TDU Talk
ISSUE 4 ▪ MAY 2010
DESIGNING AND USING MARKING CRITERIA
Introducing the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning)
Associate Professor Richard Coll, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning)
Understanding Assessment Criteria as an Integral Part of the
Design of a Paper: the Principle of Alignment
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Designing Marking Criteria: the Nuts and Bolts
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Using Your Criteria Effectively to Enhance Opportunities for
Student Learning
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Many Hands Make Light Work
Stephen Harlow, eLearning Designer, Waikato Centre for eLearning
“
Kia ora koutou
Welcome to the May edition of TDU Talk. In this edition
we focus on the topic of marking criteria. When I was an
undergraduate student a very long time ago, my lecturers never
used marking criteria. It didn’t occur to me to ask my lecturers
how they had arrived at their final grade, and I just trusted in their
wisdom to know what they were doing. When I myself began
teaching and marking, I was not given any advice about marking
beyond the cheerful assurance that I would intuitively be able to distinguish one
grade of essay from another. In fact, I found the initiation into assessing essays
extremely difficult and while it was easy to see stand out work that engaged
articulately with the question and those that patently did not, there was a lot of
fogginess in between. Marking essays was often agonising because of the worry
that I might not be doing justice to a student’s work and evaluating them fairly.
Then a period of my life followed when I marked hundreds of essays for
extramural students who depended on my response to their work for their learning
progress. Tutors’ feedback on and evaluation of written work constituted the only
interaction with the tutors for the majority of the students. It was imperative to
engage in the marking process in a way which would facilitate the students’
learning progress and enable me to think more professionally and systematically
about allocating a grade. It was this experience that first led me to think about and
develop criteria for evaluating student work. I now believe that criteria that are
well aligned with the assessment and paper learning outcomes can provide an
excellent foundation for feedback and feed forward on the quality of the learning
that the student has demonstrated and on what needs to be done to improve.
Additionally, well-designed criteria can guide students in planning their
assessment and provide teachers with a sound framework for evaluation.
ā
There are a number of factors related to the design and use of marking criteria that
are worth discussing. In the first article in this edition, I argue for the importance
of seeing criteria as an integral part of paper design. In the next article, I look at
different models for designing criteria with some examples. The third article
discusses the importance of dialogue with students around criteria, strategies for
helping students to engage meaningfully with the criteria and the option of
inviting the students to participate in the development of criteria. The principle of
conversation is continued in the discussion about feedback and feed forward that
is related to clearly understood criteria. For many of us, the workload issues
around marking can be daunting. Stephen Harlow from WCeL discusses the
pedagogical and workload advantages of Lightwork, an online marking tool.
I hope that this magazine will be of interest and will enhance the
experience of assessment for you and your students.
Best wishes
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Dorothy Spiller
.”
•2•
Associate Professor Richard Coll, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning)
It was very exciting for me to be appointed Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching
& Learning), a post that evolved from the restructuring of senior
management conducted by the Vice Chancellor recently. I am delighted to
take this opportunity to tell University staff a bit about myself, and to
provide some thoughts about how I see the role evolving. I began my
studies in higher education at the University of Canterbury completing a
BSc in Chemistry in 1974. When I finished my degree I decided to work in
industry, and worked as a chemical technologist for Skellerup Industries in
Christchurch for 5 years. After a short spell as a chemical trader, I returned
to the University of Canterbury to begin an MSc and went on to complete a
PhD in Chemistry. I joined the University of Waikato in 1995 as a lecturer
in Chemistry and Placement Coordinator for the BSc(Technology) program
in the then School of Science & Technology. Soon after I was appointed
Associate Dean with responsibility for services (ICT, Workshops, etc.) and
Director of the Cooperative Education Unit. From 1996-1999, I completed
a part-time Doctor of Education degree specializing in Science Education
from Curtin University of Technology, and soon after joined the Centre for
Science & Technology Education Research – a graduate research centre
jointly administered by the Schools of Science & Engineering and
Education. I was then appointed Chair of the NZVCC’s Standing
Committee on Graduate Employment (since disbanded!), and in 2007
became Deputy Dean. I am passionate about education research, and have
greatly enjoyed working with graduate students and colleagues from NZ
and overseas on a variety of education challenges. I hold a strong belief
that our choices about education must be evidence-based, and researchinformed. This is the sort of thinking I bring to the PVC role; along with a
strong desire to build upon the expertise we already have at Waikato to
further enhance teaching and learning. I think the concept underpinning the
new PVC role is excellent. We are doing a lot of good things at Waikato,
but I have a sense that a lot of good ideas are not widely disseminated. The
Teaching Quality Committee, working with other teaching and learning
committees, units and groups in the University, has the potential to make
some substantial gains in the quality of teaching and learning. I have
already met with many staff from these committees and groups and am
very impressed with the commitment of staff. It is my challenge to
facilitate this connection; a challenge I am looking forward to very much.
•3•
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Marking criteria are most beneficial when they are seen as part of the total
design of a paper. When planning a paper, there should be a clear and
explicit congruence between learning outcomes, assessment tasks and
marking criteria.
The relationship between these three elements can be understood as
follows:
Learning outcomes:
Learning outcomes identify the kind of learning that it is hoped students
will attain in the paper, which include competencies, skills, dispositions,
ethical and affective attributes within the context of particular content areas
and at a specified level.
The definition of a paper learning outcome in the University’s Teaching
and Learning Framework is as follows:
Paper learning outcomes indicate the attributes that students may be
expected to acquire by the end of the paper. Learning outcomes will usually
describe a combination of paper content and particular ways of engaging
with that content. Learning outcomes are written at the level of learning
expected from papers within a specific discipline and in keeping with the
University guidelines. Additionally, the learning outcomes should progress
appropriately between academic levels. (p.8)
[NB. Individual paper learning outcomes should also be guided by and
align with the learning outcomes for the appropriate qualification as
articulated in the graduate profile]
A learning outcome usually has these 3 components:
 A verb to identify as precisely as possible the kind of learning that is
desired
 The content topic, or body of knowledge that this learning is associated
with

The level of or context in which this learning is expected
(Adapted from Moon, J. (2002) The Module and Programme Design
Handbook)
Finding the precise verb can be difficult. It is helpful to identify the level of
intellectual complexity that you want students to develop and demonstrate.
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
•4•
A taxonomy such as that outlined in the following table can help you to
decide this:
TABLE 3.2 Hierarchy of Intellectual demand
Level
Knowledge
Recalls from prior
experience
Ability to recall specific information, to describe known ways of dealing
with the information, or to enunciate previously learned general principles
or theories
Defines, describes, identifies, lists, matches, names, outlines, recalls, recognises
Comprehension
Understands, without
necessarily relating to
other aspects of
knowledge
Ability to demonstrate one’s understanding by translating or
paraphrasing, interpreting information or extrapolating from given data in
order to determine likely implications or effects
Classifies, converts, distinguishes between, explains, extends, generalizes, paraphrases, predicts,
summarises, transforms, translates
Application
Ability to apply abstract principles to particular and concrete situations
Uses concepts and
abstractions in both
known and novel
situations
Arranges, classifies, computes, demonstrates, employs, extrapolates, modifies, operates, predicts,
relates, solves, transfers, uses
Analysis
Breaking down into
components to discover
meaning
Clarification of a complex situation by breaking it down into its constituent
parts, identifying any relationships between the parts and identifying any
organisational structure inherent in the original situation or set of
information
Deduces, differentiates, discriminates, distinguishes, estimates, experiments, identifies, infers, orders,
separates, subdivides
Synthesis
Combining elements and
aspects into a whole
Bringing together a number of facts or ideas to create a new pattern or
structure such as a unique communication, a proposed set of operations
or a set of abstract principles which are derived from the original
information
Combines, complies, composes, constructs, creates, designs, formulates, generates, hypothesizes,
manages, rearranges, relates, revises, summarises
Evaluation
Judgements about the value of material or methods for a given purpose
Judging value and fitness
for purpose
Appraises, assesses, compares, concludes, contrasts, criticizes, discriminates, evaluates, judges,
justifies, revises, supports
Table 3.2 Butcher (2006), et al p.47
•5•
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Example of a Learning Outcome:
Students will be expected to be able to design learning outcomes for a
paper that they are planning that are level appropriate and align with the
qualification outcomes.
Assessment tasks
The assessment tasks selected for the paper should directly and explicitly
align with the paper learning outcomes. Assessment tasks should be
designed both to help students to learn and develop the expected outcomes
as well as evaluate the progress made towards these outcomes. Feedback
and feed forward explain to the students the extent to which they have
attained intended outcomes, the areas where there are gaps between their
efforts and the intended outcomes and guidance as to what they need to do
to bring their work closer to the expected outcomes. The grade is the
numerical or percentage equivalent of these comments and the students
should be able to see the correlation between the comments and the
assigned grade. The criteria should be based on the learning outcomes and
provide a summary for the students as to the extent to which they have
attained the learning outcomes at base level or beyond.
Example of an assessment task to correspond to the learning outcome given
above:
Students will design 5 learning outcomes for a paper that they will be
teaching and explain how they are level appropriate and align with the
qualification learning outcomes.
Criteria
The marking criteria should be developed directly from the learning
outcomes. The criteria provide a means for the teacher to communicate to
students the relationship between their assessment performance and the
desired learning outcomes. The criteria provide guidelines to students as to
what is expected from their assessments at different levels of performance
and a means for the teacher to give the students feedback on performance
as well as guidelines for subsequent learning and progress. The criteria also
help the teacher to assign a grade based on the degree to which the students
attain expected learning outcomes.
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
•6•
While the focus is on outcomes and assessment here, the teaching methods
are obviously a key component in the alignment process. The teaching
approaches need to model and support the development of the anticipated
outcomes and prepare the students for the assessment tasks. In my example
here, my learning outcome is the very practical one that teachers can design
learning outcomes that are appropriate for the subject, the level and align
with the qualification outcome. My teaching approaches should therefore
provide lots of opportunities to practise this skill and receive feedback.
Small group work in which the teacher simply reminds students of the key
principles, provides appropriate resources and then engages in conversation
around the students’ work as well as creating peer feedback sessions would
be suitable.
Purpose and Aim of
Qualification
Input:
‘Coherent, aligned university curricula—
generic principles in design and delivery’
Exit Level Outcomes of a
BSC, BA, PhD, etc.
‘Constructive Alignment’
Course Learning
Outcomes
‘(Joined-Up Practice!)
Teaching for Learning
Assessment Tasks and
Criteria
Reflection and Realignment
for Next Cycle of Learning
Talk presented at the University of Windsor (2009). Schofield, M. (2005) adapted from Biggs, J (2003)
What is Alignment?
Learning
Outcomes
Assessment:
Tasks & Criteria
•7•
Methods
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
A good way of thinking about the relationship between Learning
Outcomes, Teaching/Learning Methods and Assessment is suggested in
this model:
Process Tools
Learning
Outcomes
Teaching/Learning Methods
Assessment
What will
students do?
Tasks
What will the
instructor do?
Criteria
Knowledge
Skills
Attitudes
University of Windsor (2009).
The importance of aligning assessment and learning is
emphasised in the University of Waikato Teaching and
Learning Plan (2010-2012).
Teaching & Learning Plan (2010-2012)
Goal 4 Assessment policies and procedures
facilitate student learning and set out clear and
appropriate standards for achievement.
To achieve this, we will:
4.1 encourage assessment which supports
learning within papers and programmes
4.2 demonstrate a clear alignment between
assessed tasks and the learning goals of papers
The Teaching and Learning plan can
be accessed through:
www.waikato.ac.nz/about/
corporate/tlngplan.shtml
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
•8•
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Moon (2002) suggests that learning outcomes should be written at the
threshold level - that is they should indicate the minimum level required for
a student to pass. This is helpful in designing your criteria, because you can
look back to your outcomes to see what the essential elements are that will
constitute a pass level. You can then move from this base line to decide
what is involved in work that goes beyond the minimum standard. Biggs
(2003) suggests that the easiest way to work out the different levels of
performance in relation to the expected learning outcomes is to start with
identifying the minimum expectations, and then consider what would
comprise the optimum demonstration of these outcomes. After this, it is
relatively simple to work out the elements of the grades in between.
Grading criteria indicate the standard or quality of the student’s
performance in relation to a particular outcome. A dilemma for teachers is
to find the balance between giving clear guidance as to what is expected
and being too prescriptive and thereby encouraging a mechanistic
approach. Criteria can be holistic or analytical. Holistic criteria indicate the
standard of performance in relation to key learning outcomes required in
order to attain different grades. It is usually easiest to begin with the
optimum and lowest levels of performance when working out criteria and
then work out the grades in between.
Analytical criteria break a task up into its component parts or domains. A
percentage of the total mark is allocated to each domain.
While analytical criteria can be precise and clear, they can easily encourage
a mechanistic approach from students and lecturers and may get in the way
of an appreciation of the work as an integrated whole.
Examples of assessment criteria
Learning outcome
Students will be expected to be able to design learning outcomes
for a paper they are planning that are level appropriate and align
with the qualification outcomes.
Task
Students will design 5 learning outcomes for a paper that they will be
teaching and explain the rationale for them, how they are level
appropriate and align with the qualification learning outcomes
•9•
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Holistic Criteria
C Grade Range
 The student designs five learning outcomes that contain the key
components required
 The student provides a basic explanation of the suitability of the
outcomes for the paper and the academic level.
 The student demonstrates that they can link paper and qualification
outcomes in an elementary way.
 The student can communicate their rationale for the selection of learning
outcomes clearly.
B Grade Range
 The student designs 5 learning outcomes that contain the required
components
 The student provides a sound rationale for the choice of learning
outcomes for the paper and the level
 The student confidently discusses the link between the paper outcomes
and the qualifications outcomes
 The student writes a coherent and readable rationale for their selection of
learning outcomes
A Grade Range
 The student designs 5 learning outcomes that contain the required
components and demonstrates exceptional precision in the choice of key
verbs.
 The student writes a strong justification for the choice of learning
outcomes that demonstrates a considered grasp of the pedagogy which
underpins the use of learning outcomes.
 The student can demonstrate an exact correlation between paper
outcomes and the qualification outcomes and explain the manner and
degree to which the paper learning outcomes aim to build the
competencies, knowledge, skills and attitudes identified in the
qualification outcomes.
 The student communicates their rationale for the choice of learning
outcomes in a persuasive manner
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
• 10 •
Analytical model
 Provision of 5 learning outcomes that contain the required components
Max Marks: 30
 Rationale for choice of learning outcomes for paper and level Max
Marks: 40
 Explanation of connection between paper outcomes and qualification
outcomes Max Marks: 20
 Quality of written communication Max Marks: 10.
Further examples of criteria
An approach to designing analytical criteria: outline of a
process
STEP ONE: Choose your Domains
▪
▪
▪
Domains are the criteria you’re using to assess a student’s performance.
Choose domains by identifying knowledge or skill or dispositions that the activity is supposed
to give students a chance to develop and demonstrate.
For example, a rubric for assessing essay-writing might use the following domains:
comprehension of subject, mechanics (grammar and spelling), organisation, and quality of
argument (logic, rhetoric, use of evidence).
***Your domains are the ROWS of your rubric ***
STEP TWO: Choose your Levels of Achievement
▪
▪
▪
Decide how many levels of achievement you will recognize and what you will call them—the
names matter!
Most rubrics use four levels of achievement.
There is a lot of variation when it comes to the names. Some variation of “exceptional, good,
average, and poor” is more common, but some don’t even use names at all.
*** Your levels of achievement are the COLUMNS of your rubric***
STEP THREE: Work on your Descriptions
▪
▪
▪
You’re likely to spend most of your time on this crucial step, which involves describing what
performance at each level of achievement, in each domain, looks like.
Students need to know the difference between, say, “exceptional” organisation of a paper
and “good” organisation of a paper. And so do you!
Your descriptions tell your students (and yourself) what counts as evidence of achievement at
each level of each domain.
***Your descriptions fill the BOXES of your rubric ***
STEP FOUR: Choose your Rating Scheme
▪
Michael K. Potter and Erika Kustra, CTL,
University of Windsor (2001)
• 11 •
How many marks will the entire assessment be worth — and how much will a score at each
level of each domain be worth?
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Domains 
 Levels of Achievement 
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
(Description)
Further Examples of Criteria
Example 11 learning outcome: Master’s level, reproductive
health
At the end of the module, learners will be expected to be able to appraise the
consequence of a range of key socio-cultural influences on sexual and reproductive
health (including sexually transmitted diseases, adolescent sexuality, female genital
mutilation, the effects of culture and media).
Assessment method:
Assessment criteria are derived from the learning outcome, and no specific task is
identified. The task could be an unseen question in an examination or an essay
question.
Grade assessment criteria:
Fail: the work produced in response to a relevant question suggests that the learner
is not able to perform the process of appraisal, eg cannot adequately show the
consequences of the influences mentioned in the learning outcome; does not
identify sufficiently or adequately, the nature of the influences. There is no
evidence of knowledge even to the extent of that discussed in the lecture, or the
question is not answered.
Third: the work identifies some of the socio-cultural influences, suggests some
understanding of their effect on sexual and reproductive health, but the treatment
of the topic is superficial and/or not discussed in sufficient breadth. There is no
evidence of knowledge further than that covered in the lecture.
Second: the treatment of the question is adequate. The learner identifies and
discusses at least the socio-cultural influences mentioned in the learning outcome.
The work discussion demonstrates useful understanding of the influences and their
action on sexual and reproductive health, is of sufficient depth and breadth and
demonstrates some reading around the topic in addition to the material
recommended.
First: as the description of the criterion for the Second, but there is evidence of
reading and thought around the topic that goes well beyond that discussed in the
lecture or in the recommended reading.
Moon, J. (2002).
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
• 12 •
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Criteria are now fairly commonplace in higher education. However, they
tend to be primarily used as a guide for allocating marks and the role they
can play in the learning process is undervalued. This article considers ways
in which criteria can be used to maximise student learning outcomes and as
an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Research on
assessment suggests that the learning opportunities inherent in the
assessment process are maximised when students are engaged in
conversation and dialogue at each stage of the process (Nicol & Draper,
2008). This is also pertinent to the assessment criteria. In order for these
criteria to play an active and meaningful role in the way in which students
engage with assessment tasks (and correspondingly, paper learning
outcomes), students need to be provided with opportunities to discuss the
criteria and come to grips with what they really mean. One of the issues
here is that criteria are often written in a way that is inaccessible to students
or even meaningless. For example, we may intuitively know what we are
looking for in relation to the terms ―originality‖ and ―creativity‖ but these
terms may not be especially enlightening to the student embarking on an
assessment task.
There are a number of strategies that teachers can use to help students
engage more deeply with the criteria. At the minimum, teachers should
dedicate some in-class time to a conversation about the marking criteria
and what they mean. A simple complementary strategy is to give the
students previous examples of student work and show how the criteria were
applied in evaluating them. Even more effective is the practice of giving
students past examples to evaluate in groups or pairs and arrive at a grade
demonstrating how they have used the criteria to arrive at their decision.
This exercise encourages students to grapple with the meaning of the
criteria. Furthermore, the process provides both students and teacher with
the opportunity to identify criteria which are not clear and for these to be
amended accordingly.
Encouraging students to think carefully about task requirements can also be
made an integral part of the assessment process. For example, criteria can
be developed in collaboration with students. The associated conversation
can help teachers and students to arrive at a much better shared meaning
• 13 •
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
about what is expected. Additionally, the approach
can help students towards developing the vital
competency of making judgements about their own
learning. This is an important metacognitive skill and
one which helps to equip the students for reflective
participation and making autonomous judgments in
the workplace. Another exercise which meets similar
goals is adding a small self assessment component to
an assessment task. This can be done from the first
year onwards. Students are invited to submit a self-assessment of their task
and explain their decisions in relation to the criteria. Students are given a
mark for the quality of their discussion of their self-evaluation.
The potential for the feedback process to promote learning can be enhanced
when students receive feedback from multiple sources. Self and peer
evaluation and feedback can be used to complement teacher feedback. For
these feedback opportunities to be constructive, it is vital that the criteria be
well understood by the whole class. Preferably, all the students should
participate in discussions to negotiate and develop the criteria so that there
is a common understanding of requirements and a greater sense of
ownership in the evaluation process. Boud (1995) argues that all
assessment involves two main elements, which are making decisions about
the standards of performance expected and then judging performance in
relation to these standards. If self-assessment is introduced, students should
be directly involved at both stages. Andrade and Du (2007) show how a
well designed self-assessment task that utilises precisely formulated criteria
can foster learning improvement:
Self-assessment is a process of formative assessment during which students
reflect on and evaluate the quality of their work and their learning, judge
the degree to which they reflect explicitly stated goals or criteria, help
students identify strengths and weaknesses in their work and revise
accordingly (2007, p.160).
Similarly, in peer assessment activities students should be invited to
negotiate the criteria for evaluation. Assigning grades to peers can be
fraught with difficulties, so it is often best for peers to provide formative
feedback and feed forward in relation to well-understood criteria rather
than assign grades.
During the marking process, markers often become primarily preoccupied
with the question of what grade they should allocate. It is worth
experimenting with focussing on feedback in relation to the criteria and
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
• 14 •
then weighing up the grade afterwards. If the alignment model is followed,
the comments should indicate the extent to which the work has attained or
exceeded the baseline criteria and where the gaps are. Working out the
grade can be done in line with these comments. In many instances, there
are a number of markers involved evaluating assessment tasks. In such
cases, the criteria need to be discussed as a team, and sample marking and
moderating used as much as possible. External moderation is a further
check on the reliability of the assessment. While we cannot ensure absolute
consistency across a number of markers, we need to put as many
mechanisms in place as possible to ensure a high level of consistency.
Conversations for learning can be continued when the assessment task is
completed in a variety of ways. These include in-class discussions about
the quality of the work in relation to the criteria, opportunities for dialogue
and interpretation around feedback comments, or providing a data bank of
all the feedback comments given to students, to the whole class online.
Research on students’ views of assessment reveals that one of the most
commonly voiced statements by students is that they do not understand
what is expected of them, nor do they understand the lecturers’ feedback
comments. Correspondingly, lecturers frequently complain that students do
not read or heed their feedback comments. Setting up opportunities to make
criteria and the feedback process a shared experience between students and
lecturers and promoting dialogue around expectations at all stages of the
assessment process can help everyone involved to work from the same
page.
References
Andrade, H. & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced selfassessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, (2), 159181.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Great Britain:
Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Boud D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Great
Britain: Kogan Page.
Butcher, C., Davies, C. & Highton, M. (2006). Designing learning. From
Module outline to effective teaching. London & New York: Routledge.
Moon, J. (2002). The Module and programme development handbook.
London: Kogan Page
Nicol, D. & Draper, S. (2008). Redesigning written feedback to students
when class sizes are large. Paper presented at the Improving University
Teaching Conference, July, Glasgow.
• 15 •
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Stephen Harlow, eLearning Designer, Waikato Centre for eLearning
Are you frustrated with the amount of time you spend on mundane
administrative tasks around assignment management and marking?
Developing carpal tunnel syndrome from laboriously writing comments on
nearly every paper, yet your unappreciative students complain they can't
read them? No budget to outsource your marking to the subcontinent (Williams-June, 2010), but turning over the marking to the
students in the course (Jaschik, 2010) just seems a little too radical.
Of course comments like these perpetuate the perception that assessment is
a chore or simply an administrative after-thought rather than a process
integral to the learning and teaching process. We know that assessment
often determines what students see as important, so what if there were an elearning tool to lighten your marking load, allowing you to focus your
energies more effectively on promoting student learning?
The University of Waikato is part of a Tertiary Education Commission
funded collaboration led by Massey University to develop an application
for the management and marking of assignments. Called Lightwork, this
free and open source application installs on your PC, integrating with the
assignment module and gradebook in the Moodle learning management
system to add functionality which enhances and supports assignment
management and marking.
Lightwork emerges from the recommendations of the Innovations in
assignment marking project (Heinrich, Milne, & Moore, 2007) and aims to
reduce the time taken to deal with assignments while encouraging good
educational practice in assessment design and marking. Lightwork manages
the entire marking process from assessment design through to the release of
marked assignments back to students.
Lightwork is built around the rubric, itself a tool designed to simplify
assessment. A marking scheme or rubric is a popular means of specifying
performance expectations to students. A rubric is a set of criteria linked to
learning objectives that help ensure clarity and consistency in marking.
These marking criteria are discussed through the magazine. For more
background on rubric design see Stevens & Levi (2005) or Montgomery
(2002). Lightwork will help you construct your rubric and manage the
electronic communication of that rubric to your students via Moodle.
Students then submit their assignment electronically via Moodle which
automatically takes care of routine administrative tasks like time stamping,
resubmission, storage and backup.
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
• 16 •
Lightwork then manages the downloading of student assignments for you
to open and mark at your computer. Should you wish, you can create a
copy of the student's work to annotate as you mark using Microsoft Word's
change tracking or commenting features. (This copy is later uploaded back
into Moodle alongside the student's original submission.) As you evaluate
the student's assignment you allocate marks and give feedback directly in
Lightwork's marking sheet. Access to a database of frequently used
comments speeds the marking process and aids consistency, especially
across multiple markers.
Lightwork can really leverage administrative gains when working with
multiple markers and hundreds of student assignments. Allowing you to
easily assign markers to students’ assignments, Lightwork can help you
achieve consistency by offering the assurance that markers are all working
from the same marking sheet making moderation less of a challenge.
When the marking is complete Lightwork then automates the uploading of
marks, marking feedback and annotated student work to Moodle. Students
never directly interact with Lightwork—they still submit their work and
receive marks and feedback via Moodle—however, they will indirectly
experience the benefit of Lightwork as you reclaim time to focus on the
things that make a difference to students’ learning like providing high
quality feedback.
Should you wish to use this e-learning tool to make light work of your
marking, contact the Waikato Centre for eLeaning or download Lightwork
directly from http://lightworkmarking.org
References
Heinrich, E., Milne, J., & Moore, M. (2007). Recommendations for the use
of e-learning tools for formative essay-type assessment. (eCDF 528).
Retrieved from http://etools.massey.ac.nz/documents/
RecommendationsReport.pdf
Jaschik, S. (2010, May 3). News: No Grading, More Learning. Inside
Higher Ed. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/
Montgomery, K. (2002). Authentic tasks and rubrics: Going beyond
traditional assessments in college teaching. College Teaching, 50(1), 34–
40.
Stevens, D., & Levi, A. (2005). Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment
Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback, and Promote
Student Learning. Sterling, Va: Stylus Pub.
Williams-June, A. (2010, April 4). Outsourced Grading, With Supporters
and Critics, Comes to College. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/
• 17 •
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Time
Programme
12.45 – 1
Registration
1 – 1.15
Welcome + Overview
1.20 –
2.30
Funding Overview- How to get
the best out of funding
available from Funding
Investment Agencies
Work and Residency – Information and advice for
Study Visa holders from Immigration New
Zealand
Break
2.40 –
3.25
3.25 –
4.10
4.10 –
4.50
Networking- How to Communicating research to
Career Departmentmake the most of
non-researchers
Transferring skills into
networking
career options
opportunities
Networking- How to Communicating research to
Career Departmentmake the most of
non-researchers
Transferring skills into
networking
career options
opportunities
Position yourself for employment
'developing a professional identity' as a
social scientist
4.50 –
5.00
5.00 –
6pm
Summary + Thank you
Networking Session
Position yourself for employment
Campbell Hepburn, General Manager of The Johnson Group will present on the conundrum of
getting a job, sharing insights and practical steps on "how to best prepare and position yourself for
employment in a competitive market".
Navigating the transition from academia to meaningful employment is not easy, Campbell will share
market insights, challenge participants to extend their lateral thinking about employment and
transferable skills, he will help with simple ways to self analyse employment genetics – how to work
with your intrinsic skills and personal hard wiring as a basis to identifying good career options and
building your own employment brand.
Campbell joined the recruitment industry over twelve years ago. Professional industry training,
coaching and experience have taught him a spectrum of recruitment and related areas of career and
workforce management skills. He has a strong interest in workforce and labour issues-skill
shortages, working with migrant talent pools, future workforce and investment in New Zealand.
Confirmed Venue dates:
28 June Otago University Campus
29 June Canterbury University Campus
1 July Massey University Palmerston North
5 July AUT Northcote campus
6 July Auckland University City Campus
7 July Waikato University Campus
9 July Victoria University Campus
Registration details to be released at the end of May.
For information, contact: Dr Ashok Parbhu ([email protected], +64 4 4705777 ) or
Professor Giselle Byrnes ([email protected] or on ext 8349/ext 6726).
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
• 18 •
ā
ā
ā
6-9 June 2010, The University of Auckland
www.traditionalknowledge2010.ac.nz
9-11 June 2010, Singapore
http://www.tpconference2010.com
17-18 June 2010, Entrance Lodge, Wheatley Campus,
Oxford Brookes University, UK
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/ioc/events
5 July 2010, La Trobe University's Bundoora Campus,
Melbourne
http://ausse.acer.edu.au
6 - 9 July 2010, Melbourne
http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2010/program.html
6-9 September 2010, Melbourne
www.alara.net.au
19-22 October 2010, Liverpool, UK
17-19 November 2010, University of Waikato, Hamilton
www.nzethnographyconference.com
25-26 November 2010, University of Lincoln, Christchurch
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/AHEEF-2010
• 19 •
MAY 2010 • TDU TALK
Make a space at your place for teaching
Some of the best learning happens through conversation and most of the working life of academics is focused around the
department. So why not make the occasional space for conversation about teaching in your department?
ĀHANGA