Sentence starters
*NB: you need to be logged in to ACS to access the comment bank above
Sentence Starters
These are sentence starters or ideas -- please edit them if you copy them directly. Please offer several sentences for each box on the PRP so that the teacher receiving the feedback has a clear sense of where they did well, and what they could act on to improve their work.
Feedback to students
Feedback to students focuses on [x], allowing the student to [refine style/pursue key concepts/explore higher order thinking/etc].
Feedback to students was minimal. Reviewers suggest [annotation of documents/a personalised quote/focusing on the content of responses/etc].
Feedback was helpful; moderators were particularly impressed by [what?]
Feedback to students was generic; moderators suggest a personalised comment will enable students to pinpoint specific errors in their work.
Feedback provides scope for reflection and improvement.
Feedback is outstanding. Clear and detailed annotations throughout student work, within descriptors on rubrics, and in final overall comment. Students are provided with clear, specific and accessible feedback with no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.
Levels of Thinking
The assessments were well-scaffolded to support students' thinking; for example, AI#1 made use of [name the scaffolding technique] which allowed students to [what it let them do].
In the [exam], moderators recommend more higher order thinking questions. The majority of the exam marks (30/40) were reliant on recall of facts, and the [course] requires more analysis and evaluation in the achievement standards.
Students were given a choice of text types, which allowed for accessibility and differentiation; for example...
Assessment Instrument 1, although providing entry level understanding for weaker students, did not reflect the rigor expected in a Year 12 program and may not have allowed stronger students to demonstrate their learning.
Consider encouraging students to show more working out to accompany their answers; this will allow a more comprehensive survey of students' levels of thinking and the processes undertaken to derive them.
The tasks appear to be all tests. The investigation appears to be test like in nature. Reviewers suggest broadening the scope of the assessment instruments in order to provide the students with opportunities for analysis and evaluation of data outside the classroom.
Tasks generally provided opportunity for students to show procedural competence as well as higher order thinking. Task 2 in particular provides opportunity for engagement within progressively higher cognitive demands, and allows students to demonstrate their ability to apply understanding in different and interesting contexts.
Assessment instruments allow for increasing levels of critical thinking with strong supports but no 'ceiling' in open-ended design tasks.
Assessment Instrument Reliability
Assessment [allows/does not allow] for differentiation between students through [clarity of rubric design/increasing challenge/multiple relevant modes].
The assessment conditions for the [take home test] were unclear, and may have introduced issues of reliability through potential student access to the internet or messaging software. The moderators suggest that the task be revised to [remove recall questions and focus on the manipulation of data].
The application of the rubrics to student work was inconsistent; for example, portfolio 1 seemed to 'describe' rather than 'explain' in AI 1, therefore should have been graded at a C instead of a B.
Rubric for AI #2 does not use the language of the achievement standards; this appears to be a rubric from the old course. Reviewers suggest further development of rubrics to link more closely to the current achievement standards.
Assessment tasks have clearly indicated mark allocations. The rubric for the assignment clearly indicates what the students need to achieve the outcomes.
Tests contain little scope for extension of high end students. All questions are pitched to an "at standard" level. Tests would benefit from including some questions that are less scaffolded and are pitched at an "above standard" level, requiring students to link concepts together rather than assessing each one in isolation.
All four assessment items are well-aligned with the required course content and provide the opportunity to assess students at all levels of the achievement standards. The rubrics for AI1 and AI3 clearly detail what students are required to do to demonstrate each level of competence.
The reviewers question the criteria for an 'E' grade on AI1 and AI3 as there is a discrepancy between the statement of "No evidence" compared with the wording in the Achievement Standards.
Assessment tasks and conditions do not necessarily meet satisfactory standards for reliability, with minimal reference to language of the achievement standards or content descriptors of unit.
We had a conversation about the practical task being marked so high when compared with the theory work. We would have liked to have seen a marking scheme that better explained why the practical was so strongly.
Curriculum Coverage
This task covers a wide range of topics and concepts in the curriculum, such as:
The assessments also build on each other, especially [assessments 1 and 2] where the whole idea of [a literature review precedes an investigation].
The tasks in this unit appeared to be written for the older course; they will need to be updated for the new course, particularly the areas of [name the areas].
The direct correlation between the unit goals and assessment tasks is not explicitly drawn, particularly the first two unit goals regarding [name them].
The suite of assessment tasks appear to be thoughtfully planned taking into consideration the achievement standards and general capabilities, whilst the content aligns with that from Unit 1 (as identified).
Assessment tasks demonstrate a requirement for strong academic skills in the chosen content areas of [name]. Tasks cover a range of aspects of the course primarily in the content understanding to a deep level of understanding. Tasks could also have sought to address at least some of the [identify specifics] requirements of the course as these aspects are not visible.