Client-based Assessment

Scaffolding and Prep

MAnage student expectations

...about interaction

• affective issues (Crisp, 2007, p. 185)
• inter-cultural ways of working (Durkin, 2008; Tian & Lowe, 2012) 
• group roles and responsibilities (Fitch, 2011)
• is explicit guidance needed? (Good et al, 2008; Weldy & Turnipseed, 2010)
• fellow students as resources (Jabbar & Hardaker, 2012)

…about project structure

• will there be a social space? (Welikala & Watkins, 2008)
• will the requirements/rules be fluid? (Seyed-Abbassi et al, 2007)
• …or will details be prepared in advance? (Lopez & Lee, 2005)
• …as well as specific project milestones? (Liu & Olson, 2011)
• …or would the latter two decrease realism? (Govekar & Rishi, 2007)

…about their role

• need to be 'agentic learners' (Fitch, 2011, p. 501)
• individuals are accountable to their teams (Good et al, 2008)
• aims and application of project are clear (Leedham, 2009)
• project will be challenging (Lopez & Lee, 2005)
• as intercultural learner, not 'native' or 'immigrant' (Tian & Lowe, 2012)

prepare students for the task

By introducing theory first (Good et al, 2008)

By giving students experience of applying theory to case studies (Liu & Olson, 2011)

By critiquing examples of previous student work (Larson & Drexler, 2010; Carless, 2007)

Communication

Among students, instructors & clients

...for best practice

• sharing expectations (Addams, et al, 2010)
• online/offline comms carefully chosen (Good et al, 2008)
• process visible to everyone (Good et al, 2008)
• clients supply real projects (Kock et al, 2003)
• social interaction built in (Welikala & Watkins, 2008)

...For formative feedforward

• from instructors & within teams (Lopez & Lee, 2005)
• from clients (Liu & Olson, 2011)
• will you adopt a JIT approach? (Robinson et al, 2010)

within teams

...for robust project work

• Ashford-Rowe et al, 2014; Liu & Olson, 2011
• ...if collaboration is the norm in the field (Crisp, 2007)
• ...and with individual & group reflection (Fitch, 2011)
• ...plus facilitation from instructors (Good et al, 2008)
• carefully consider how blended comms will work

integration

...of assessment and learning

• assessment is part of curriculum (Birenbaum et al, 2006)
• assessment is directly beneficial to learning (Boud, 1995)
• will students connect theory learning with practice? (Fitch, 2011)
• are students continuously engaged? (Seyed-Abbassi et al, 2007)

Who asseses?

Who?

• instructor, students and/or client? (Helle et al, 2006)
• input from client? (Kock et al, 2003; Kreth, 2005)
• students assess self and team members? (Kreth, 2005)
• ...and how should these marks be weighted? 

What is assessed?

MEta-processes

assignment about assessment?

• contracts and project logs? (Govekar & Rishi, 2007)
• clients' reports? (Kock et al, 2003)
• attendance and soft skills? (Kreth, 2005)
• project's monetary success? (Larson & Drexler, 2010)
• exams? (Larson & Drexler, 2010; Liu & Olson, 2011)

Reflection is a well supported
form of assessment output...
(Clements & Cord, 2013; Govekar & Rishi, 2007; Jabbar & Hardaker, 2012; McCrea, 2010; Robinson et al, 2010; Welikala & Watkins, 2008; Young & Hawes, 2013)

...but opinion differs as to how much of the summative mark it should be, from 100% to none

process

how can process be assessed?

• no details... (Good et al, 2008; Birenbaum et al 2006)
• ongoing journals & logs (Govekar & Rishi, 2007)
• using web 2.0 as project workspace (Good et al, 2008)

product & performance

Assessing the product itself is advocated by several of the studies reviewed (Crews & Stitt-Gohdes, 2012; Kreth, 2005; Larson & Dexler, 2010; Liu & Olson, 2011; Robinson et al, 2010; Weldy & Turnipseed, 2010)

...but there are different opinions on how to assess the product, depending on the context.

key considerations: summary

• Scaffolding and preparation
• Communication
• Integration
• Who assesses?
• What is assessed?

References