| Activity name || 13. Synoptic Assessment
Dependent on Activity 7
| Participants || LeedsMet (Mentor)
Durham (Development Site)
| Aims Covered: 2
| Timescales || October 06 - July 07
| Background ||In Activity 7,
synoptic assessment was proposed within a level of a programme. This
activity investigates a wider application of the ideas to investigate
the use of products between levels of study.
| Activity ||
This activity seeks to extend the approach where assessment outcomes
are used in later years to satisfy the learning outcomes of later
modules. Typical examples where this may work within computing include:
- Carrying forward software developed in level 1 and making it available for use in the level 2 group-project.
- Carrying forward a group-project to form part of a maintenance exercise taught in a more advanced course.
| Evaluation ||
impressions - the activity will be the set 'discussion topic' of the
SSCC. Will students view their programme as a cohesive whole rather
than a collection of independent years and modules?
uptake - staff will review the approach during the Annual Review of
Teaching. Will it encourage all staff to focus on programme rather than
- Impact on assessment and learning -
we will seek opinions from our liaison committee as to how well this
increases the scale and use of real-world problems for assessments and
how it can be used to make a programme more cohesive.
| Expected outcomes ||
- Case studies offering students opportunities to engage in more significant learning exercises.
- A reflective account of the students' opportunities to assess their prior learning and engage in critical reflection.
paper reviewing whether students from this activity view their study as
a cohesive whole rather than a collection unrelated modularised units.
- Dissemination of a programme specification showing how to integrate modules and levels effectively.
| Risks ||
- Students are required to work on products they may not have completed in previous years. Mitigation: use only 'products' from modules that form pre-requisites.
of poor performance at a prior level - need to ensure that this does
not mean students must carry forward this poor performance. Mitigation:
allow students to share work-products or provide samples for the entire
cohort to use. The benefit of this approach is that it requires
students to utilise the critical skills of evaluation to assess which
product to use.