The Science Foundation Programme (SFP) at the University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg attempts to address past educational inequalities by providing disadvantaged matriculants with the skills, resources and self-confidence needed to embark on their tertiary studies. Students entering the Programme typically adopt a surface approach to learning with emphasis being placed on high score achievement which results in a mark-driven attitude towards assessment. Students also lack the metacognitive skills associated with a deep approach to learning. Within this mark-driven culture, it is important to attempt to move students away from such a superficial approach to learning and assessment. Worldwide, self-assessment practice has been gaining recognition, and it has been linked to the adoption of a deep approach to learning; self-regulated learning and the development of metacognitive skills. In the biology module of the Programme, students are given two essay assignments, tasks that are routinely performed very poorly. In attempt to improve SFP students' essay writing abilities, a self-assessment scheme to accompany the essay tasks was instituted, hoping that this would get the students to engage with the assessment criteria. It was intended that students would not only fulfil the requirements of the task better, but also achieve the valuable skill of selfassessment. The results provide overwhelming evidence that SFP students cannot accurately selfassess. Their naivety and inexperience in fulfilling assessment criteria was also revealed. Overall, marks awarded by staff were significantly lower than those awarded by students, and there was no evidence to suggest that any one category of students based on academic ability were better able to self-assess than another. Marker inconsistencies were revealed, but this was shown to have no effect on findings. In spite of these results, a case for pursuing self-assessment is made and proposals for improving student self-assessment practice in the SFP are suggested.

No abstract

No abstract

Taxonomies of cognitive demand are frequently used to ensure that assessment tasks include questions ranging from low to high cognitive demand. This paper investigates inter-rater agreement among four evaluators on the cognitive demand of the South African National Senior Certificate Life Sciences examinations after training, practice and revision. The taxonomy used was based on the cognitive dimension of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, with analysis, evaluation and synthesis combined into one category. Descriptors from the Revised Bloom's taxonomy were slightly modified to suit Life Sciences. Inter-rater agreement was poor to fair, but pairwise percent agreement did not reach acceptable levels. Evaluators found it difficult to assign cognitive demand to examination items, and constantly referred to the descriptors. We question the usefulness of a taxonomy of cognitive demand when individuals differ in their interpretations of the levels of cognitive demand. The results indicate that standards of Life Sciences examination papers cannot reliably be assessed by evaluating cognitive demand using Bloom's Taxonomy.

No abstract