Co-Creating Marking Schemes and Developing Assessment Literacy

In this article I reflect on my experience of co-creating marking criteria for summative group presentations with Year 0 students in a fully online [20/21] and flipped [21/22] learning environment. The process has been refined over these two academic years giving increasing control for the student. Students developed the matrix and then practiced their application in two peer marking exercises resulting in presentations of high quality comparable to year 2 students and an improvement of assessment literacy in students. 

What did you do? Why did you do it?   

I co-write and deliver the Preparation for Professional Practice Module in the Gateway to Medicine Programme. The part of the course I am responsible for is ‘working in partnership with the voluntary sector.’ I teach about the voluntary sector and team/partnership working. The 20/21 fully online cohort consisted of 22 students, and the 21/22 cohort of 48 students was taught in a hybrid approach, i.e. two groups with reduced synchronous teaching time, and more asynchronous content supporting learning. A key aim of the Gateway Programme is to prepare students from Widening Participation backgrounds for the MBChB Programme. These were standard age students, but with a large number of students from working class, ethnic minority, immigration and refugee backgrounds. There is a strong emphasis on experiential/authentic learning and the development of core competencies, such as reflective practice, team working, and communication skills, as well as an understanding of partnership working between different professions and organisations. The group presentation is a summative assessment carrying 30% of the module mark. Students formulate their own presentation title and subject based on the external speakers they heard that year and a number of workshops on Asset Based Community Development, Commissioning and the Third Sector. The group project allows for authentic teamworking, team decision making and peer feedback.  

When approaching co-production of the marking criteria, students receive a marking matrix which is empty apart from the headings.  

• 10% time keeping 
• 25 % content 
• 25 % team working  
• 20% how engaging is the presentation [slides/presentation] 
• 20% facilitation of live question and answer session 

The overall progression mark students need to achieve to pass the module is 60%. They can gain this as a combination of the different elements. If they meet all criteria they agreed they can reach up to the full 100%, allowing them to offset any weaker elements of the module, such as the essay or group project. 

In 2021 (in a fully online environment) I was initially more cautious and introduced the key criteria I had formulated. I merely asked students to re-formulate these so they understood them in their own words. However, this was more a consultation than a co-creation and the process was quite boring, for me as a tutor, but possibly also for many students as only a small number engaged with the formulation of criteria. 

In 2022 I was braver and trusted the students to formulate the criteria in small groups from a blank sheet, encouraged by the excellent re-phrasing the students did in the previous year and the mature application of the criteria by the 20/21 cohort.  

In the session the groups worked together to each formulate one section, answering the question ‘what does good look like?’ regarding time-keeping, teamwork etc. Emphasis was put on what we would be able to observe for marking. Each group presented their matrix element and the other groups added or amended. The students worked over two cohorts and I combined the final product from both cohorts.  The link takes you to the 2022 version which is entirely in the words of the students.  

To gain a better understanding of the criteria and develop their ability to recognise and apply these, students used a self-directed learning group task to watch 3 recorded presentations produced by 2nd year students who had kindly given their permission for these to be used in teaching. The students were instructed to ‘mark’ these using their matrix. In the next class workshop these marks were then "moderated” and students had to defend their marks to their peers with reference to the marking criteria.   

The students then produced their own presentations based on the subject of their choice. They were given the opportunity to practice these presentations to an appointed buddy group from the other cohort. This was the second opportunity to practice applying the marking criteria and improve their presentation skills. Students marked each other and gave formative peer feedback, another professional skill, and suggested improvements based on the criteria in the matrix.

Finally students presented to the tutor team on assessment day.  

What was the impact of your practice and how have you evaluated it?

Student feedback on this exercise was very positive. The quality of the presentations was comparable to formative year 2 presentations that were marked against similar headings. 

Students also demonstrated a good understanding of ‘what makes a good presentation’ in a similar individual task in another module on the course, commenting that they were applying what they had learned through the peer assessment exercises or quoting their matrix in feedback. This demonstrates the depth of student learning in this case study, as they were able to apply their newly gained assessment literacy in different contexts. Again, the quality of these presentations was very high overall, something I was able to observe as one of the assessors.  

2020/21 Gateway students who are now in Year 1 MBChB [all progressed] approached me telling me how useful they found it, in particular the presentation and team working skills, for a number of assessments in different modules across the programme.  

How could others benefit from this example?

I believe this approach lends itself for authentic learning and can be a helpful start when it comes to embedding assessment literacy/academic literacy into the curriculum itself. The project, the partnership with the Third Sector-content, and the academic skills and relationship building in the group were all combined in one project instead of requiring discrete timetable slots, allowing for deep rather than surface learning in social constructivist terms. It is likely that this approach would not only be useful to Foundation Year students, but similar approaches may also benefit students in Years 1 and 2. This is particularly relevant in the context of the pandemic generation of young people, whose socialisation and formative experiences, in and out of school, were severely truncated. This case study can demonstrate the value of embedding assessment literacies in the curriculum and providing inclusive and authentic assessments co-produced with students in line with the academic literacy strategy of the University and Curriculum Redefined

Author

Barbara Kempf, b.kempf@leeds.ac.uk, Community Education Development Officer, School of Medicine

I am indebted to my line manager Prof. Anne-Marie Reid for giving me the freedom develop this authentic community and partnership project when we were unable to send students on placement in community organisations as originally envisaged. Students of the first cohort indicated that they preferred this ‘pandemic format’ to the original plan so it was retained once we returned to face-to-face teaching. 

My pedagogy of co-creation has been inspired by my work in community and tenant involvement in housing. Here I trained and supported tenant representatives to set contract specs and key performance indicators for maintenance contractors tenders. I want to acknowledge the roots of my pedagogical practice in the social housing tenants movement. 

Do you have an example of your practice to share?

If you are interested in submitting an article to the TIPS Blog find out how to submit here, or contact the TIPS Editors at academicdev@leeds.ac.uk.