Assessment analysis in portfolios

Summary
Procedure for the assessment analysis of student‑centred evaluation based on a portfolio assessment/

As part of our commitment to high-quality education, various educational evaluations are carried out within Fontys ICT. This means that, for each unit of learning outcomes (EvL), lecturers must, amongst other things, carry out an assessment analysis. This takes place alongside peer review and calibration sessions conducted by the entire team throughout the EvL. The assessment analysis and the associated reporting are recorded in ContentManager, for which the Topic Owner (TO) is responsible.

The purpose of the analysis is to:

• Determine whether the assessment has been valid, reliable and transparent, and to identify possible improvement points for a subsequent run. The session does not lead to a revision of the previously recorded assessment results.

Owner & stakeholders:

• Topic Owner (TO) – responsible
• Minimum of three assessors, a minute‑taker and a chairperson. The team jointly decides who fills these roles.

1. The assessment analysis is carried out shortly after the summative assessment.
2. The assessment analysis takes place for each unit of learning outcomes (LO) of the study programmes (AD, Bachelor’s, Master’s) with a selection of the assessors involved.
3. During the analysis at least one portfolio close to the pass/fail threshold is re‑evaluated by the participants. This is either a portfolio graded Satisfactory (S) or a portfolio initially proposed as Unsatisfactory (U) but finally awarded an S.
4. The team must comprise at least three assessors, a minute‑taker and a chairperson. If an EvL is delivered at multiple locations, the session is held across locations.
5. Prior to the session the chairperson distributes the portfolio together with the pre‑assessment‑analysis form (pre‑assessment‑analysis form). Participants complete this form individually before the meeting.

1. The following form is used during the analysis: Assessment‑analysis reporting form and must be completed.
2. At the start of the session the chairperson asks each participant for the judgement they have given. This provides an impression of inter‑rater agreement on the final grade, showing the extent to which different assessors evaluate the same work in the same way.
3. The chairperson then requests a brief justification for the given judgement, following the structure of the reporting form. The chairperson summarises the input, and the minute‑taker records it in the assessment‑analysis reporting form.
4. The minutes are uploaded to Content Manager; the TO assumes responsibility for this action.
5. Actions identified in the assessment‑analysis form are incorporated by the TO into the quality‑cycle of the EvL. The chairperson of the analysis session is responsible for handing over these actions to the TO.
6. The CE and CM have access to the results in Content Manager.