Project work is an attempt to introduce genuine problems into education. In it students have to use their initiative to identify problems they wish to solve or questions they wish to explore, decide on the information, materials, equipment which they need and how they can obtain them, use this information to plan the work, attempt to solve the problem or answer the question and present their results coherently. The way to assess project work is indicated by the above list of activities which constitute the work. Thus each of the following activities needs to be addressed separately: identification and formulation of the problem information and resources needed planning the work solving the problem or answering the question presentation, discussion and interpretation of the results critique of the work and recommendations for further work.

If only one assessment item (the project report or the project product) is used, it is important that students receive meaningful feedback during the progress of the project. Such feedback ought to assist the learning process and provide students with an approximate idea of their chances of passing the subject. If this is not done, students will concentrate their main efforts on the final product and not on the work preceding it. Most projects are assessed on more than the final report or product, by including forms such as oral examinations, observation, assessment of methodology, etc.

The great advantages of project work in higher education also create many problems. Projects provide a means through which a topic can be covered in depth (but the assessment becomes a time consuming and subjective task). The project requires students to undertake independent study and enquiry (but this creates differences in equality of tasks, and in the development common marking schemes). Projects encourage students to work together in groups (but student contributions are not always equivalent, and awarding grades is a problem). Some of these issues are addressed through the use of general assessment criteria. Examples are included at the end of this section. Group work is addressed below.

Group work in projects

A proportion of project work is conducted by students in groups. Some of the advantages of group work include the enhanced learning resulting from combining the knowledge and experiences of several students, the fact that this type of work is more closely allied to the type of work many students will experience in their careers, and that the quantity of marking can be reduced. One of the major disadvantages felt by many staff (and students) is the injustice of awarding one mark to a group in which the contributions from individual students have not been equivalent.

A submission from the School of Teacher Education suggested that in group projects or assignments that have an overall assessment weighting of over 20%, students should be given the option of an individual mark.

One way of achieving this is to award the group one mark, but allow them to decide how that mark should be distributed among them. For example, if a group containing five members achieves a project mark of 60%, the group will be given 300 marks (60 x 5) and asked to allocate a mark for each person where no one can be given less than zero or more than 100 and the total is 300. Students will have to agree on the criteria being used to make this decision, and may learn some negotiating skills in the process. They can be asked to prepare for this negotiation by keeping minutes of meeting, diaries of events, drafts of contributions, etc.

Source

Elton, L. (1987). Teaching in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, p 100.

 

Examples of project assessment

The first example is taken from the Department of Applied Physics Final Year Project. Before students undertake a project they are given an extensive document on various aspects of doing and writing up a project. The following extract is taken from this document and describes explicitly the way a major project is assessed.

The project and assessment

Students will be assessed on their experimental, theoretical and laboratory skills and how they go about their project. At the start of a project there is a lot to learn and many students take 2 or 3 weeks to build up the confidence necessary to operate a piece of equipment or use a set of equations. In most instances students will not be assessed during this stage of their project. This is the time for learning from others such as the laboratory technician or student supervisor.

Students should be aware that there comes a time when they need to demonstrate that they can work and think independently. Students will be assessed on two components: the manner in which they carry out their project (assessed primarily by the supervisor) and the project report. The report is assessed by the supervisor and at least one other member of staff. When there are serious discrepancies between the two results, other members are asked to grade the report.

All completed projects are presented at a Project Assessment Meeting attended by all academic staff of the Department. All the marks awarded are discussed at this meeting and a final mark assigned to the project. In determining a mark, considerable emphasis is also placed on the degree of difficulty of the tasks on which the student actually worked and the quality of an achievement.

Assessment criteria

(a) Assessing the way the project is conducted

A number of factors are considered when assessing how well a project is carried out. It is worth emphasising that the list of criteria given below is not meant to be exhaustive. All projects are unique and any particular project may possess features not included in the list below. Alternatively, some of the items listed may be irrelevant. The assessment criteria therefore, must be tailored to the project.

Criteria include:

  • Students' appreciation of the physics subject involved
  • Ability to work independently and adapt to changing circumstances
  • Ability to cope with, solve or avoid problems whichever is appropriate
  • Experimental skills: Apparatus design, effective use of equipment, technical skills Log book
  • Design and execution of investigations Initiative and originality of approach
  • Theoretical skills: Application of physical models, mathematical skills, computing skills
  • Setting objectives, organisation of time and meeting deadlines
  • Library skills and using literature effectively
  • Appreciation of the limitations of theory and experiment

(b) Assessing the written report

Much of the assessment guide presented below was drawn up by Prosser & Cunningham (1983) to improve project report assessment at Griffith University. These criteria were used to develop those used at UTS. It should again be emphasised that there is no universal set of assessment guidelines; these have to be tailored according to the type of project undertaken.

The report as a whole Criteria include:

  • Style Expression Logical development and structure of report
  • Difficulty of project
  • Continuity of chapters and sections
  • Quality of diagrams, tables etc.
  • Care and attention paid to general presentation, layout and spelling
  • Balance amongst chapters.
     

Introduction Criteria include:

  • Statement of problem
  • Clarity and accuracy of explanations
  • Justification of project
  • Awareness of reader's level of knowledge
  • Appropriate subject matter and references
  • Logical development and continuity of presentation of subject matter.
     

Method Criteria include:

  • Clarity and thoroughness of presenting experimental aspects of problem
  • Description and discussion of all relevant aspects of data collection
  • Critical appraisal of data analysis and reduction techniques
  • Logical approach to describing and discussing each aspect of the "method".
     

Results Criteria include:

  • Efficient and clear presentation
  • Validation of results
  • Analysis and use of appropriate techniques
  • Critical interpretation of results
  • Justifying conclusions.
     

Conclusion Criteria include:

  • Goals achieved
  • Realistic evaluation of future developments.

References

Prosser, M.T. & Cunningham, D. (1983). Making the Process and Criteria of Tertiary Science Projects More Explicit, Assessments and Evaluation in Higher Education, 8, 29-41).

 

(Originally published in Trigwell, K. (1992). Information for UTS staff on Assessment. Sydney: UTS Working Party on Assessment).