A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Enhancing academic and Practice

Assessing student learning
❘
139
green, renewable systems’, to ‘Design of a solar-powered racing car’. Moreover,
the activity of the individual students within the groups ranges from literature
search, to computation, theory or experiment, although ideally it is a blend of all
these. The criteria that were ultimately developed for the assessments were under
the headings:
• Technical
• Personal/practical/organisational/initiative
• Teamworking and management
• Presentational
Under each heading about six characteristics were identified and the performance
at grades A, B and C with respect to these characteristics was described. In
demarcating the grades, it was borne in mind that all students on this programme
had been assessed as being capable of an upper-second-class degree (average of
Bs) or better. For all the technical criteria, the challenge therefore is to identify
real flair, and to distinguish this from competent hard work (see Table 10.1).
It is emphasised that it is not expected that students will meet every criterion in
each grade to be awarded it overall, and indeed in practice a blend of two, or
even three, grades may be found. Judgement must be exercised in weighting
them. To distinguish relative performance within the grades, marks are assigned
on the usual scale (e.g. Grade B spans the scale from 60 per cent to 69 per cent).
The description of the transferable skills, which all students have at some level,
is perhaps more difficult, but the approach here is to identify all the ways in which
a contribution is likely to be made and to be more punitive when some elements
are lacking. So for ‘Teamworking and management’, Grade A performance is said
to be:
1 Works to an agreed plan.
2 Communicates clearly in tutorial sessions.
3 Is persuasive, but receptive, in arguing his or her point of view.
4 Contributes an appropriate share or more of the team effort.
5 Coordinates fellow team members, either formally as the leader, or informally
in relation to his or her designated activities.
6 Is supportive of other team members.
7 Interfaces effectively with the outside world.
A Grade C performer would probably not contribute under items 5 or 6, but
would have most of the other attributes to a lesser degree.
These criteria were developed some years after the M.Eng. project programme
had been established, but they are now advertised in the project handbook. To
some extent, they can be criticised for being a ‘post-hoc rationalisation’ of what
the assessors had been doing instinctively. However, they are clearly useful in