Dttls_Unit_3

Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Centre (DTLLS) Assignment – Unit 3 Enabling Learning and Assessment Function of Assessment Assessment carried out correctly can have multiple functions: It can be used to allow us to establish how much learning has occurred, to evaluate how effective a learning program has been, to identify students requirements, to allow selective processes to take place, to motivate the learners or to provide the learner with vocational or academic certification. Purpose of Assessment Scales (2008) state’s that there are five “purposes” of assessment; initial, diagnostic, formative, summative and ipsative. Initial assessment can be used to assess pre-course suitability or at the start of a course as a tool to see what stage the learners are at. This utility blurs the concept of initial assessment into diagnostic assessment; at any point during the learning assessment can be carried out to examine the performance of the learners. Tummons(2007) does not appear to differentiate between the two. Formative and summative assessment are best described by scales (2008); formative is “assessment for learning” whilst summative is “assessment of learning”. Feedback, although important for all assessment, is the absolute vital component of the formative as without feedback, the assessment is pointless. Summative is the assessment of what learning has taken place and is generally formal. Weeden et al. (2002:19) suggests that “…Summative assessment is a snapshot judgement that records what a [learner] can do at a particular time…” This highlights the temporal and potentially negative aspects of summative assessment due to psychological and environmental factors potentially playing a disproportional role in the learners result. Ipsative is a form of self-diagnostic assessment which allows the learner to compare themselves against peer or set standards to set goals to achieve. Principals of Assessment Scales (2008) States five key principles of assessment; validity, reliability, transparency, authenticity and sufficiency. For an assessment to be valid Tummons (2007) writes that (it must) “…cover the course as a whole, use appropriate real-life methods, is most suitable to the subject or vocational area and helps predict how the learner will perform in the future” . The first point is referring to face and content validity, ensuring that the assessment is assessing what is intended to be assessed. For example if a learner was being assessed on the learning of database design by way of a presentation and a high percentage of the marks were for presentation skills then the assessment would not be `face` valid. The “…cover the course as a whole…” Tummons(2007)statement is slightly misleading as different elements of a course can be broken into multiple assessments covering specific learning outcomes as still remain valid. However the content of the assessment must match the learning outcomes and not omit or add content that has not been taught (Content Validity). The second and third elements “…use appropriate real-life methods, is most suitable to the subject or vocational area…” Tummons (2007) is emphasising the importance of choosing the correct method of assessment. Firstly the assessment needs to reflect what is occurring in reality. All of our assessments are designed, where practicable, around Operations in Afghanistan. This gives the learner additional motivation (through relevance and authenticity discussed later). The construct validity of the assessment is also key as it would be wrong to assess a mechanical skill such as the safe handling of a rifle (Military Weapons Handling Test) through a written test. The most suitable method of assessment is a one to one demonstration of the learning to a qualified (skill at arms) assessor as is current practice. The final element “…helps predict how learners will perform in the future.” refers to the fact that as an assessor you need to establish the purpose of carrying out the assessment. With the military weapons handling test it is simple the assessment shows that you have learned how to safely handle a rifle. It is pass/fail with an immediate fail for missing any safety critical drills. A written assessment in form of an exam coving the theoretical underpinnings of terrain analysis for example could be used as a tool to select specific people suitable for further development in this area. The next key principle is reliability, this is effectively the maintenance of consistency, repeatability and fairness when writing, carrying out and marking the assessments. There are procedures in place within the Royal School of Military Survey (RSMS) to maintain reliability at each stage of the assessment process. The assessment is written and then moderated by another instructor before being returned for changes or comments. The assessment is then signed off by the module leader (Senior Lecturer). The assessment is then carried out. Marking is then carried out by the instructor that wrote the exam and 10% of the assessments (plus any referrals) are marked `blind` by the moderator. If the second markers marks are significantly different to the first the assessments are all re-marked. The principle of transparency is effectively ensuring that the learners know what is required of them to meet the defined learning outcomes. They need to know by what method they are going to be assessed and what criteria they will be marked against. At the start of each module within the RSMS the learners are given an assessment plan and module descriptors detailing the learning outcomes. At the start of an assessment the learners are given a tasking instruction with assessment criteria and a marking guide. There is a difficult balance to be struck between making the learners think about what they have to do and allowing them to take ownership of the assessment and giving them enough information within the taking instruction to understand what is required. Authenticity can be broken into two distinct areas in relation to assessment. Firstly the assessment must actually be completed by the student, not plagiarised. Certain methods of assessment such as essays and reports are more at risk of plagiarism than others such as examinations or presentations. An example of this would be a recent learner who read the Wikipedia article on WMS along with some poorly designed slides in place of preparing his own presentation. The other aspect of authenticity relates to the actual assessment, making sure that it is relevant to the real-world situation which the learner will enter. A recent example of a failure in this respect was a systems management assessment where the learner had to re-install an operating system on a server from scratch. In the real world a recovery disc would be used to carry out this process which made the assessment unauthentic. Sufficiency has two meanings in relation to assessment; It may refer to the amount of evidence that a learner may provide to prove that a specific learning has taken place or it may refer to the number of assessments required to completely satisfy the confirmation of learning. Equality and Diversity Equality and diversity must be considered at all stages of assessment to ensure that none of the learners are disadvantaged. Government legislation (Special Education Needs and Disability Act 2001 and Disability Discrimination Act 2003) forces us as assessors not to discriminate against learners with disabilities however more importantly we as instructors have a moral obligation to endeavour to make our assessment as inclusive and fair as possible. To enable this we have a wide range of tools at our disposal to practically support learners with specific needs ranging from using different coloured paper in tasking instructions to getting additional one to one learning support for a learner. One example within the RSMS is that we allow learners with learning differences such as dyspraxia extra time on certain assessments. This must carefully be tempered against the requirement of the assessment to be authentic as we must not set people up to fail in real world situations. Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (AP(E)L) is the recognition of proved experience and ability in a specific, generally vocational, field. It can be used a method of entry into a learning programme or allow the student to skip part of the syllabus. Evidence can be provided in a number of forms such as written testimonials or references from an employer or portfolios of work