Assessment support

Toolbox

Assignments

Written tests

Design Constructing criteria Construct rubric Formulate assignment Organize process, feedback Grading, Fraud Analyze results Assign grades, archive Evaluate and improve * Groupwork

design construct questions Assemble test Organize test taking Grading tests Analyze test results Assign grades, archive Evaluate and improve

Grading assignments

When grading assignments, regardless of the subject or format, there are several key principles to keep in mind. Below is a list of important considerations when grading assignments:

Ensure that the grading is consistent and fair. Defining clear criteria and rubrics will be helpful tools for this.
Be clear and transparent about the process and expectations towards the students.
Evaluate assignments on merits and quality, not on personal biases or preferences. Be aware of assessment pitfalls.
The grading can be done in a holistic way or in an analytic way. Based on the use of an instrument (e.g. a rubric) or based on an (intuitive) expert appraisal by way of comments and an overall impression. One way is not necessarily better or more reliable than another, but the assessor must be able to justify the grade, the grade must be meaningful and the assessment must be as consistent and fair (objective, based on merits and quality) as possible.
If you use criteria, a checklist with scores or a rubric, find a way to make the conversion from scores to a grade. Decide on the caesura or cutting score: What score will match a grade 5.5?
Evaluate assignments on merits and quality, not on personal biases or preferences. Be aware of assessment pitfalls.
Make a difference between requirements (e.g. the amount of words, deadlines) and assessment criteria. Be clear upfront about what the consequences will be when students don't adhere to the assignment guidelines and requirements. NB. This doesn't mean that there can't be allowance for extenuating circumstances which may warrant flexibility.
Academic integrity. Check that the student's (or group of students') work is their own. Check for plagiarism check, unauthorized AI use, free-riding, etc. Ideally, prevention and detection measures are in place. If there is suspicion of fraud, the Examination Board should be informed.
In the case of group work: Ensure that the group members have engaged with the material and put effort into the group work. Think beforehand how this can be ensured and what will be done if this is not the case.
Focus on Improvement. Use your feedback to guide students to improve their work and strengthen their skills for future assignments. Provide intermediate feedback, on which the students can act before delivering a final product or before a final performance, as well as final feedback aimed at future activities.

If more than one assessor is involved:
> Create an assessment protocol. This includes, among other things information about: How the
assessment is carried out, the instruments used for this, how much time is available, who has
which role in the assessment process, and how to act in case of doubt.
> Ensure calibration. Ideally, this should be done beforehand (for example: review and discuss
together a piece of work from last year using the assessment tool ) or at the beginning of
the review process (review and discuss together one or a few pieces of work). It can also be
done afterward before grades are given (for example: compare assessment forms and grades;
the coordinator randomly looks at some pieces of work; all assessors meet to discuss some
troublesome points).

Fraud - Violation of academic integrity

Above all, let us not forget that in most situations, students do their utmost to do a good job and have no intention of committing fraud. However, we cannot rely on it for 100% and for everyone, and, as an examiner, you are expected to check for violations of academic integrity or fraud. If fraud is involved, you are expected to know how to act.
What can be seen as fraud? How to act? What are the consequences? See the UT Student Charter, the EER, and Rules and Guidelines of your programme.
In somewhat more general terms, forms of fraud in assignments are presented below. In general: The more pressure placed on a product (high-stake assessment) and the less visibility there is on the interim process, the more likely fraud is to occur. Conversely: The more emphasis is placed on the process rather than the final product, the more students are guided or can get support when needed, the more challenging and motivating the assignment is, the less chance it will occur.

Ways to violate academic integrity	How to detect?	Points of attention / Ways to prevent
Plagiarism - use of someone else's work, ideas, or words without proper acknowledgment or citation.	Plagiarism check instrument in Canvas Own expertise and experience	It is important that students learn what is meant by plagiarism and how to refer appropriately. Sometimes plagiarism happens unintentionally due to insufficient awareness of it.
Collaborating without permission	Striking similarities in submitted work	Make sure students know beforehand what is and isn't allowed. Preventing: Providing assignments that slightly differ. Let students use own examples.
Unauthorized use of software or AI	Among others for AI use: Inconsistencies in writing style or an overly polished style; lack of depth, originality, or details; no use of what was taught in class; inaccurate, no or old references. NB. Detection software gives a high chance of incorrect signaling and there are privacy issues.	Make clear at the start (in Canvas and lecture) what is allowed and what isn't and (!) explain the reason why. Ask students to submit drafts and follow the process. Make the assignment motivating and challenging and emphasize the learning process. Let students work on assignments that let them use personal experiences or examples or that expect very specialized knowledge, data, and insights, or find other ways that make it less likely that the use of AI will be very helpful. Use extra ways for assessment to check whether the student understands the subject, such as an oral. For more about AI & Assessment, see AI and assessment
Fabrication or falsification of data	Striking, unexpected results. Little or vague information on how the data was collected.	In a report, explicitly ask for how the data were collected. Ensure that a teacher or tutor has oversight of what is happening during the process in which students are working on the assignment.
Ghostwriting - asking or hiring someone to do the assignment	The quality of the work deviates from your expectations (of this student). The work makes no or limited use of covered material. The terminology or wording used deviates.	Explicitly ask that the report apply the material covered in the course. Have students work on an assignment in phases and discuss interim products so that you retain insight into the process. Have students use less obvious data or examples. Discuss the results so that you can explore the extent to which the student made the work and knows enough about it. Make the assignment motivating and challenging, without too much pressure on the final product and more emphasis on the learning process.
Free-riding or social loafing in group work	Explicitly address collaboration during the process. Have students give each other feedback on each other's contributions.	Make the expectations explicit at the start of the assignment. Indicate what the students can/should do if there are problems with cooperation. Make students responsible for the way the team operates. As a teacher or tutor: Keep an eye on the process and teamwork. Use instruments for the students to give each other targeted feedback on each other's contributions. Important: Check it halfway, when there is still time for changes. Use extra ways for assessment to check whether each student has learned enough. For example, through a presentation, oral, or individual reflection report (using specific questions). There are ways to include the extent to which students in a group have contributed to the final result in the grades. But be aware that students will not easily give someone a failing grade and that the students' assessment is based on appropriate criteria.