This study aimed to explore university undergraduates’ experiences of student involvement in assessment (SIA). Based on Biggs’ 3P model of student learning, this study focused on students’ experiences prior to SIA, during SIA and after SIA in three Business and Management modules. Applying this framework, different practices of involving students in assessment (peer assessment, self assessment or self designed assessment) were studied from the perspectives of the students concerned. Unlike other studies that normally test to what extent the designed outcomes of SIA have been met, the goal of this research was to reveal the inside picture of how students were coping with those SIA tasks and their learning. This picture was outlined from students’ perceptions of SIA, the main factors that might influence students’ engagement with SIA, and students’ reflections on SIA practice in the particular module. This study adopted mixed research methods with sequential explorative design. It employed the ETLA (Environment of Teaching, Learning and Assessment) questionnaire and follow up semi-structured interviews. There were in total 251 valid questionnaire responses from students and 18 valid student interviews. The data were collected from three undergraduate Business and Management degree modules in which different strategies were used to involve students in assessment. The three innovative modules were all from Scottish universities in which assessment practices were being re-engineered by involving students in assessment. Two of the modules had participated in the REAP (Re-engineering Assessment Practice) project. However, they were different from each other in terms of the way in which they involved students in assessment and the level or extent of student involvement in assessment that was entailed. The report and analysis of the findings has taken three main forms. First, the module context including the teaching, learning and assessment environment and student learning approaches and satisfactions in the particular module were compared and analysed using the questionnaire data. The results showed a strong association between the elements in the teaching and learning environment and student learning approaches. They also indicated that the quality of teaching, feedback and learning support played significant roles in the quality of student learning. Secondly, an analysis of the interview data was undertaken to examine why and how students would learn differently in different module contexts with different SIA practices, and how students were coping with their learning in the SIA tasks concerned. In addressing these questions, students’ previous experiences in SIA, and knowledge about SIA, peers’ influence, teachers’ support and training for SIA, interaction between and among students and teachers, the clarity of the module objectives and requirements and learning resources were found to be the major factors that might influence students’ engagement in the SIA. Additionally, the salient learning benefits and challenges of SIA as perceived by students were explored. Thirdly, based on the preceding findings, the analysis of each module aimed to further consider in what way the three modules differed from each other with respect to SIA practices, and how students responded in the three different module contexts in terms of their engagement with SIA. These three forms of analysis made it possible to gain a rich understanding of students’ experiences of SIA that could also feed into a consideration of what kind of support the students might need in order to better engage them into the SIA and better prepare them for life-long learning.

No description available.

In 2006 the Gauteng Department of Basic Education (GDoBE) launched a pilot project to introduce Assessment for Learning (AfL). This initiative was prompted by learners’ poor performance; especially in subjects such as Mathematics and English. The AfL project was introduced in selected primary and secondary schools. Grade 5 teachers for all subjects and Grade 10 teachers for all subjects within selected primary and secondary schools formed part of the pilot project. These teachers were oriented and introduced to AfL, after which workshops to strengthen teachers’ understanding and skills of AfL were conducted. Lead educators (District Learning Area facilitators or Subject Advisors), were required to monitor and support participating schools and teachers in implementing AfL. Based on a literature and empirical study, the researcher explored the comprehension and implementation of AfL by selected primary school Mathematics teachers that participated in the AfL pilot project of the GDoBE. The empirical study was approached by means of a qualitative research design in the form of a multiple case study. Individual interviews, observations and focus group interviews were used to collect data from purposive selected teachers from three Gauteng Districts (Johannesburg West, Johannesburg North and Ekurhuleni South). Both Township and ex-Model C primary schools were included in the study and eventually a total of 11 Mathematics teachers from these schools participated in the study. The research results revealed that the sampled teachers’ comprehension of AfL can be rated as satisfactory since they realise its potential in terms of learning and learner development. Moreover, these teachers show an awareness of the relation between formative (AfL) and summative assessment (assessment of learning (AoL)). With regard to its implementation, it is clear that a lack of support from colleagues, School Management Teams (SMTs) and District officials impede on the successful implementation of AfL. Other factors hampering the implementation of AfL include time constraints, uncertainty about appropriate resources and the simultaneous implementation of the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) and the Gauteng Primary Literacy Mathematics Strategy (GPLMS). It is further noted that the elements of AfL, which includes the sharing of learning intentions, questioning, feedback and peer and self-assessment, are all mediocrely implemented. / MEd (Learning and Teaching), North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, 2014

In 2006 the Gauteng Department of Basic Education (GDoBE) launched a pilot project to introduce Assessment for Learning (AfL). This initiative was prompted by learners’ poor performance; especially in subjects such as Mathematics and English. The AfL project was introduced in selected primary and secondary schools. Grade 5 teachers for all subjects and Grade 10 teachers for all subjects within selected primary and secondary schools formed part of the pilot project. These teachers were oriented and introduced to AfL, after which workshops to strengthen teachers’ understanding and skills of AfL were conducted. Lead educators (District Learning Area facilitators or Subject Advisors), were required to monitor and support participating schools and teachers in implementing AfL. Based on a literature and empirical study, the researcher explored the comprehension and implementation of AfL by selected primary school Mathematics teachers that participated in the AfL pilot project of the GDoBE. The empirical study was approached by means of a qualitative research design in the form of a multiple case study. Individual interviews, observations and focus group interviews were used to collect data from purposive selected teachers from three Gauteng Districts (Johannesburg West, Johannesburg North and Ekurhuleni South). Both Township and ex-Model C primary schools were included in the study and eventually a total of 11 Mathematics teachers from these schools participated in the study. The research results revealed that the sampled teachers’ comprehension of AfL can be rated as satisfactory since they realise its potential in terms of learning and learner development. Moreover, these teachers show an awareness of the relation between formative (AfL) and summative assessment (assessment of learning (AoL)). With regard to its implementation, it is clear that a lack of support from colleagues, School Management Teams (SMTs) and District officials impede on the successful implementation of AfL. Other factors hampering the implementation of AfL include time constraints, uncertainty about appropriate resources and the simultaneous implementation of the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) and the Gauteng Primary Literacy Mathematics Strategy (GPLMS). It is further noted that the elements of AfL, which includes the sharing of learning intentions, questioning, feedback and peer and self-assessment, are all mediocrely implemented. / MEd (Learning and Teaching), North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, 2014

Der anwendungsorientierte Masterstudiengang Konferenzdolmetschen hat die wesentliche Zielsetzung, Studierende auf eine professionelle Dolmetschtätigkeit vorzubereiten. Daher besteht ein überwiegender Anteil der Lehrveranstaltungen und des Selbststudiums darin, die Fähigkeiten zu trainieren, die für die Berufsausübung nötig sind. Um das Lernen zu lenken und den Lernfortschritt zu überwachen, erhalten die Studierenden wiederholt von verschiedenen Seiten Rückmeldungen zu ihrer erbrachten Leistung. Durch diese Bewertungen sollen Stärken und Schwächen aufgezeigt werden, um eine gezielte Weiterentwicklung der Dolmetschkompetenz zu unterstützen. Die zentrale Fragestellung der vorliegenden Arbeit besteht darin, wie diese Bewertungshandlungen in der Praxis ausgestaltet sein sollten, damit sie eine tatsächliche Unterstützung für den Lernprozess darstellen. Eine besondere Relevanz hat diese Fragestellung angesichts der Tatsache, dass nicht nur Dozierende sondern auch Studierende in großem Umfang Dolmetschleistungen bewerten müssen – im Präsenzstudium sowie im Selbststudium. Dabei sollen auch diejenigen studentischen Bewertungsvorgänge, die in Abwesenheit von Dozierenden erfolgen, dazu geeignet sein, die Weitergestaltung des Lernprozesses zielgerichtet zu unterstützen. Das Ziel der Arbeit liegt somit darin, für die Ausbildungspraxis konkrete Hinweise zusammenzutragen, wie Bewertungen von studentischen Dolmetschleistungen gestaltet werden können, um der Forderung nach einer Unterstützung des Lernprozesses gerecht zu werden. Der Fokus liegt dabei auf den verwendeten Bewertungskriterien, den möglichen Bewertungsperspektiven und dem Aspekt der Vermittlung der Bewertung. Bei der Präsentation der Ergebnisse werden bereits vorliegende schematische Darstellungen, die die Bewertungsvorgänge in der Praxis unterstützen können, durch weitere eigene Zusammenstellungen ergänzt.:Abbildungsverzeichnis 1 Einleitung 2 Lerntheorie und Didaktik 2.1 Der Begriff „Lernen“ 2.2 Förderung des Lernerfolgs 2.3 Selbstgesteuertes Lernen 2.4 Bewertung und Lernen 2.4.1 Definition von Feedback und Bewertung 2.4.2 Assessment for learning 2.4.3 Lernende als Feedback-Quelle: Peer assessment und Self-assessment 2.4.4 Eigenschaften unterstützender Bewertung 3 Dolmetschqualität und Dolmetschkompetenz 3.1 Dolmetschqualität – die Güte von Dolmetschprozess und -produkt 3.1.1 Begriffseingrenzung 3.1.2 Bewertende Personengruppen 3.1.3 Qualitätsparameter 3.2 Dolmetschkompetenz – Fähigkeiten von Dolmetschern 4 Didaktik des Konferenzdolmetschens 4.1 Grundlagen der Dolmetschdidaktik 4.2 Zielsetzung der Dolmetschausbildung 4.2.1 Anforderungen des Arbeitsmarkts 4.2.2 Zielsetzungen an Dolmetschausbildungsinstituten 4.2.3 Zielsetzungen in den Abteilungen am IALT 4.3 Lern- und Anforderungsprogression 4.4 Selbstgesteuertes Lernen im Master Konferenzdolmetschen 5 Formative Bewertungshandlungen im Dolmetschstudium 5.1 Aufbau und Ausgestaltung der Bewertung 5.1.1 Bestandteile des Bewertungsprozesses 5.1.2 Produkt- vs. prozessorientierte Bewertung 5.1.3 Weitere Aspekte der Bewertungsgestaltung 5.2 Möglichkeiten der Gewinnung von Bewertungskriterien für Dolmetschleistungen im Studium 5.2.1 Übernahme bestehender Bewertungskriterien 5.2.2 Zusammenstellung von Bewertungskriterien durch Studierende 5.3 Bewertung aus verschiedenen Perspektiven 5.3.1 Perspektive der bewertenden Person 5.3.2 Zeitliche Perspektive 5.4 Leitfaden zur Bewertungsgestaltung 6 Fazit Literaturverzeichnis Anhang: Gesprächsleitfaden zur Befragung von Dozierenden des IALT