VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ARTS, EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION IN PARTNERSHIP WITH

HANOI UNIVERSITY

MASTER OF TESOL

AEG 1502 EVALUATION

STUDY GUIDE &

READER

2009

Academic Coordinator: Mr. Martyn Brogan (martyn.brogan@vu.edu.au)

Administrative Coordinators: Hanoi: Ms. Nguyen Thai Ha (nguyenthaiha1609@yahoo.com) HCM City: Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha (hatrung56@yahoo.com)

Lecturers: Fiona McCook (fmccook@iprimus.com.au) Philip McIntyre (p.mcintyre@bigpond.com) Prue Morris (mo@nhs.vic.edu.au) Petre Santry (petre.santry@vu.edu.au) Other lecturers to be advised.

Location: Hanoi: Hanoi University, Km 9 Nguyen Trai Road, Thanh Xuan, Hanoi HCM City: Open University, 97 Vo Van Tan, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City

Class Times: 8:00 am – 11:30 am (unless otherwise advised)

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT STUDENTS READ ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS ‘STUDY GUIDE’.

IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY PART OF THIS STUDY GUIDE, YOU SHOULD ASK YOUR LECTURER OR COORDINATOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

THE STUDY GUIDE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT: • • • • • • • •

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES (LEARNING OUTCOMES) OF THE COURSE THE COURSE OUTLINE THE ASSESSMENT TASKS THE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA THE COURSE TOPICS THE GUIDE TO THE SELECTED READINGS THE SELECTED READINGS ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY ASPECT OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS STUDY GUIDE, YOU SHOULD DISCUSS THIS WITH YOUR LECTURER OR COORDINATOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

- 1 -

STUDY GUIDE

- 2 -

AEG 1502 - Evaluation

CONTENTS

General Information

Introduction to the Unit

Aims of the Unit

Objectives (Learning Outcomes) of the Unit

Content of the Unit

Unit Topics and Related Readings

Assessment Tasks and Information

GENERAL INFORMATION

Main Website:

The Vietnam MTESOL Program Wiki Website

PAGE NUMBER

4 - 6

7

7

7

8

8 - 11

12 - 18

The Victoria University – Hanoi University Master of TESOL Program has its own website:

http://vietnammtesol.pbwiki.com

At this site you will find links to information about your enrolment, Victoria University information sites, electronic copies of the unit guides and the readings, the VU offshore library and other useful websites for your assignments.

- 3 -

Other Websites:

1. The Victoria University Website: Victoria University has a website which contains a number of documents that you will find useful. The address for this is:

http://www.vu.edu.au/Current_Students

At this site you will find many web addresses including how to access your VU email address if you do not already have an email address.

Your lecturers will send you important emails during your studies and it is essential that you are able to access this information.

2. Teaching and Learning Support:

http://tls.vu.edu.au/students.cfm

At this site there are a number of academic support services offered to students which include: • • • • • •

FAQs - the questions often asked by students Skills needed for your studies, e.g. giving oral presentations General study skills Writing academic essays Information specific to international students How to avoid plagiarism

3. Faculty of Arts Education and Human Development: Web Address:

http://www.vu.edu.au/Faculties_and_TAFE/Arts_Education_and_Human_Developme nt/Current_Students/Postgraduates/indexdl_88404.aspx

4. School of Education: Web Address:

http://www.vu.edu.au/Faculties_and_TAFE/Arts_Education_and_Human_Developme nt/Schools/Education/index.aspx

5. Administration Forms: a. General: Web address:

http://www.vu.edu.au/Current_Students/Student_Administration/Commonly_Used_F orms/index.aspx

- 4 -

b. Assignment cover sheets, assignment extension forms, essay guide, plagiarism guide: Web Address: http://www.vu.edu.au/Faculties_and_TAFE/Arts_Education_and_Human_Developme

nt/Current_Students/Undergraduates/Faculty_Student_Forms/indexdl_88408.aspx

6. Offshore Library: Web address:

http://w2.vu.edu.au/library/offshore/

At this website you will find the Victoria University Offshore Library ‘User Guide’. Please read this guide carefully so that you can access the Victoria University library resources.

Handing in Assignments: Please refer to the ‘Assessment’ section in this Study Guide.

Special Consideration: If you feel that illness or personal difficulties have impaired your performance you may ask for ‘Special Consideration’. This may mean that you can have a late submission of your assignment, or alternative arrangements for your assignments. This can cover both emotional and physical difficulties. A ‘Special Consideration’ application form is available at the ‘General’ forms website indicated above (5a).

Arrangements for Disabled Students: These will be made as required in consultation with the Australian and Vietnamese program coordinator.

Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S): OH&S procedures will be discussed with you during the first lecture. Emergency evacuation procedures will be outlined during this lecture. Your class monitor will be your OH&S representative. Local details about OH&S procedures will be given to the monitor where available.

- 5 -

INTRODUCTION The unit 'AEG 1502 – Evaluation’ is an introduction to evaluation for educational purposes, particularly language education. Students attempting this unit will investigate what evaluation is, what ‘quality’ is, and the main purposes of, uses of and approaches to evaluation. They will specifically investigate foreign language program evaluation, teacher evaluation and materials evaluation. This will be done within the frameworks already used in the units ‘Research Methods’ and ‘Innovation’ The concepts related to evaluation will be investigated through the study of a range of language education contexts, but will specifically focus on the evaluation of the teaching of English as a Foreign Language. This unit is particularly suitable for those undertaking the MTESOL program by course work in Vietnam.

FORMAT This unit will be conducted in ‘burst’ mode. There will be 10 lectures / workshops of at least 3 hours and 30 minutes duration each day over 10 days from Monday to Saturday in the first week and from Monday to Thursday in the second week. During the ‘Evaluation Presentations’ and extra half an hour will be added to the length of each lecture.

The dates of the lectures will be notified to you.

AIMS � To introduce current theories of evaluation � To develop an understanding of the major underpinning constructs related to

evaluation � To develop an understanding of the ethical issues involved in evaluation � To critically evaluate ‘Western’ evaluation practices � To analyse previous evaluation practices, processes, methods and purposes of

evaluation in relation to the Vietnamese EFL context � To emphasise the importance and relevance of the concept of 'teacher as researcher

/ evaluator' to improve language programs, classroom practices and student learning � To emphasise the importance and relevance of empirically based evaluation

practices � To emphasise the importance and relevance of the use of reflective practices in

language program evaluation, teacher evaluation and materials evaluation

OBJECTIVES (LEARNING OUTCOMES) At the conclusion of this unit of study, students will be able to: � State the major differences between evaluation and assessment � Use both formative and summative evaluation techniques to produce an evaluation

mechanism or instrument � Develop evaluation instruments related to language program evaluation, language

teaching materials evaluation or language teacher evaluation � Evaluate a range of evaluation models � Use experimental, goal oriented, decision-focused, user oriented or responsive

evaluation techniques relevant to specific contexts � Demonstrate understanding of the importance of ethics in evaluation investigations � Use previously studied research methods to develop and orally present a research

based evaluation report.

- 6 -

CONTENT

The content of this module includes: � An Introduction to Evaluation � The Concept of Quality � The Purposes of Evaluation � Approaches to Evaluation � Introduction to Program Evaluation � EFL Language Program Evaluation � A Critique of Previous EFL Program Evaluations � Teacher Evaluation � Materials Evaluation � Evaluation of Evaluation (Cultural appropriateness of non-Vietnamese evaluation

methods in Vietnam) � Formative and Summative Evaluation Practices and ‘Ongoing’ Evaluation

UNIT TOPICS AND RELATED READINGS

Please note: Additional readings may be given during the lecture series.

Sessions 1 & 2: An Introduction to Evaluation � An introduction to the main concepts � Evaluation: A number of definitions � The distinction between evaluation and assessment � Evaluation in the ESL context � Evaluation in the EFL context � Formal evaluation techniques � Informal evaluation techniques � Evaluation by supervisors / managers � Ethics and evaluation � Summary

Readings: • Murphy, D. F. (2000). ‘Key Concepts in ELT: Evaluation’. ELT Journal. Vol. 54/2.

April. Pp. 210-211. • White, R.V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum, Design, Innovation and Management.

‘Evaluation’. UK: Basil Blackwell. Pp. 148-156. • Nunan, D. and Lamb, C. (1996). The Self-Directed Teacher. Chp. 8: ‘Monitoring and

Evaluation’. CUP. • Rea-Dickens, P. and Germaine, K. (2001). ‘Purposes for Evaluation’. In Hall, D. R.

and Hewings, A. Innovation in English Language Teaching. NY: Routledge. • Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. Chp. 3

‘The Four Levels: An Overview’. Berret-Koewer Publications: San Francisco. • Relevant previous readings from the ‘Research Methods’ subject and the

‘Innovation’ subject. These will be indicated to you during the lecture.

- 7 -

Sessions 3 & 4: The Concept of Quality

� Completion of the previous lectures � What is quality? The difficulty of defining quality � Quality processes in educational contexts � What is a quality system? � A model of one quality system (Total Quality Management -TQM)

Readings: • Doherty, G. D. (1999). ‘Introduction: The Concern for Quality’. In Doherty, G. D.

Developing Quality Systems in Education. NY: Routledge. • Sallis, E. (1993). Total Quality Management in Education. Chp. 3. ‘Total Quality

Management in the Educational Context’. London: Keegan Page. • Boyle, P. and Bowden, J. A. (1997). ‘Educational Quality Assurance in Universities:

An Enhanced Model’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol. 22. No. 2. Pp. 111-121.

Session 5: Program Evaluation � Language program evaluation – Introduction � The purposes of language program evaluation � Approaches to language program evaluation � Input Evaluation � Process Evaluation � Product Evaluation

Readings: • Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language Program Evaluation. Chp. 1. ‘Introduction’. CUP. • Murphy, D. F. (1985). ‘Evaluation in Language Teaching: Assessment,

Accountability and Awareness’. In Alderson, C. (ed.). Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education. Vol. 6: Evaluation, Frankfurt: Pergamon.

• Nunan, D. (1994). Research Methods in Language Learning. Chp. 9. ‘Program Evaluation’. CUP.

• Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Chp. 9. ‘Approaches to Evaluation’. CUP.

• Tribble, C. (2000). ‘Designing Evaluation into Educational Change Processes’. ELT Journal. Vol. 54. No. 4. October. Pp. 319-327.

• Forsyth, I., Jolliffe, A. and D. Stevens. (1995). Evaluating a Course. Chp. 1. ‘Course and Materials Evaluation’. London: Keegan Page.

Session 6: Previous EFL Program Evaluations � ‘Program fair’ evaluation � Context and program evaluation � Culture and program evaluation

Readings: • Beretta, A. (1986). ‘Program-Fair Language Teaching Evaluation’. TESOL

Quarterly. Vol. 20. No. 3. Pp. 431-444. • Beretta, A. and Davies, A. (1985). ‘Evaluation of the Bangalore Project’. English

Language Teaching Journal. Vol. 39. Pp. 121-127.

- 8 -

• Mann, G. (2004). ‘An Evaluation Approach Towards Feedback “Betterment” in an Initial Teacher Training in EFL’. Asian EFL Journal. www.asian-efl-journal.com. Accessed March 2005.

Session 7: Teacher Evaluation � Teacher evaluation – similarities to general evaluation � Teacher evaluation – differences to general evaluation � Ethical concerns and teacher evaluation � Components of professional practice

Reading: • Danielson, C. (2000). ‘A Blueprint for Teacher Evaluation’. In Danielson, C. Teacher

Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice. Educational Testing Service. NJ: Princeton.

• Murdoch, G. (2000). ‘Introducing a Teacher-Supportive Evaluation System’. ELT Journal. Vol. 54. No. 1. January. Pp. 54-64.

• Leshem, S. & R. Bar-Hama. (2007). ‘Evaluating Teaching Practice’. ELT Journal, April. Pp. 1-9.

• Meirong, Che. (2005). ‘Research on China’s System of Evaluating Teachers in Institutions of Higher Education for Professional Titles and Appointments’. Chinese Education and Society. Vol. 38. No. 5. Pp. 61-67

Session 8: Materials Evaluation � The purpose of the materials � The purpose of the evaluation of the materials � The ‘audiences’ for the use of the materials � The principles of procedure for materials evaluation � Materials evaluation instruments � The reporting of the findings of the materials evaluation

Reading: • Crawford, Jane. (2002). ‘The Role of Materials in the Language Classroom: Finding

the Balance’. In Richards, J. C. and W. A. Renandya. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. CUP. Pp. 80-91.

• Meikley, J. (2005). ‘ESL Textbook Evaluation Checklist’. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 5. No. 2. Pp. 1-9.

• Johnson, Keith, Mija Kim, Liu Ya-Fang, Andrea Nava, Dawn Perkins, Anne Margaret Smith, Oscar Soler-Canela and Wang Lu. (2008). ‘A Step Forward: Investigating Expertise in Materials Evaluation’. ELT Journal. Vol. 62. No. 2. April. Pp. 157-163.

• Ellis, Rod. (1997). ‘The Empirical Evaluation of Language Teaching Materials’. ELT Journal. Vol. 51. No. 1. January. Pp. 36-42.

Session 9: Evaluation of Evaluation (Cultural Appropriateness) � A critique of current evaluation practices � Non-Western approaches to evaluation � Culture sensitive approaches to evaluation

� Design of a possible model for evaluation practices in Vietnam - 9 -

Readings: • Kachru, Y. (1994) ‘Sources of Bias in SLA Research: Monolingual Bias in SLA

Research’. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 28. No. 4. Pp. 795-800. • Sridhar, S. N. (1994). ‘A Reality Check for SLA Theories’. TESOL Quarterly. Vol.

28. No. 4. Pp. 800-805. • McCormick, R. and James, M. (1989). Curriculum Evaluation in Schools (2nd

Edition). Chp. 11. ‘Learning from Evaluation’. London: Routledge.

Session 10: Formative and Summative Evaluation – ‘On-going’ Evaluation � Evaluation and continuous improvement � Summary of the unit � Evaluation of the course

Reading: • Wadsworth, Y. (1997) (2nd Ed). Everyday Evaluation on the Run. Chp. 4.

‘Developing a Culture of Evaluation’. NSW, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

List of References for Further Reading • Watanabe, Y. & Norris, J. M. (2006). Foreign Language Program Evaluation: A

Reference List of Resources for Foreign Language Educators. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW46 [Accessed: 22/10/07]

- 10 -

ASSESSMENT TASKS AND ASSESSMENT INFORMATION

The rationale of the three main assessment tasks for the three units in the MTESOL Course

The main aim of each of the three main assessment tasks for each of the three units is for students to use what they learn during the two weeks of coursework to continue their learning while they are completing the major assessment tasks.

The main assessment tasks for each of the three units are directly related to the content of each unit, to the work students do in their workplaces, and to each other.

The first assessment task, after the completion of the ‘Research Methods’ unit, requires students to research a language teaching concern that they currently have where they work. Students are expected to develop possible solutions to the identified, researched concerns.

The assessment task for the second unit, 'Innovation’, requires students to implement or extend on the developed solutions of the first assessment task done for the Research Methods unit. Students are expected to research the innovation processes involved during the implementation of the proposed solutions to the identified, researched teaching concern.

The third unit, ‘Evaluation’, requires students to evaluate the results of their research and their innovations and to report these results to their colleagues and lecturers.

These assessment tasks are designed: • • • • •

To be related to the content of each unit in the course To help students develop professionally as teachers and researchers To attempt to solve existing workplace problems To gain higher status from colleagues in the workplace, and To use what has been learnt for future problem solving of teaching concerns.

If students are unsure about any aspect of their assessment requirements, they should carefully and completely read all the information in the unit 'Study Guides' about the required assessment tasks. Students should contact their lecturer if they are still unsure.

Alternative assessment tasks may be able to be negotiated depending on each student's specific circumstances.

Students are encouraged to use the ‘Vietnam MTESOL’ website to read examples of previously completed assessment tasks and to view video examples of previously completed presentations:

http://vietnammtesol.pbwiki.com

- 11 -

�

ASSESSMENT GRADING

Attendance and completion of daily tasks (see attached criteria)

20%

�

�

Group development of a contextually appropriate course evaluation instrument OR a materials evaluation instrument OR a teacher evaluation instrument. (The requirements for this task will be further discussed and outlined in class.) 30%

Individual Presentation to the Class The presentation will be the evaluation of the processes and outcomes of the research that was conducted for the assignments for ‘Research Methods’ and ‘Innovation’ (ie. the presentation is an evaluation of the previous main assessment tasks.) 50%

Evaluation Instrument Assessment Task

This assessment task is the group or collegial modification or development of an evaluation instrument or checklist suitable for use in the Vietnamese context. Students are required to select a currently available evaluation checklist, or develop their own, and indicate how the items in the checklist would be appropriate for use in the Vietnamese context.

This task will require you to: 1. Work in a group of at least 4 people (maximum 6 people). Select a group leader. (This is to

be done after the completion of the lecture series.) 2. Modify or develop a contextually appropriate (ie. for Vietnam) evaluation instrument or

checklist for course evaluation or teacher evaluation or materials evaluation. 3. You can choose to modify one of the evaluation instruments or checklists presented in class

so that it would be appropriate for use in the group’s professional context/s in Vietnam. The changes made or the adaptations to the checklist must be highlighted in the submitted task. If you are adapting a checklist sourced elsewhere, the original checklist should be included in the appendix of the submitted assignment. You are required to justify the changes made to the evaluation instrument presented in class (or sourced elsewhere).

4. If you choose to develop your own evaluation instrument, you must justify each of the items you decide to include in the checklist.

5. It is expected that this justification of the changes to or inclusion of particular items in the instrument / checklist would be no more than 1000 words.

6. The group leader will submit by email the developed or modified checklist / instrument and the justifications of the checklist / instrument items (1000 words) no later than one month after the completion of the final lecture. It is important for the group leader to make sure all the names of the group members are included with the submission.

7. Please note that this task does NOT require you to do any evaluation using your developed or modified checklist. The main purpose of this task is for you to think about what would make a contextually appropriate evaluation instrument.

8. The assessment grading for this task will relate to: • the setting of the professional context (2) • the expected audience/s (eg. for teachers, for students, for supervisors, for all three)

of the adapted evaluation instrument (2) • the adapted / adjusted evaluation instrument (6) • the justification for inclusion of or changes to the items in the evaluation instrument,

ie. why were these inclusions / changes made and how do these inclusions / changes better suit the Vietnamese context? (20)

- 12 -

Presentation

Information about the presentation assessment task, and the criteria for the assessment of this task, is on the following pages.

Due Dates of the Assessment Tasks:

All daily tasks, the beginning of the collegial development of an evaluation instrument and the individual presentations will be done during the delivery of the program.

The collegially developed evaluation instrument is to be emailed to your lecturer by your group leader no more than one month after the completion of the lectures.

MAIN ASSESSMENT TASK FOR THE UNIT AEG1502 – EVALUATION

This information is about the requirements for the individual oral presentations to the class.

Please note:

The timetable for these presentations will be randomly generated and given to participants on the first day of the lecture series or emailed to the participants prior to the lectures commencing.

All participants will need to be ready to deliver their presentations at the beginning of the lecture series.

Please also note that the timetable for the presentation sessions is flexible. On some days there may be a need to spend more time on questions and feedback.

If you want to change the time of your presentation you will need to arrange a swap with another student. If you do arrange a change of time, please inform your teacher.

To prepare for the presentations, each participant needs to think about a plan. This plan would probably include: 1. The topic of the presentation (ie. what area/s of your previous research and innovation

is being proposed to be evaluated related to your teaching context?) 2. A list of possible problems and likely questions (ie. think ahead about what might go

wrong with your presentation, and what questions you might be asked, and try to prepare for these).

3. The procedure to be followed. 4. The materials and equipment required for the session.

- 13 -

Each presentation is expected to take a maximum of 15 minutes, with 5 – 10 minutes allowed for questions from your colleagues and lecturer.

Please plan ahead. You must prepare any materials that you want to use for your presentation, eg. photocopies or powerpoint presentations. Pens and whiteboard cleaners will be provided. If you wish to use a computer / laptop and projector you may need to arrange these yourself, or ask your teacher as soon as possible to arrange for them. It is not necessary to use any technological aids if you do not wish to.

The presentation must be an evaluation of what you did for your research and/or innovation assignments. This evaluation needs to be related to your teaching context. Your evaluation presentation must show what decisions you have made as a result of your previous research. It must state what you are now doing or are going to do as a result of the previous research. Your presentation is not simply a summary of what you have done. It is a critical appraisal of what you have done.

The purpose of your presentation is to explain to your colleagues the evaluation of your area of interest related to your research and innovation and your teaching context. This means that you need to understand the basic points of any evaluation:

• What was the purpose of your previous research? • Who was the ‘audience’ of your previous research? • Were there any ethical considerations in your previous research? • What were the mechanisms used for reliable data collection in your previous

research? • What were the means used to validly interpret and analyse the data of your

previous research? • What were the recommendations as a result of your previous research? • What was the reporting process of your previous research? • What are you now doing or going to do as a result of your previous research? • What has changed as a result of your previous research? • What further research needs to be done as a result of your previous research?

The presentation will be delivered in front of an ‘audience’ (your colleagues and teacher) and could be supported by computer graphics, overhead diagrams and use of the whiteboard if appropriate and necessary.

Tips for a successful presentation: • Refer to the assessment criteria (attached) to see how you will be assessed. • Use ‘prompt cards’ that are small enough to carry in your palm and that summarise

your talk, especially if you think you will be nervous. • Rehearse with friends to give you feedback and to practice the timing of your

presentation. • Write the title of your presentation on the board or OHT or slide before beginning. • Pause to capture audience attention before starting. • Use body language appropriately. • Conclude and summarise each of your main points and the overall presentation. • Use appropriate visual aids.

- 14 -

• Practice using the ‘data show’ projector, the overhead projector (OHP) and whiteboard or other equipment beforehand.

• Attend to lettering size and the size of any diagrams. • Do not put too much information on each slide / OHT. • Notes may be used for reference but they must not be read to the class. • You will be stopped if you run over time so do not try to present too much. • There is a limit to the amount of information that is necessary and you are advised to

highlight no more than five key points in your talk. • Check the accuracy of anything you present that is written (ie. spelling and grammar). • Look at websites related to the giving of presentations: eg. There are online video

examples of what previous students have presented at http://vietnammtesol.pbwiki.com/Evaluation. There is an online video about ‘Presenting to a Group’ available at the Victoria University Offshore Library website. There are other examples at http://www.kumc.edu/SAH/OTEd/jradel/effective.html

Please note the following assessment criteria.

- 15 -

VU-HANU MTESOL PROGRAM

VIETNAM

EVALUATION PRESENTATION – ASSESSMENT SCORING SHEET (TEACHER)

Student Name: __________________________________

Date: …. / …. / …..

Topic: __________________________________________________________________ Criteria

Content (Total 20 Marks) Informs (10)

Addresses the topic (5)

Defines & clarifies key vocabulary (3)

Uses transition signals & linking phrases (2)

Organisation (Total 10 Marks) Introduction (2)

• Attracts audience attention • Provides clear outline • Defines terms

Body(3) • Introduces each section • Supports statements with examples • Develops ideas in logical sequence

Conclusion (2)

• Summarises presentation • Initiates discussion & questioning

Discussion (2) • Controls & manages the audience

Manages time well (1)

Comments

Speech (Total 10 Marks) Clearly pronounces words (2)

Fluently expresses ideas (2)

Maintains interest by varying intonation (2)

Speaks loud enough for all to hear (2)

Uses pauses and varies speed (2)

Performance (Total 10 Marks) Appears confident (2)

Uses appropriate body language & gestures to punctuate delivery (2)

Maintains eye contact (2)

Engages audience throughout (2)

Effectively uses materials / resources (2) Additional Comments (if appropriate or necessary): …………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Score (Total 50):

Assessor’s Signature:

__________

______________________________________

- 17 -

PRESENTATION ASSESSMENT

(STUDENTS)

You will be asked to assess your colleagues’ presentations. You are asked to do this in pairs in order to ‘moderate’ your assessments.

Your peer assessment of your colleagues will be used by your lecturers to help moderate their assessment of the presentations.

Your Names: ………………………………………………………………………………………..

Name of the Presenter: …………………………………

Topic: ...………………………………………………………………………………………………

What is your overall assessment grade for this presentation (Please give a score out of 10)

….. / 10

Please refer assessment criteria. Write at least two reasons why you gave your score based on the assessment criteria:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

- 18 -

Grade

HD

D

C

P N (Fail)

Assessment Criteria - Participation and Attendance

Criteria This grade would be awarded for regularly initiating relevant discussion, asking pertinent questions and respectfully listening to others in a whole class setting. There is evidence of considered reading of the course materials and reflective thinking about the local context. There is willingness (without dominating the group) to participate actively in group discussion and (without excluding others) to take the role of group reporter during feedback. Reporting on group work is clear, succinct and inclusive of the group’s responses and responsive to what other reporters have said previously. Well-developed or developing evidence- based independent opinions are held. Attendance: 100% This grade would be awarded for sometimes initiating relevant discussion, asking some pertinent questions and respectfully listening to others in a whole class setting. There is evidence of reading of the course materials and reflective thinking about the local context. There is (without dominating the group) participation in group discussion and the opportunity is taken (without excluding others) to be group reporter during feedback. Reporting on group work is clear and inclusive of the group’s views. Some developing evidence-based independent opinions are held. Attendance: 90% or greater This grade would be awarded for asking some questions and respectfully listening to others in a whole class setting. There is evidence of some reading of the course materials and reflective thinking about the local context. There is some participation in group discussion and the opportunity is taken (without excluding others) to be group reporter during feedback. Reporting on group work is mostly clear and inclusive of the group’s views. Some evidence-based opinions are held. Attendance: 80% or greater This grade would be awarded for listening to others in a whole class setting and asking some questions whether privately after class or publicly. There is evidence of some reading of the course materials and some thinking about the local context. There is some limited participation in group discussion (though the participant may sometimes be seen working alone) and encouragement is needed to be group reporter during feedback. Attendance: 80% or greater This grade would be awarded for non-participation in discussions, group work, reporting or set tasks. Attendance is less than 80%.