – as AEQ session. We will work it into a case profile.
- Use flip chart
- What does it feel like to be a student? What does it feel like to be a lecturer at the end of this? An empathetic balanced reporting.
- Tansy
- Big guns, multiple agendas, using TESTA to get systemic changes done, before we did headlines, lots of themes and literature – there is lit to back up but for team briefing we keep it implicit, pull it out theory informally and illustratively in conversation