Grade for Student Laboratory Performance

Finally, students were given a demonstrator awarded grade, a practice that has been used within the University of Tasmania for some time. The purpose of this grade is to give an indication of their performance during the laboratory coupled with their presentation of data collected and any calculations or discussions associated. To assist in minimizing variability between demonstrators a rubric was designed and implemented to clarify the measures and standards used in the grading of students' work. Rubrics, or criterion referenced assessments, are an effective tool in their capability to give detailed information on the progress or lack thereof for students (McInerney & McInerney, 2010). The designed rubric was first developed as part of a post-graduate short course on higher education. The development of this rubric was guided by the examples provided by Biggs and Tang (2011). Validation of this rubric was completed in two phases: The first was through assessment (the criteria used for this can be found in Appendix I) by Higher Education experts who ran this course from the Tasmanian Institute of Learning and Teaching (TILT). TILT is a division of the University of Tasmania employed to assist in the education and development of higher education. The second form of validation was through consultation with the Teaching Learning Committee within the

Chapter 3 – Methodologies Part 1: Logistics

discipline of chemistry prior to implementation. The consultation with the Teaching Learning Committee aimed to align the rubric with the historical approach of assessment for the teaching laboratory at this institute. The key criteria for this lie within ensuring that safety within the laboratory, knowledge of chemical concepts, and laboratory performance were included. Furthermore, each of these criteria to the appropriate standard expected of chemistry students. The criteria have been discussed in further depth later in this Section.

Rubrics can be described as being made up of three components: criteria clearly stating the assessment areas; standards to define the level of attainment of each criteria; and descriptors of each standard to each criterion (University of Tasmania, 2011). To design this rubric, the outermost framework was constructed before moving onto the descriptors. As such, five standards were chosen for use, to complement the accepted assessment standards used within the University of Tasmania. These included the following: High Distinction (HD 80%), Distinction (DN 70%), Credit (CR 60%), Pass (PP 50%), and Unsatisfactory (NN <50%). Some initial discussions raised the alternative of using four standards, with the removal of the NN standard, rather than five in an effort to simplify the rubric, but after consideration the NN grade was retained. The advantage of the NN standard was the clear definition of what would constitute a grade below 50% to both students and demonstrators. This avoided the

associated problems of implying that a students’ work had not achieved a PP and allowed demonstrators to mark students to their appropriate level indicating where students may not have met the PP level.

With the standards determined, the next component to consider were the criteria to define what was being assessed. The designed rubric was intended to be a generic rubric appropriate to all first-year chemistry laboratories. It was imperative that the criteria were broad enough

44

to encompass the range of experiments offered, but specific enough to allow meaningful assessment. Some logistical considerations were also required to be addressed. As the

demonstrators assess students during laboratory time, it was important to ensure the marking process was efficient and transparent in nature. Each laboratory only targeted a few key aspects from the overarching learning objectives further supported this decision, as an in- depth rubric would not be appropriate. The developed rubric for the KRA001 and KRA113 units can be found within Appendix II.

The use of criteria-based assessment on the learning outcomes of an activity is supported by Biggs and Tang (2011) and the Guidelines for Good Assessment Practices (University of Tasmania, 2011), which states “Criteria should be clearly based on the learning outcomes in a unit outline”. The unit outline for Chemistry 1A, KRA113 (University of Tasmania, 2015b), states that the learning objectives of the laboratory classes are:

1. Complement the lectures where possible.

2. Increase skills in the handling of chemicals and equipment.

3. Introduce you to basic laboratory techniques of synthesis and analysis.

4. Allow you to gain an appreciation of the need to carry out experiments with regard to the safety of yourselves and others.

(University of Tasmania, 2015b)

With these in mind, it was determined that three criterion would be sufficient to encompass these learning outcomes. Using these learning outcomes the following criteria were designed with a weighting attached to each, 20%, 40%, and 40% respectively:

Chapter 3 – Methodologies Part 1: Logistics

1. Completion of pre-laboratory requirements and work safely and efficiently within a laboratory

2. Use of the correct techniques and calculations 3. Understanding of the concepts and principles

Figure 4. An illustration of the alignment of the criteria of the rubric with the learning objectives of the laboratory.

These criteria were then subjected to scrutiny from the Unit Coordinator at the time, the Chemistry Teaching and Learning Committee, and the supervisory team of this project. They decided these criteria sufficiently encompassed the learning outcomes intended for the laboratory in addition to complying with the expectations implied from the guidelines and exemplars available from University resources. To expand on one of these expectations, this meant excluding all use of quantifiers and qualifiers, and ensuring the criteria represented what students have to do during the assessment task to attain a grade (University of Tasmania, 2011). Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Learning Objective 4 Learning Objective 2 Learning Objective 3 Learning Objective 1

46

With the standards and criteria defined, the focus turned to the descriptors for each level of each criterion. The purpose of a rubric is to clearly and succinctly define to both students and demonstrators what is being assessed and what is required at each level to achieve different grades. It was therefore imperative that the descriptors written were consistent not only within each criterion but also across the rubric itself. The process of writing each descriptor began with constructing what was expected at the 50% Pass (PP) level. From this base level, descriptors for the 60% Credit (CR), 70% Distinction (DN), and 80% High Distinction (HD) levels were constructed. These descriptors were conceived through communication with past and present demonstrators, students, teaching staff, and the Chemistry Teaching and Learning Committee. Once approval had been gained from the Unit Coordinator, progress began on each standard not yet addressed.