Complete thesis - Murdoch University

the curriculum. The University assessment policy (Murdoch, 2004a) was also scrutinised toensure the unit conformed. This was a challenging process, since the policy (at that time)recognised only ‘standard’ units (ie those based on lecture/tutorial/lab format) and projectbasedunits (to cover cap-stone and theses). The Design Studio were required to adherevery closely to the University Assessment policy – as a ‘new’ style of unit each Studio wasscrutinised carefully at University level before approval was given. Of particular importancewere the proportions of group and individual assessment. The outcome of adjustments madein order to conform was a more even split between group and individual tasks, and muchless importance placed on the final exam. Most problematic was the focus on groupworkand class participation, and the impact of self and peer assessment. As Elton (2000) notes,traditional teaching in practice is quite often well matched to traditional assessment, bothbiased towards memory learning.A model of alignment, based on the work of the Engineering Subject Centre of the Learningand Teaching Support Network (LTSN) (2002) was developed to assist in the mapping task.It also assisted in tackling the issue of a surface learning focus in student (or, in reality, alesser swing to deep learning than could be expected). Figure 8.8 summarises this model.Figure 8.8: Alignment between outcomes and assessment (adapted from Learning and TeachingSupport Network (LTSN) (2002))The map based on this model indicates that the learning objectives noted in the unit documentationare modified through student engagement with the tasks and activities. Theteacher identifies additional outcomes drawn from this engagement that address generic attributes.If alignment exists, the assessment is based on demonstration of the combinedoutcomes. Within the Murdoch environment, assessment criteria must be frozen in week 1 of345