One of the complaints I hear so much from students, who use myuniskills services, about assessment instructions is that "I've followed the instructions in my assignment, written to the word count, and then the marker indicates in the feedback that they want more depth. How do I get more depth without going over the word count?" As a result, this aspect is very confusing for students because they know they have to write to the instructions, they do so and then get penalised for not going deeper.
One of the contributing factors is that we seem to think more about the design in instructional design and not the "instruction". Another contributing factor is that students' notion of deeper analysis, means more words; to them it doesn't mean more analysis. Certainly, the solution for the instructor is not expanding the word count to accommodate the students' misconception of the meaning. Part of the solution though is to make sure the student understands exactly what we want from them (conveying our expectations). We want students to be able to write concisely and to the topic. But we also have to be realistic about what a student can produce given the instructions we have provided. They cannot read the instructor's mind in relation to meeting the expectations of the assessment or course unless the instructions are written in a detailed, clear way that achieves specific learning objectives and goals. Time after time I see marking rubrics that are either too detailed (students become overwhelmed) or so lacking in detail the student stands no chance of providing what the lecturer wants.
When designing a course, much thought needs to be put into how your instructions relate to the learning objectives or outcomes. Not everything needs to be assessed. Further to this, when assessing a topic, what specific elements of that are you assessing, how and more importantly why? When this design is extended to the phase of providing the instruction that indicates to the student the skills and knowledge they need to demonstrate - synthesis, research, analysis, argumentation etc - the what, why and how seems to be obfuscated by the who (the instructor). We need to always keep in mind that the essence of learning is found within the student and we have a responsibility or duty of care to convey instructions in a way that is clear, comprehensive and compatible with learning outcomes.
One of the contributing factors is that we seem to think more about the design in instructional design and not the "instruction". Another contributing factor is that students' notion of deeper analysis, means more words; to them it doesn't mean more analysis. Certainly, the solution for the instructor is not expanding the word count to accommodate the students' misconception of the meaning. Part of the solution though is to make sure the student understands exactly what we want from them (conveying our expectations). We want students to be able to write concisely and to the topic. But we also have to be realistic about what a student can produce given the instructions we have provided. They cannot read the instructor's mind in relation to meeting the expectations of the assessment or course unless the instructions are written in a detailed, clear way that achieves specific learning objectives and goals. Time after time I see marking rubrics that are either too detailed (students become overwhelmed) or so lacking in detail the student stands no chance of providing what the lecturer wants.
When designing a course, much thought needs to be put into how your instructions relate to the learning objectives or outcomes. Not everything needs to be assessed. Further to this, when assessing a topic, what specific elements of that are you assessing, how and more importantly why? When this design is extended to the phase of providing the instruction that indicates to the student the skills and knowledge they need to demonstrate - synthesis, research, analysis, argumentation etc - the what, why and how seems to be obfuscated by the who (the instructor). We need to always keep in mind that the essence of learning is found within the student and we have a responsibility or duty of care to convey instructions in a way that is clear, comprehensive and compatible with learning outcomes.
