Assessment tool procedure

Ross Woods, Updated Oct. '20

This is a set of steps for editing units into assessment tools. It is addressed to the student, and fully informs them on exactly how they will be assessed: the context, all criteria, and anything else that will be expected of them. It also fully informs the assessor on how the assessment will work, so separate instructions for the assessor are not usually necessary.

It does not include a recording form, although I now have a Javascript that will transform the statement into a fillable form. The advantage is that everthing now only needs to be written once.

As you edit

You will probably notice frequent redundancies in the language of the original units as you edit. You only need to mention each item once unless you have good reasons for doing otherwise.

Include mapping to the original unit. Include it in the document at the relevant points in the text, for example, at the end of each element and performance criteria. Use light gray like this in order not to distract or confuse students.

The order of the steps is not rigid, but is indicatve only.

The steps

1. Get a soft copy of the unit into your computer.
2. Give the unit a clear, simple title. This will usually be shorter that the original title.
3. Put the unit code, the full unit title and the version number of the unit directly underneath the main title. (These are absolutely necessary for administrative reasons, but put it in light gray like this so they don't distract or confuse the students.
4. Translate the purpose statement into plain English. If you are contextualizing the unit, you may express the purpose for a specific context, but not so much that your unit no longer represents the original.
5. Delete anything in the unit that is not a requirement (e.g. ... may ... statements).
6. Translate elements and performance criteria into plain English.
   • Put all performance criteria into the form of instructions to students. (Newer packages already do this, but older packages always used passive voice.)
   • Separate run-together performance criteria. These are two criteria are lumped together in one sentence.
   • Put performance criteria into short, clear sentences with plain vocab.
7. Add any requirements that came up in industry consultation.
8. Express required knowledge as a series of questions:
   • Where possible, relate them to practical application in the workplace.
   • When a knowledge item is very complex, separate it into a series of smaller questions.
   • In most cases, you can express questions in short, clear sentences with plain vocab.
   • In some cases, especially at higher academic levels, a research essay might be more appropriate.
9. Put in any necessary contextualization, e.g. use specific terminology where the original unit was very generic, give specific tasks or responsiblities.
10. Check assessment context. This will usually be in the workplace over a substantial period of time.
11. Decide upon assessment modes and the most naturally occurring kind of evidence.
    • For example, if the competency is to write a report, the assessment mode will be to write a report and the required evidence is a written report.
    • You will normally at least two different kinds of evidence so you will need multiple assessment activities.
    • Avoid simulations if you can. They are difficult to do well.
12. Check essential aspects of performance and integrate them into the document.
13. Check the requirements for valid, reliable, fair and flexible.
14. Check that tools are concrete and clear enough for the assessment to be reliable. The default approach at time of writing is to use a second assessor for anything that is unclear.
15. Focus on the application of knowledge and skill to the standard of performance required in the workplace and cover all aspects of workplace performance, including
    • task skills (usually already done if you cover the elements properly)
    • task management skills,
    • contingency management skills and
    • job role environment skills
16. Go through and delete any more redundancies.
17. Tidy up page layout.
18. Check that everything is in a sensible order so that people will understand it easily.
19. Get someone else to check your work:
    • Does it look like an assessment tool or a warmed-over unit?
    • Does it look like an assessment tool or a plan that only informs students about an assessment?
    • Is it complete? Does it cover all unit requirements?
    • Is it comply with industry consultation?
    • It is easy to understand and use? Are instructions complete?