Complete thesis - Murdoch University

as summative assessment was retained, and administered in a form as closely matching thatof previous years as possible. In order to achieve some reasonable comparison, the formatwas identical, and components chosen from a database of questions as for previous papers.In terms of formal assessment items, the unit objectives were assessed over three groupassignments, a final exam and individual Portfolios and Performance Reviews. The groupassignments (worth 10% of the final mark each) modelled individual elements of the groupassignment of the Apprenticeship model. As assessable artefacts, the components of thegroup work defined the completion of one ‘phase’ of the overall problem – developing aRequirements Specification. Each could be considered a problem in its own right (eg problemone: developing a Requirements Model (scope, Context and Use Case Diagram with attendantdocumentation); problem two: developing an Object Model (Class Diagram) etc), problemthree: developing the Behavioural model, all for the same, increasingly complex scenario.Each problem required use of the products of the preceding. In this way, students were ableto activate (recent) prior knowledge, refine their understanding of the problem context andreflect on the implications of the feedback from their manager on the success of that priortask in order to commence the PBL process for the next.To facilitate this process, a small component of the mark was allocated to ‘rework’ addressingissues raised in the feedback and amending/updating documentation as required. It shouldbe noted that not all groups chose to undertake the rework – and paid the penalty whentheir increased understanding of the problem context was not well reflected in their submissions.In relation the the revised catastrophe model previously discussed (Raisey et al,2006), this meant that incidental complexity was rarely reduced through simplification basedon increased understanding of the problem. Although together, these encompassed all theelements of the Requirements Specification set in previous years, what was added was anindication of any re-conceptualisation undertaken by the students after feedback or whentackling a subsequent problem. These re-conceptualisations were to be submitted as well, tobe taken into account when assessing student learning.The portfolio (worth 10%) also modelled that of the previous year, although expected inclusionswere more explicitly stated (ie as had been negotiated during 2002). The final exam(worth 5% less, at 55% of final mark) also modelled that of the previous year, both forthe same reasons (ie to maintain some level of independence from the learning model beingapplied) and pragmatically due to the assessment policies of the School and the University.The one new assessment element was the Performance Review. This facilitated feedback thatcould be matched to a specific student (in addition to anonymous feedback captured throughmore formal channels). The Performance Review (worth 5%) is described in greater detail303