A students-as-partners-inspired approach to assessment rubric design
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v8i2.5670Mots-clés :
students as partners; higher education; co-creators of curricula; assessment rubric designRésumé
The global popularity of the students-as-partners (SaP) model in the higher education sector demonstrates that students, through their lived experiences, have valuable perspectives to contribute to shaping university curricular and co-curricular experiences. While there are numerous inherent benefits associated with facilitating SaP arrangements, incorporating such practices to influence curricular change can be difficult in highly regulated and accredited courses. This article presents a successfully trialled SaP-inspired model involving assessment rubric design in the Bachelor of Laws degree offered at Curtin University in Australia, which is subject to multiple layers of regulation at national and state levels by public and private bodies. The SaP-inspired model presented in the paper is a useful starting point for academics wanting to engage in SaP co-creation of curricular initiatives in contexts that are not especially conducive to SaP, for example, heavily regulated and accredited courses. This article further contributes to existing SaP literature as it presents qualitative and quantitative data collected from the students who engaged in the SaP-inspired model, as well as data collected from students who experienced the SaP-inspired outputs first hand. This article commences with a student reflection on the SaP-inspired model, written by Ryan Kirby who participated in the workshop and assisted in the creation of the assessment rubric and supplementary materials.
Téléchargements
Références
Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287–302. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40539723
Barker, E., & Rozendal, M. (2019). Cognitive-based rubrics: Examining the development of re-flection among preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(2), 58–80.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing poten-tial challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student-staff partnerships. Higher Educa-tion, 71, 196–208. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24756930
Chanock, K. (2000). Comments on essays: Do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/135625100114984
Choongh, S. (2017). Doing ethnographic research: Lessons from a case study. In M. McConville & W. H. Chui (Eds.), Research methods for law (2nd ed., pp 72-89). Edinburgh University Press.
Chui, W.H. (2017). Quantitative legal research. In M. McConville & W. H. Chui (Eds.), Research methods for law (2nd ed., pp 48-71). Edinburgh University Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2023). Three models for embracing student expertise in the development of pedagogical partnership programs. International Journal for Students as Partners, 7(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v7i2.5416
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education: A guide for faculty. Jossey-Bass.
de Boer, I., de Vegt, F., Pluk, H., & Latijnhouwers, M. (2021). Rubrics—A tool for feedback and assessment viewed from different perspectives. Springer.
Dianati, S., & Oberhollenzer, Y. (2020). Reflections of students and staff in a project-led part-nership: Contextualised experiences of students-as-partners. International Journal of Students as Partners, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v4i1.3974
Finn, H., Bruce, S., Atkins, M., Do, C., Brennan, A., Brown, J., & Tarabasz, A. (2022). Developing the evaluative judgment of law students through assessment rubrics. Journal of the Australasian Law Academics Association, 15, 13–30. https://www.alaa.asn.au/_files/ugd/e86d8d_401d7d98c04d42a7b63ce3eaed414251.pdf
Gravett, K., Kinchin, I., & Winstone, N. (2020). More than customers: Conceptions of students as partners held by students, staff and institutional leaders. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2574–2587. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1623769
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099368
Hounsell, D. (1987). Essay writing and the quality of feedback. In J. T. Richardson, M. Eysenck, & D. Piper (Eds.), Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning re-considered: Institutional integration and impact. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
LeFebvre, L., & Allen, M. (2014). Teacher immediacy and student learning: An examination of lecture/laboratory and self-contained course sections. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 29–45. http://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v14i2.4002
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292548
Matthews, K. E. (2017). Five propositions for genuine students as partners practice. Interna-tional Journal for Students as Partner, 1(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3315
Matthews, K. E., Sherwood, C., Enright, E. & Cook-Sather, A. (2024). What do students and teachers talk about when they talk together about feedback and assessment? Expand-ing notions of feedback literacy through pedagogical partnership. Assessment & Evalua-tion in Higher Education, 49(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2170977
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & K. Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of stu-dents as partners in higher education. International Journal of Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119
Milburn, L., & Jones, D. (2019). The Deakin ‘Students Helping Students’ and ‘Students as Part-ners’ collection: A contemporary take on the class cut. Student Success, 10(2), 65–70.
Moskal, B., & Leydens, J. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.7275/q7rm-gg74
Winstone, N., Bourne, J., Medland, E., Niculescu, I., & Rees, R. (2021). “Check the grade out, log out”: Students’ engagement with feedback in learning management systems. Assess-ment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1787331
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Christina Do, Hugh Finn, Andrew Brennan, Stephanie Bruce, Janie Brown, Anna Barbara Tarabasz, Ryan Kirby 2024
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process - this applies to the submitted, accepted, and published versions of the manuscript. This can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
