8/15/2023 0 Comments Beholder 2 secret visitorOur arguments are illustrated with a critical examination of a bioethics rubric. We then problematise the notion of transparent assessment criteria, with particular attention to these two myths. To make this argument, we outline the general landscape of written assessment criteria in higher education. Rather, we suggest that the way transparency is enacted in assessment criteria in the daily practice of university teaching and learning, may not take account of its limitations. While we draw from published critiques of transparency, we are not calling for wholesale abandonment of explicating criteria in text we acknowledge that the notion of transparent assessment criteria serves valuable purposes in making teachers accountable and in providing direction for students. We challenge the notion that transparent assessment criteria are (a) possible and (b) an unqualified good. This paper seeks to overturn myths associated with transparency of assessment criteria. In landscapes where the use of rubrics have become taken-for-granted, it is worth interrogating more closely some of the underpinning assumptions around transparency of assessment criteria. To the best of our knowledge, this previous work has not directly concerned the transparency of assessment criteria. The complexities and nuances of the transparency agenda have been explored and critiqued with respect to higher education in general ( Strathern, 2000 Brancaleone and O'Brien, 2011 Jankowski and Provezis, 2014) and assessment in specific ( Orr, 2007), primarily through a post-structural lens. 840) summarizes this approach as: “Student awareness of the purpose of the assessment and assessment criteria is often referred to as transparency … in order to educate and improve student's performance, all tasks, criteria and standards must be transparent to both students and teachers.” However, transparency as a concept may be more than it seems. For many, a significant reason for providing transparent criteria is to help students learn. In this sense, transparency means that educators are explicit about their expectations for assessment and students therefore can see what it is they need to achieve. In higher education, it is generally considered desirable for assessment criteria to be “transparent” ( Jackel et al., 2017). This conceptual paper prompts educators and administrators to be mindful about how they think about, use, and develop assessment criteria, in order to avoid taken-for-granted practices, which may not benefit student learning. Some of these agendas support learning but this is not inevitable. Transparency is interrogated as a social and political notion assessment criteria are positioned as never completely transparent texts which fulfill various agendas. This conceptual paper draws from constructivist and post-structural critiques of transparency to challenge two myths associated with assessment criteria: (1) transparency is achievable and (2) transparency is neutral. These critiques have serious implications for how educators may think about, develop, and work with assessment criteria. The notion of “transparency” has been extensively critiqued with respect to higher education. Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |