Could not agree more with your view on ‘splitting hairs’ between A and C grades. While I understand (and support) students trying to achieve to their very best, I’ve already found that the obsession over understanding and adhering to criteria can be stifling to students, and removes the emphasis away from ‘learning’ towards ‘correctly completing this assessment task’. In that way, I think your rationale for tier-based assessment is fantastic: it places the onus on students to own the learning, and removes that giant ‘assessment monster’ which can hang over student’s heads. And, as you say… multitasking and time management are critical skills to master!

1. In project-based learning, students are encouraged to take risks, to be creative and to ‘think outside the box’. But, if the project outcome or ‘product’ is going to be assessed really harshly, then creativity will be discouraged as students try to produce something that meets the teacher’s expectation.
2. In challenge-based learning, students should work as hard as they can to meet the challenge. With a clear focus on assessment of the final product, it’s hardly fair to expect students to also attend to the learning ‘process’ as well (unless it is somehow made part of the challenge).

You are right that both the learning process and product are important. However, while we can always assess both of these, we have to make choices about whether that assessment will be ‘low-stakes’ or ‘high-stakes’ i.e. How high a standard is supposed to be reached, and how important is it to reach that standard?

I suggest that in project-based learning, the most important thing is that everyone completes a project. Participation, collaboration and presentation are vital, so the assessment of ‘process’ might be high-stakes (e.g. contributes to semester grade?) but the assessment of the actual finished ‘product’ might be low-stakes (e.g. Projects not graded, but awards/prizes given for best projects).

On the other hand, in challenge-based learning, the most important thing is meeting the challenge. In terms of this, I like the way the Mythbusters do it – they test a myth to decide if it is ‘confirmed’, ‘busted’, or ‘plausible’. This is just my opinion, but I think providing less result options is the thing that helps students to engage with the challenge itself – otherwise, they spend their time splitting hairs over what an ‘A’ grade looks like compared to a ‘C’ grade. I hate that.

Does that make sense?

I hope it explains some things a bit more anyway!

As for your other question – is it intended that students in my assessment can do 8 awesome challenges and only get a Distinction, while another student can do 10 mediocre challenges and get a High Distinction…

Yes! It was absolutely intended. It’s really important to have a clear idea in your mind of what an assessment is trying to teach. I wanted to leave students with a firm understanding that their job as a teacher will involve getting lots of tasks done at once. Hence only wanting to reward students with HDs if they managed to do everything!
A valuable lesson, but too harsh? I hope not!

I found this to be a really fascinating entry. It’s great to get such an insight into the mechanisms of teaching, learning and assessment in higher education: as a recent graduate I have to say that I never felt I fully grasped or understood the system I was working through.

The distinction you’ve drawn between project-based learning and challenge-based learning is an interesting one for me. I agree with your thoughts, but would contend that the shift in terminology also represents a change in focus away from the ‘process’ of learning towards the actual ‘product/s’. Obviously the process is still critical, but I wonder what the implications are in terms of assessment.

In my own practice, I’ve been trying to implement more authentic tasks that incorporate the pedagogy of project-based learning through the creation of portfolio artefacts. For example, I’ve used a portfolio task as a formative assessment tool, where students are building their own field knowledge based on prior knowledge and research. However, I’ve found that students are somewhat hesitant to fully commit to the task if it won’t directly contribute to their summative grade. This has given me a lot to think about in relation to how summative assessment can draw on the principals of project-based and challenge-based learning, to make the process more meaningful for students.

I have to say, I love the peer-reflection component of this task. In addition to the benefits you already listed, I found that my pre-service teacher training gave me limited opportunities to engage with the process of evaluating work against given criteria, which of course is such a critical component to classroom teaching. I applaud this effort simply because it will allow students to work in that critical mode, but with the safety and support of a cleverly-constructed matrix that limits the opportunities for unfair or overly-critical judgments.

One question I do have: hypothetically, let’s say a student completes all 10 challenges. According to your matrix, that will give them an automatic High Distinction. Is there any room for judgment on quality? The way I’m interpreting this, students simply have to have the elements of each challenge’s criteria ‘evident’ in their work. Does this mean that somebody who completes 10 challenges to an acceptable standard will do better than somebody who completes 8 challenges to an exemplary standard? I’m not passing judgment, simply seeking clarification (and perhaps your thoughts/reasoning behind this choice).

I came across your blog after searching for other educational bloggers of a similar theme. My blog focuses more on the middle years and secondary education with a distinct twist towards English and ICT and I’m interested in exchanging links with your blog.

My blog is http://buildingthefuture.com.au – feel free to check it and and I hope you enjoy it.

Two of my most popular posts are about an article about an essay scaffold template I created (http://buildingthefuture.com.au/essay-scaffold-template) and the Oxford 307 word list (http://buildingthefuture.com.au/oxford-307-word-list).

If you’d like to exchange links, please email me back.

Thanks

Kevin.

This made for some interesting reading! Thank you for sharing. In my role alongside Luisa we are moving the school towards more authentic conceptual planning. It was amazingly timely that you made this post! Lots of food for thought here.

I am excited to have found your blog and look forward to reviewing it in more detail! I am an online adjunct for four universities and love finding new ways to reach my students through technology and digital narratives. I will be sure to follow you on Twitter as well. Just wanted to say “hi”.

Best ~ Zipora