 |
 |
Dear colleagues A meeting I attended today debated the pros and cons of requiring re-submitting students to either correct and re-submit the same piece of work or to complete an entirely new task still designed to evidence the same learning outcomes. Arguments for revising the same piece centred around assessment for learning, developmental approaches to learning etc. Counter to this, others worried that if feedback pinpoints what students need to do to pass and then they go away and do just that they are not proving they can meet the learning outcomes independently. Has anyone addressed this issue at their institution and/or encountered any literature on the topic? Thanks MARk Professor Mark Allinson (BA, MA, PhD, PFHEA) Head of Academic Practice Regent's University London Inner Circle, Regent's Park London NW1 4NS Tel. +44 (0) 20 7487 7865 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.regents.ac.uk/academic-practice<http://www.regents.ac.uk/academic-practice> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies, and with authority, states them to be the views of Regent's University London. Regent's University London A Company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales No: 1791760 Registered office: Inner Circle, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4NS Registered charity number: 291583