Alternative assessment in Higher Education:

1
Alternative assessment in Higher Education a
preliminary approach
EALTA Conference, Voss, Norway, 2nd - 5th June,
2005
Niovi Antonopoulou Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Greece
Results There was minimal difference between
teachers evaluation and peer- and
self-assessment (see table below. Students names
are removed for confidentiality). The
instructors assessment appears slightly
stricter, while self-assessment proved to be more
lenient. The above mark counted for 50 of each
student total score. The other 50 was the
instructors mark from the final written
assessment. The final score was the sum of the
two above.
What I can already do in testing/assessment and
what I would still like to learn Self-assessment
checklists The checklists will help you assess
your knowledge of testing and evaluation by
yourself. You can get your estimates checked by
other people, for example a teacher, and have
them verified. The checklists will also assist
you in selecting and defining which objectives
are important for you and what you would still
like to learn. Consult the completed checklists
regularly to check your progress and to set new
learning goals.

• My objectives
• Formulate your objectives and plans for the
  subjects you want to learn or to improve.
• What do I want to learn? How do I want to learn?
• Why do I want to learn more? What do I need to be
  able to do with it, and how would I like to go
  about it?
• Am I learning these subjects for my work, for my
  research, etc?
• Do I want to attend another, more advanced,
  course about testing and assessment?

• Comments
• Students
• were particularly enthusiastic and effective in
  their work
• found the whole procedure very interesting and
  useful (evaluative questionnaires, discussions)
• would like to be evaluated for other courses in
  the same way
• benefited greatly from the effect of the
  procedure.

• Writing Assignments
• Topic
• Name..
• Date..
• Course..
• 1-3 Weak 4 Moderately Weak 5
  Average
• 1. The student introduces and states the
  subject in an interesting
• manner.
• 1 2 3 4 5
• 2. The student clearly identifies the subject
  being presented.
• 1 2 3 4 5
• 3. The student develops a research plan, conducts
  a well organized
• search and makes good use of research time.
• 1 2 3 4 5
• The organization of the writing assignment is
  clear and easy to follow.
• 1 2 3 4 5

Oral Presentations Self-Evaluation Topic
Name. Date..
.

• Disadvantages
• Time-consuming preparation of material in
  this first application of the method
• Time spent for explanations and advice to
  students
• Time spent for the calculation of the final
  score.

1. The student introduces and states the subject
in an interesting manner. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The
student clearly identifies the subject being
presented. 1 2 3 4 5 3. The student develops a
research plan, conducts a well organized
search and makes good use of research
time. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The organization of the
writing assignment is clear and easy to follow.
1 2 3 4 5

• Actions not taken
• The portfolios pages were not completed by all
  students.
• Final results do not include remarks of students
  who completed the portfolios pages.
• Statistical analysis was not carried out.

• Actions to be taken
• Development of more elaborated criteria and
  checklists in line with the course objectives.
• Implementation of the method in other courses and
  by other instructors.
• Statistical analyses.
• Questionnaires for students and instructors.

• First stage
• Introduction and discussion about the whole
  procedure.
• Explanations and clarification about the
  implementation and the prospective benefits of
  the method.
• Topics and dates for the oral presentations.
• Detailed guidelines for the oral presentations.

• Conclusions
• Students
• participated actively and showed much
  interest throughout the course
• dealt with the assessment procedure
  effectively and responsibly
• became familiar with methods of alternative
  assessment in practice
• evaluated their own work throughout the
  course.

• Second stage
• Students presented their work through power point
  or transparencies.
• Presentations lasted 40-50 minutes.
• Handouts containing extensive summaries of
  presentations were disseminated to classmates
• Presentations were followed by questions,
  clarifications by the instructor and discussion.
• In the end students handed in their
  peer-assessment sheets and the speaker her/his
  self-assessment.
• The assessment sheets were kept in a folder.
• Later the instructor included her own assessment,
  based on the same criteria, without having looked
  at the participants sheets.

Third stage Students were given subjects and
checklists for their final written
assignments Consequently a. Students knew what
they were going to be evaluated on and how they
were expected to write their assignment and
b.The instructor would be able to apply the same
general criteria to all students assignments.