Procedures for portfolio assessment

Collaborative assessment involved the teacher, the students themselves and their peers. It was based on criteria clearly communicated and illustrated at the beginning of the course. Halfway through the course, students submitted the first part of the portfolio to the teacher for formative evaluation. At the same time when the students submitted their portfolios, they completed and included a Self-Assessment Form and a Peer Assessment Form for each of the group members.

Self and peer assessment, each contributing 15% towards the assignment grade, focused on the quality of the forum postings assessed by both the student and peers based on four criteria:

1. Frequency of participation in the discussion forum

➣ Feedback given on all draft examples

➣ Participation in all discussions

2. Timeliness of participation in the discussion forum

➣ Timely provision of feedback on all draft examples

➣ Timely participation in all discussions

3. Quality of feedback and suggestions

➣ Relevance to the requirements of the examples

➣ Specific and clear comments and suggestions

➣ Appropriate use of academic terminology

4. Extent of feedback and suggestions Covered most aspects of draft examples

➣ Made comments and suggestions beyond draft examples

➣ Encouraged further development of the discussion

Teacher assessment (70%) of the quality of the portfolio was based on five criteria:

1.Quality of analysis of examples (appropriacy of analysis and support with contextual reasons) (50%)

2. A critical review of discussion and incorporation of peer feedback (or rationale for not incorporating peer feedback) in these examples (20%)

3. Quality of feedback and suggestions (10%)

4. Extent of feedback and suggestions (10%)

5. Reflective text (200-250 words) about online learning and assessment (10%)

Only the students were involved in assessing themselves and their peers in terms of frequency and timeliness of participation in forum discussions, both criteria of which the teacher did not feel in a position to assess. The teacher and the students overlapped in only two assessment criteria that were related to the quality and the extent of student feedback.

The English Department has a general guideline that all content subjects are assessed using Biggs & Colins' (1982) Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy (Figure 5), which is a method to categorize students' responses to open-ended questions, and focuses on qualitative differences between students' responses. According to Biggs (2003, p.37), when students learn, they produce learning outcomes that display "similar stages of increasing structural complexity", and the SOLO taxonomy provides a systematical description of "how a learner's performance grows in complexity when mastering many academic tasks".

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تواصل تنظيم مجالس العزاء الصباحية بذكرى زيارة عاشوراء

مواكب العزاء تستذكر في التاسع من شهر المحرم شهادة عبدالله الرضيع بن الحسين (عليهما السلام)

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تستذكر تضحيات القاسم بن الحسن (عليهما السلام)

شعبة الحرم الشريف تواصل تنفيذ خطتها الخاصة بشهر المحرّم داخل مرقد أبي الفضل العباس (عليه السلام)

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

لهذا السبب.. إغلاق 25 مركزًا لعلاج الإدمان في مصر ؟

خلافا للاعتقاد الشائع.. علماء يكشفون أسرار بذور البطيخ ؟!

هذا ما يحدث لجسمك عند تناولك الطماطم بانتظام !

تعرف على أطعمة تسرّع "تعافي الجسم" من حروق الشمس

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

الثلوج تغطي الصحراء الأكثر جفافا في العالم!

بتلسكوب "ألما".. التقاط صورا غير مسبوقة لبدايات الكون !

هل هاتفك مراقب؟.. 5 علامات خطيرة تكشف التجسس عليك

دبي تطلق أول رحلة تجريبية للتاكسي الجوي

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Overall positive experiences

Focus group discussions about OCLA

Portfolio assessment

Online Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication courses

An integrated model of online courses

Online Collaborative Learning and Assessment (OCLA)

Online Collaborative Learning and Assessment Rationale, aim and method of study

Mapping Self-Assessment to Achievement Conclusion

Results, Analysis and Discussion

Stage 4: Determine the predictive validity of the ILP questionnaire, with retention progression, academic outcome and 1st destinations as dependent variables Method

Results, Analysis and Discussion

Stage 2: Determining causal relationships between previous academic qualifications, age, gender, motivation and ILP scores Preliminary analysis Method