Questions at the end of meeting 1
Here are the questions posed in the mini survey at the end of meeting 1 and Viggo's answers to them.
- Why are there rules regarding when OK to use pass/fail vs. A-F?
KTH has taken the position that first and second cycle should normally use a graded scale from A to F. The reasons for this are that higher grades can motivate students to acquire deeper knowledge than what is required for a passing grade, and that grades can serve as qualifications and selection criteria (for exchange studies, employment, etc.). At the same time, it is widely acknowledged that assigning fair and accurate graded marks is challenging for courses involving individualized projects (such as degree projects) and group projects. Therefore, exceptions are allowed for these types of courses. - Assessment connected to ILOs – Do you want to have 1 assessment P/F and then elaborate more in oral or written exam or reflection exercise?
There are various reasons why an assignment might be assessed on a pass/fail scale. For some forms of examination, it is difficult to apply a graded assessment, and in all forms, ungraded assessment is simpler than graded. It may also be the case that the ILO being assessed in the assignment is only intended to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. In the ADK course, students complete optional theory assignments that are submitted and peer-reviewed during exercise sessions. These assignments are assessed on a pass/fail basis, but each contributes to the final theory exam. In continuous examination, it is important to minimize the grading workload for each sub-assessment, and in such cases, ungraded assessment can be very useful. - Have you observed motivation loss, based on the course grading system?
This will be discussed at the second meeting when we talk about methods for combinations of grades. - What are good alternatives to the home-written essays to ensure student’s deeper learning?
This depends on the ILOs that should be assessed. For example, group projects, oral presentations, poster presentations, design projects, mastery tests with both written and oral assessment could be used. - Should the questions be dynamic or deterministic for the students?
Dynamic (randomized) questions are acceptable if the examiner is convinced that they assess the ILOs well. Different students should get questions that are equivalent. After the exam, for legal certainty, it must be possible to see which questions each student received.
- I got many complaints from the students who are/were not happy about group assignment (due to bad group dynamics). How can we avoid this in terms of grading criteria perspective?
The easiest way is to make the group project pass/fail and explain to the students at the beginning of the course/project that it is important to learn teamworking, also with people that you do not know. You should also provide a way for students who feel that their group members are not contributing to the project to communicate this to the teacher, so that the teacher can address the issue—for example, by adjusting the group composition. - To be gifted (särbegåvad) is not a medical diagnosis. Anyhow, it is a group of people we should consider. About a third of them has problems with under stimulation. How to take this correctly into consideration?
Clear criteria for higher grades could be a way to show how gifted students can make an extra effort and receive recognition for it through a higher grade. Another way is to organize “plus groups” where students who have better prerequisites or higher ambitions can get stimulation also in the teaching activities. - How many ILOs can be assessed simultaneously with any degree of reliability (within the same assignment, using the same data)?
This depends on the ILOs and the form of assessment. Using a single question which is multiple-choice or only requires a short answer, it is usually only possible to assess one ILO. But using projects, essays or oral presentations it is often easy to assess several ILOs at the same time.
Questions to be answered by Camilla at meeting 3 or 4:
- I wonder how the grading criteria are affecting the engagement and motivation of students. How to balance between grading students and motivating them to achieve deep learning?
- Are there any specific words or concepts in the learning objectives/criteria that are difficult to understand from a student perspective?
- How to motivate students for engagement in peer feedback?
- Do students actually read the ILOs? Will it be helpful for the ILOs and their connection to the grading criteria to be explained to the students by the teacher, during the course? (on top of making them public)
Other comments on the course
I would like to get feedback to the current grading criteria and assessment of my course that has been running 4 years no problem. I do not want to break something going well.
You can give yourself feedback by analysing the criteria and assessment using what you learn in LH216V. You will be able to get feedback from peers in assignment 1 and 2, and from teachers of the course at meeting 3 and in the final submission of assignment 2.
Would be interesting to see examples for assessing creativity, reflection & critical thinking.
For examples from KTH, look in the list of examples on the web page https://intra.kth.se/en/utbildning/utveckling-och-hogskolepedagogik/stodmaterial/malrelaterade-betygskriterier-1.370030
For general ideas you can ask a generative AI. Here is what I got when I asked ChatGPT:
🔍 Critical Thinking
Goal: Evaluate arguments, identify biases, make reasoned judgments.
Assessment Examples:
- Case analysis:
Students analyze a real-world case, identify assumptions, evaluate evidence, and propose justified conclusions.
Example: In an ethics course, students critique a business decision using a specific ethical framework. - Structured debate:
Students are assigned positions (perhaps not their own), must research and defend them, and then write a reflection afterward on what they learned and whether their view changed. - Compare-and-contrast essays:
Students analyze two competing theories or models and discuss strengths, weaknesses, and applicability. - Critical review of literature or a published paper:
Students assess the validity of arguments, the robustness of data, and the conclusions drawn.
🎨 Creativity
Goal: Develop original ideas, solutions, or perspectives.
Assessment Examples:
- Design projects or prototypes:
In engineering, design a novel solution to a real-world problem and justify design choices. - Open-ended assignments:
Let students choose their topic or format (e.g., infographic, video, mock TED Talk) to demonstrate understanding in a novel way. - Creative constraints tasks:
Give students strict limitations (e.g., budget, tools, materials) and ask them to devise innovative solutions. - "What if" scenario building:
Students creatively extrapolate alternative outcomes from historical or scientific events and explain their reasoning.
🤔 Reflection
Goal: Foster self-awareness, learning from experience, and personal growth.
Assessment Examples:
- Reflection journals/blogs:
Ongoing reflections tied to course activities, where students track their learning journey, challenges, and growth. - Post-project reflective essays:
After completing a group project, students reflect on their role, the group dynamics, what went well, and what could improve. - Learning portfolios:
Students collect and curate their work over time, with reflective commentary on how each piece represents their development. - Double-loop reflection prompts:
Push beyond "what happened" to "why it happened" and "how it changes my future approach."
✏️ Rubrics & Assessment Tips:
- Use analytic rubrics with dimensions for originality, depth of insight, clarity of reasoning, and connection to theory.
- Give students examples of high-quality work to calibrate expectations.
- For group projects, include peer assessment and individual reflection to ensure fair evaluation.
- When assessing reflection or creativity, focus on process as much as product.