In this post, Dr Deborah Holt details how to co-create a grade related criteria matrix with students at the start of a course. Deborah is Lecturer in Mental Health Promotion and Health and Wellbeing at Moray House School of Education and Sport. This post is part of the Mar-May Learning & Teaching Enhancement theme: Assessment and feedback revisited↗️.
My former role as School Director of Quality Assurance and Enhancement meant I was lucky enough to learn about new innovations and good practice relating to assessment and feedback at network events. I enjoyed taking my learning into my teaching and my role as course organiser, as well as supporting others to do so,
This blog post is about an approach that I use in a level 10 elective open to students across our School and beyond. This is a wellbeing promotion course that already had a level of co-creation with the students. In week 1, students are asked to bring an audit of their strengths and development needs within health and wellbeing, as well as areas of interest about which they wish to find out more. I then use this to shape content for over half the weeks of the course. It seemed to fit well with the week 1 focus to set aside time towards the end of the session for the co-creation of a grade related assessment criteria grid/matrix.
It is probably important to make clear that it is the grade related criteria (GRC) matrix that is co-created. I do not allow students to choose the assessment criteria as these were fixed at the course approval stage.
I have now tried co-creation of GRC in two different ways and, I think in future, the choice of which approach to use will be determined by how much discussion there is during the first part of the workshop, how well the students know each other, and how happy they are to put forward ideas so early on in the course.
The first approach involves, firstly, sharing a grade related criteria matrix on the whiteboard, which was blank except for the assessment criteria:
I gave students time to read each of the assessment criteria in turn and then discuss in a small group:
- What does this mean to you?
- Do you understand what you would need to do to meet the criteria?
- Do you have any questions about any of the criteria?
We then discussed their responses and thoughts as a class group before I asked them to consider what each of the criteria might look like if done to a good level, (C), a higher level- very good (B), excellent (A) and finally a low pass (D). This generated a great deal of debate and discussion.
It was important to remind the class that the language of grade descriptors should be predominantly constructive, about what is done, rather than what is absent, although the latter can also be helpful sometimes in addition.
Each group was then allocated a specific criterion and asked to have a go at drafting some wording for each grade descriptor for that criterion. The wording needed to be in language accessible to everyone in the group, and to help each other see how to go from a pass to the highest grades.
Drawing on these, we then came together as a class to develop an agreed set of descriptors for all the assessment criteria. As part of the process, one group could give feedback on another group’s suggestions, for example, by asking for more detail or less ambiguous wording. I acted as scribe so everyone could see the wording within the whiteboard matrix. We managed to achieve agreement on all the descriptors without too much difficulty, but I am aware that this may not always be the case.
While I facilitate the co-creation, I also make final decisions where the group cannot decide, and I have intervened if I felt that there was not enough clarity or they were off track. After all, it is co-creation! As course organiser, I have to make sure that what is written really will help students to achieve the assessment criteria at a given level. The final agreed version was then shared in all the assessment spaces of Learn and used by markers as a framework for both grading and feedback. The tables below show examples of the kinds of wording suggested:
The second approach to achieve a co-created GRC, which is probably less daunting for students, is to share a GRC matrix that has been partially filled in so that each criterion has at least one box already completed and there is an example of wording for each of the grades. The process for taking it forward is the same as the first approach. Students can also choose to change or amend some of the prepopulated descriptors if they wish.
Allocating time in class to do this may seem like a lot of time taken away from teaching but I believe that the students are better able to engage with the course learning, having gone through this process. It also serves as a formative opportunity for the assessment. Everyone comes away with a greater understanding of what is expected. The students on this course tend to do well; often higher than their grade profiles. I have always attributed this to the co-created nature of both content and assessment. There is increased ownership and understanding of learning. In addition, feedback from students shows that they value being asked to do this and they feel that they matter, which again – and it is only my opinion – must increase their motivation.
The approach has worked so well on this course that I am now going to do it on all the courses I organise. I guess I go about it in a way that suits my teaching style but, if appropriate, I would be happy to support other Course Organisers to co-create GRC with students.
Deborah Holt
Dr Deborah Holt is a Lecturer in mental health promotion and health and wellbeing in the Moray House School of Education and Sport. Since 2010, she has been working in a range of Initial Teacher Education programmes as lecturer, course organiser and programme director. Her research is in positive mental health promotion in education and she specialises in pupil wellbeing, and health and wellbeing teaching in primary education.
