There is a concern that certain courses delivered online have too many distinctions. This is in comparison to the f2f delivery of the program. This statement also compares different programmes (i.e. engineering, management, english, education, etc...) against each other.
Two possibilities: 1. The students are plagiarising / getting senior help
2. The students enjoy the course so much that they are putting in extra hours, beyond the call of duty.
Myself, I have only experienced 2.
The top students do not plagiarise / need "extra" help.
Another possibility is
that inappropriate standards for an online course don't allow for the free access of students to materials. In other words the standards don't actually measure what students do with content enough, or that
online facilitators/markers don't use the standards properly or don't access moderation processes. I have seen that happen.
I have been concerned that we ought to take a more critical look at assessment in online teaching and learning. And I would prefer to start with the facilitators, their use of rubrics, and the extent to which the wording of the rubrics blocks deep-level interpretation of the assignment question. My own (untested) view is that the widespread use of rubrics in contemporary (online) teaching and learning may be having an unintended consequence whereby teachers/facilitators may be relying too heavily on the rubric to set the standard and not drawing enough on their own interpretive skills.
I think we may want to consider the purpose of a rubric...one specific purpose is to ensure that objectivity replaces subjectivity in the assessment process. If we were to ignore the rubric and rely more on interpretive skills would we be challenging the sole purpose of a rubric?
Not sure that I agree with the suggested dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity, but I am sure that the whole area would benefit from closer examination.
Olabisi and Camille, notpoles apart. The intention of a rubric is to improve objectivity, or at least comparability between markers. This does not mean that the rubric assesses what it should assess. I recognize the problem that Olabisi describes from early stages of Australian practice with criteria based assessment. A short description is that if a rubric is more like a checklist then it is problematic in the terms Olabisi is worried about. If it is more like a description of cognitive behaviours then it is more like the rubrics he may desire. The balance betwee the two is the issue. The first us likely to result in more comparability, the sevond with less but focusses on more meaningful (higher order) facets of learning. .
This is interesting as I do agree with you Mark. The next question would be what is the ideal mix. I think the subject/context as well as the learning objectives dictate the required mix. The focus should be and always will be towards synthesis and finally evaluation and creation.
In Queensland Australia, we have opted for more general cognitive descriptors. This means we accept a lower comparability. To get around this we have strategies for building comparability through shared understandings, Which generally means we share & discuss works samples. For a while the government also used reasonably good quality assessment pieces across all schools to improve shared understandings of standards.
But to answer your question more specifically, I dont think any one approach is correct. If the course values complex thinking, then more open descriptors of cognitive behaviours are needed. If the course values lower order skills, then a more check list approach is OK! This probably means that at university, rubriks that are more descriptive are most appropriate and lesser comparability may have to be accepted, and other moderation strategies put in place to increase shared standards as in the Queensland model.
Camille. I am happy to provide examples and discussion but don't have access at the moment. Will upload some as soon as I can.
Camille,
I have attached a compilation document in pdf format of examples of criteria and their real use (by me), an explanation of the process and a research paper by the people who designed and administer this process in Queensland. I believe the research document to be in the public domain, but in case it isn't, can you please not disseminate it.
Thanks Mark...I this is a great rubric and I guess it highlights several of the points made by contributors to this question:
- It requires the rubric to be guide yet includes further interpretation by the marker
- it is very specific to the subject and the type of assignment
- it measures cognitive onwards to psychomotor applications
This creates a great start for further discussion.
- Badges
- Science topic