Assessment

=Assessment of the TALHE course= Candidates who enroll for the TALHE are required to complete THREE assignments that will be contextualised within a specific subject area, elective or specialised programme of their choice.

There are THREE assessment tasks. Assignment 1: Development of a matrix for the learning theory which has been assigned to your group, using the categorisations provided for you in this assignment. For this assignment, each group will be assigned one of the following learning theories: a) behaviourism b) cognitivism c) cognitive constructivism d) sociocultural constructivism e) connectivism f) social/critical realism The final deadline for Assignment 1 is 31 March 2014; it counts for 20% of total mark of the TALHE module. In order to support your work on Assignment 1, we have broken it up into the following categories in the matrix: 1. conception of learning 2. main tenets and limitations of the theory 3. associated theories and theorists 4. use in higher education 5. underlying philosophical assumptions (epistemological (considerations about knowing and knowledge) and ontological (considerations about being, what is and what exists) Assignment 2: part-portfolios OR conference presentation OR article for an educational journal (3,000 words) For this assignment, you can chose to do ONE of the following: a) Develop a teaching and learning portfolio (note that this is a part-portfolio as it will exclude assessment tasks – and focus on teaching and learning activities and reflections); b) Write a paper for a teaching and learning conference; c) Write an article for an educational journal (e.g., //South African Journal of Higher Education//, //Teaching in Higher Education//).
 * TALHE: Assignment 1**
 * Assessment criteria: Assignment 1**
 * || ITEM || ** Not yet competent **
 * (>50%) ** || ** Okay **
 * (50 – 60%) ** || ** Good **
 * (61 – 69%) ** || ** Very good **
 * (70-74%) ** || ** Excellent (75%+) ** || ** Mark weighting ** || ** Your mark ** || ** Comments ** ||
 * 1 || Conception of learning || Completely wrong notions presented re conceptions || Basic understanding presented re conceptions || Good understanding of conceptions of learning || Very good understanding of conceptions of learning || Excellent understanding of conceptions of learning || 15 ||  ||   ||
 * 2 || Main tenets and limitations of the theory || Completely wrong notions presented about main tenets and limitations || Basic understanding of main tenets and limitations or an understanding of one presented || Good understanding of main tenets and limitations || Very good understanding of main tenets and limitations || Excellent understanding of main tenets and limitations || 15 ||  ||   ||
 * 3 || Associated theories and theorists || Completely wrong notions presented about associated theories and theorists || Basic understanding of associated theories and theorists – not all major theories and theorists are presented or eludidated || Good understanding of associated theories and theorists – well researched but could have been in more depth || Very good understanding of associated theories and theorists – very well researched || Excellent understanding of associated theories and theorists – thoroughly researched and new insights provided || 15 ||  ||   ||
 * 4 || Use in higher education || Completely wrong notions about use in higher education or very inadequate information || Basic understanding of use in higher education || Good understanding of use in higher education – with good examples || Very good understanding of use in higher education with new insights and very good explanations || Excellent understanding of use in higher education – thoroughly researched and explained and new insights provided || 15 ||  ||   ||
 * 5 || Underlying philosophical assumptions – epistemological and ontological || Completely wrong notions about epistemological and or ontological assumptions or very inadequate information || Basic understanding of epistemological and or ontological assumptions with adequate information about both || Good understanding epistemological and or ontological assumptions– with good examples || Very good understanding of epistemological and or ontological assumptions with new insights and very good explanations || Excellent understanding of epistemological and or ontological assumptions – thoroughly researched and explained and new insights provided || 15 ||  ||   ||
 * 6 || References || Inadequate or no references || Limited and outdated references and poorly constructed || Adequate or old references and more or less accurately done || Very good and current references – full research conducted on field and accurately presented || Excellent authoritative references – new contributions to the field and completely accurate || 10 ||  ||   ||
 * 7 || Presentation and timeliness || Very badly presented late submission || Either submitted late or untidy presentation || Good presentation – easily readable and timeous handing in || Very good presentation, clear and creative handed in timeously || Excellent presentation, creative, user friendly and handed in on time || 15 ||  ||   ||
 * || TOTAL ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || 100 ||   ||   ||
 * TALHE: Assignment 2**

The final deadline for Assignment 2 is 30 May; it counts for 50% of total mark of the TALHE module. In order to support your work on Assignment 2, we have broken it up into the following steps (each with its own deadline):

1. Outline (or concept map) – 1 pager (5%) - due: Friday 25 April 2014 //The outline or concept map is a 1-pager in which you express your idea for the teaching and learning portfolio, conference paper, or journal paper (we’ll help you to identify an appropriate conference and journal). The 1-pager could take the form of the proposed headings and sub-headings of your portfolio or journal article.// 2. Comments from peers on outline (5%) – due: Monday 5 May 2014 //You will receive feedback on your outline from course facilitators and colleagues in the on-line environment. Please make sure that you also make comments on the work of other PG Dip (HE) (T&L) candidates.// 3. 2 x readings (10%) annotated – due: Monday 12 May 2014 //The facilitators will help you to find appropriate readings for your portfolio, conference or journal paper topic (although we encourage you to use the higher education journal data-bases to do this yourselves!). For this assignment section, we would like you to: 1) clearly identify the main ideas of a text; 2) trace the development of ideas/arguments throughout a text and, 3) introduce a few of your own thoughts and reactions on the readings.// 4. First draft of portfolio/presentation/paper due: Monday 19 May 2014. //For the first draft you will need to ‘flesh out’ the outline – and please use the comments from the facilitators and candidates to improve on your original outline. For the first draft you may want to expand on particular sections (you don’t need to have a whole paper). The first draft is intended for feedback. The first draft of assignment 2 is due: Monday 19 May. Please upload your paper onto your Google Drive folder by this deadline if you wish to receive any formative feedback on your assignment.// 5. Final draft of portfolio/presentation/paper due on: Friday 30 May 2014. //The final draft of Assignment 2 is due on Friday 30 May 2014. The final assignment should include references, and be written in a clear, academic style. Please upload your assignment into your Google Drive folder.//

(50 – 60%) || Good (61 – 74%) || Great (75%+) || Mark weighting || Your mark ||
 * Assessment criteria: Assignment 2**
 * || ITEM || Okay
 * 1 || Outline (concept map) || Outline produced by deadline || Outline produced by deadline || Outline produced by deadline || 5 ||  ||
 * 2 || Comments || Comments given by deadline || Comments given by deadline || Comments given by deadline || 5 ||  ||
 * 3 || Annotated readings || Identified some points/ideas in the readings. || Identified main argument or points made in the reading || Identified main arguments and theoretical positions in the readings || 10 ||  ||
 * 4 || First draft submitted || A structure emerging for the portfolio/ presentation/ paper || A structure for the portfolio/ presentation/ paper || A clear and logical structure for the portfolio/ presentation/ paper || 10 ||  ||
 * 5.1 || Final draft: structure and argument || Emerging structure and/or argument || Clear structure and/or argument || Clear, logical structure and/or argument || 20 ||  ||
 * 5.2 || Final draft: theoretical framing || Some literature is referred to (and referenced) and a theoretical framing is attempted. || Relevant literature is referred to (and referenced); a theoretical framework is developed || Appropriate literature is referred to (and referenced) and a theoretical framework developed and used for reporting and analysis. || 20 ||  ||
 * 5.3 || Innovation and/or insight || The portfolio demonstrates basic competent practice/ potential or emerging insight into teaching and learning issue(s) in presentation or paper || The portfolio demonstrates appropriate practice/ presentation or paper achieves some insight into teaching and learning issue(s) || The portfolio shows appropriate, innovative practice/ presentation or paper achieves advanced insight into teaching and learning issue(s) || 20 ||  ||
 * 5.4 || Final draft: academic writing || Writing communicates main ideas || Writing is fluent || Writing is fluent and meets academic requirements in the field of higher education studies. || 10 ||  ||
 * || TOTAL ||  ||   ||   || 100 ||   ||

__General__
 * Recommended reading**

Kane, R., Sandretto, S. & Heath, C. 2004. An investigation into excellent tertiary teaching: emphasising reflective practice. //Higher Education//, 47: 283-310.

Kreber, C. (2004) An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational development, //International Journal for Academic Development//, 9:1, 29-49, DOI: 10.1080/1360144042000296044

Young, S.F. (2008). Theoretical frameworks and models of learning: tools for developing conceptions of teaching and learning, //International Journal for Academic Development//, 13:1, 41-49, DOI: 10.1080/13601440701860243

__For teaching portfolios__

Hagström, E. & Lindberg, O. (2013). Three theses on teaching and learning in higher education, //Teaching in Higher Education//, 18:2, 119-128

Lupton, M. (2013). Reclaiming the art of teaching, //Teaching in Higher Education//, 18:2, 156-166.

McWilliam, E. (2009). Teaching for creativity: from sage to guide to meddler, //Asia Pacific Journal of Education//, 29:3, 281-293.

Schönwetter, D.J., Sokal, L., Friesen, M. & Taylor, K.L. (2002). Teaching philosophies reconsidered: a conceptual model for the development and evaluation of teaching philosophy statements, //International Journal for Academic Development//, 7:1, 83-97.

__For conference and journal papers__

Interview with Professor Sue Clegg and Professor Stephen Rowland []

Kandlbinder, P. (2013). Signature concepts of key researchers in higher education teaching and learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 18: 1, 1-12.

Peseta, T. (2011). Exploring an identity as an academic writer (Chapter 7) in Kandlbinder, P., & Peseta, T. (Eds.) Higher Education Research and Development Anthology. Milperra, NSW: HERDSA.

Thesen, L. (2013). Risk in Postgraduate Writing: Voice, Discourse and Edgework. //Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning//, 1: 1 http://cristal.epubs.ac.za/index.php/

TALHE: Assignment 3

Assignment 3: Conference panel presentations For this assignment, each group will put together a panel presentation of an hour which you will present to the TALHE group and facilitators on 5 August 2014 (the last contact session for the TALHE module). Each group, in collaboration with their facilitator, should select and focus their presentation on an important issue in teaching and learning. Examples of such issues are: > > > > > Your presentation would need to demonstrate 1) engagement with relevant theory, 2) reflection on the topic in respect of your teaching practice, 3) a few of your own thoughts on the topic, and 4) coherence of the panel. (The facilitators will help you to find appropriate readings for your topic, although we encourage you to use the higher education journal data-bases to do it yourselves!) You will be assessed on the preparation and presentation as a group and as individual members of the group. You will also be asked to assess yourselves. The assignment will count for 30% of the total mark of the TALHE module. You will need to provide each other with online feedback – in your Google Drive folder – as your individual work on the presentation progresses. Your facilitators will comment as well. In preparation for the panel presentation, each group will arrange a Skype or phone conference with their facilitator between 6 and 10 June 2014. In order to support your work on Assignment 3, we suggest the following agenda for the Skype/phone conference: __Draft agenda__ > > > > > > The draft presentations are due 7 July 2014 for feedback. Please upload your presentation onto your Google Drive folder by this date if you wish to receive formative feedback. (You will notice that the submission of your draft has been included in the assessment criteria.) Assessment criteria: Assignment 3
 * Getting students to accept responsibility for their own learning
 * Student engagement in large classes
 * Maximising learning in tutorials
 * Using technology in teaching
 * Building reflection into teaching and learning
 * Finalise the topic(s)
 * Outline the content and structure of the presentation
 * Assign roles and responsibilities (for example, panel chair, combined PowerPoint), bearing the coherence of the panel in mind
 * Using Google Drive for collaborative work on the presentation, feedback, communication with facilitator, etc.
 * Resources and support
 * Deadlines ( including feedback from panel members)

> (50-60%) || Good (61-69%) || Very good (70-74%) || Excellent (75%+) || Mark weighting || conclusion, timekeeping, coherence of panel roles || 15 ||
 * 1)  Preparation and presentation: group
 * || ITEM || Okay
 * 1. || Preparation ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * 1.1 || Coherence of group || Roles defined, but generally fulfilled only when prompted, reminders needed to show sensitivity in communication || Roles defined, but fulfilled with occasional prompting, sensitivity shown in communication || Clear and fulfilled roles, generally open and constructive communication || Clear and balanced role definition, roles willingly fulfilled, consistently open and constructive communication || 10 ||
 * 1.2 || Skype/phone conference || Little evidence of planning, little engagement on appropriate level || Some evidence of planning, some engagement on appropriate level || Clear planning, engagement on appropriate level || Clear and effective planning, engagement on appropriate level || 5 ||
 * 1.3 || Draft submitted || Emerging structure for presentation || Structure for presentation || Clear structure for presentation || Clear and logical structure for presentation || 5 ||
 * 2. || Presentation ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * 2.1 || Organisation || Message mostly clear, some coherence in approach, introduction/ body/conclusion, some timekeeping, some coherence of panel roles || Message mostly clear, approach mostly coherent, introduction/ body/conclusion, some timekeeping, some coherence of panel roles || Clear message, coherent approach, introduction/ body/conclusion, fair timekeeping, panel roles mostly coherent || Clear message, coherent approach, introduction/ body/
 * 2.2 || Theoretical framework || Little evidence of theoretical framework, few references || Some evidence of theoretical framework, some relevant references || Appropriate evidence of theoretical framework, relevant references || Extensive evidence of theoretical framework, range of appropriate references || 15 ||
 * 2.3 || Reflection on practice || Little evidence of reflection || Some evidence of reflection || Sufficient evidence of reflection || Extensive evidence of reflection || 15 ||
 * 2.4 || Insight || Emerging insight into topic of presentation || Insight into topic of presentation || Detailed insight into topic of presentation || Detailed and advanced insight into topic of presentation || 15 ||
 * 2.5 || Communication skills: articulation, volume, rate, posture and gestures, eye contact, confidence, enthusiasm || Limited communication skills || Some communication skills || Appropriate communication skills || Advanced communication skills || 10 ||
 * 2.6 || Resources (PowerPoint, handouts, flip chart, white board, other) || Little or ineffective use of resources || Some resources used, with limited effectiveness || Appropriate resources, used effectively || Appropriate resources, used effectively and creatively || 10 ||
 * || TOTAL ||  ||   ||   ||   || 100 ||

> (50-60%) || Good (61-69%) || Very good (70-74%) || Excellent (75%+) || Mark weighting || Adapted from [|__http://www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/score/actbank/collaborub.html__] > (50-60%) || Good (61-69%) || Very good (70-74%) || Excellent (75%+) || Mark weighting || Adapted from [|__http://www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/score/actbank/collaborub.html__] > >> >> >> Total: 100
 * 1)  Preparation and presentation: individuals
 * || ITEM || Okay
 * 1. || Group goals || Worked towards group goals only when prompted || Worked towards group goals with occasional prompting || Worked towards group goals without prompting || Consistently and actively worked towards group goals || 20 ||
 * 2. || Communication || Needed occasional reminders to be sensitive to the feelings of others || Showed some sensitivity to the feelings of others || Showed sensitivity to the feelings of others || Sensitive to the feelings and learning needs of all group members || 20 ||
 * 3. || Role || Accepted and fulfilled individual role in group only when prompted and encouraged || Accepted and fulfilled individual role in group with some prompting || Accepted and fulfilled individual role in group || Willingly accepted and fulfilled individual role in group || 20 ||
 * 4. || Contribution (for example online feedback) || Contributed to the group only when prompted || Contributed to the group with occasional prompting || Contributed knowledge, opinions and skills without prompting || Consistently and actively contributed knowledge, opinions and skills || 20 ||
 * 5. || Change || Participated in needed changes when prompted || Participated in needed changes, with occasional prompting || Willingly participated in needed changes || Helped group identify necessary changes and encouraged group action for change || 20 ||
 * || TOTAL ||  ||   ||   ||   || 100 ||
 * 1)  Self-assessment: How do you rate yourself as part of your team?
 * || ITEM || Okay
 * 1. || Group goals || Worked towards group goals only when prompted || Worked towards group goals with occasional prompting || Worked towards group goals without prompting || Consistently and actively worked towards group goals || 20 ||
 * 2. || Communication || Needed occasional reminders to be sensitive to the feelings of others || Showed some sensitivity to the feelings of others || Showed sensitivity to the feelings of others || Sensitive to the feelings and learning needs of all group members || 20 ||
 * 3. || Role || Accepted and fulfilled individual role in group only when prompted and encouraged || Accepted and fulfilled individual role in group with some prompting || Accepted and fulfilled individual role in group || Willingly accepted and fulfilled individual role in group || 20 ||
 * 4. || Contribution (for example online feedback) || Contributed to the group only when prompted || Contributed to the group with occasional prompting || Contributed knowledge, opinions and skills without prompting || Consistently and actively contributed knowledge, opinions and skills || 20 ||
 * 5. || Change || Participated in needed changes when prompted || Participated in needed changes, with occasional prompting || Willingly participated in needed changes || Helped group identify necessary changes and encouraged group action for change || 20 ||
 * || TOTAL ||  ||   ||   ||   || 100 ||
 * 1)  Weighting of the three evaluations
 * 1)  Preparation and presentation: group :50
 * 1)  Preparation and presentation: individuals : 40
 * 1)  Self-assessment :10