PP654 UniSa Freney - Final Report Feb 2010.pdf - Office for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Assessment SchemeThese specifications have been developed with a fairly simple, typical assessment scheme inmind – refer Figs 1 and 2 below. One tutor is responsible <strong>for</strong> marking a defined set ofstudents’ assignments. The dotted line in Fig 2 indicates “blind marking” used <strong>for</strong> moderationpurposes.Fig 1 Fig 2In Fig 3 a more complicated system is depicted. Arguably it would result in a more consistentand “fair” outcome. Tutor 1 assesses Assessment Criteria 1 and Tutor 2 (red) assessesAssessment Criteria 2 (red).Fig 3In Fig 4 both Tutors mark all assessment criteria and the marks are averaged. Commentscould be identified to show which tutor said what. This is similar to a judging panel commonin the Olympic Games.Computer Aided Feedback & Assessment System (CAFAS) 74
Fig 4Building on the previous assessment scheme, Fig 5 shows a scheme which is the same withthe exception that students can assess each other (peer assessment) and themselves (selfassessment).Fig 5ConclusionThe Project Team must decide whether the more complicated assessment schemes(depicted in Fig 3,4,5) are within the scope of this project and then develop furtherspecifications.Computer Aided Feedback & Assessment System (CAFAS) 75
Page 1 and 2:
Report - 2010COMPUTER AIDED FEEDBAC
Page 4 and 5:
1.0 Executive SummaryThe primary ob
Page 6 and 7:
2.0 OutcomesAs stated in the origin
Page 9 and 10:
more understandable to the user. Cu
Page 12 and 13:
later (in conjunction with formativ
Page 14 and 15:
Generic descriptors of the institut
Page 16 and 17:
At the conclusion of the assessment
Page 18 and 19:
Thus there is the potential to buil
Page 20 and 21:
institution.Product Collate researc
Page 22 and 23:
A presentation at the ALTC Assessme
Page 24 and 25: These adjustments to the approach e
Page 27 and 28: Overall there were eight different
Page 29 and 30: CAFAS 7 . The students appreciated
Page 31 and 32: difficulties described previously,
Page 33 and 34: ALTC funded project), demonstrated
Page 35 and 36: grades based on their professional
Page 37 and 38: Quantification of the Programming T
Page 39 and 40: to the academic when designing a fe
Page 41 and 42: The staged trials of the system wer
Page 43 and 44: Colleagues from the Queensland Univ
Page 45 and 46: within the timeframe and the availa
Page 47 and 48: Assessment, University of South Aus
Page 49 and 50: 3. Installation of SoftwareWith ref
Page 51 and 52: If you have any comments or suggest
Page 53 and 54: e.g. Literature Review - Assignment
Page 55 and 56: to students to inform them of their
Page 57 and 58: Computer Aided Feedback & Assessmen
Page 59 and 60: Appendix D - Staff Questionnaire Re
Page 65 and 66: Appendix E - Comments Database Scre
Page 67 and 68: Appendix G - System SpecificationsC
Page 69 and 70: Specifications - Slider & RubricImp
Page 71 and 72: possibility of including hyperlinks
Page 73: Grade and Mark for Assignment 1Grad
show all

PP654 UniSa Freney - Final Report Feb 2010.pdf - Office for ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?