Summative Assessment Grading Scale: Language Devices Activity

Justification & Critique

ACELA1553: Understand that authors innovate with text structures and language for

Developed tailored to the Year 9 content descriptor Understand that authors innovate
with text structures and language for specific purposes and effects (ACELA1553)

specific purposes and effects

Level 4: Extended Abstract

(ACARA, 2010) the assessment strategy of the literary devices activity focuses

Student is able to identify literacy devices and can effectively explain

heavily on the language component of ACELA1553 in assessing students depth of

how the device is used as a tool by the author to create context, express

understanding. The above summative grading scale reflects the activities opportunity

meaning and persuade the audience. Student can effectively and

for students to extend their knowledge and display a higher level of understanding

correctly use literary devices in their own work to influence the

through the completion of the activity. The summative assessment A-E grading scale

audience. Student can correctly and clearly communicate how literacy

works to assess based on the clear and distinct levels of understanding as detailed by
Biggs SOLO Taxonomy, including Pre-structural, Uni-structural, Multi-structural,

devices are used in their own work and the effect on the audience.
Level 3: Relational

Relational and Extended Abstract. The 5 stages correlate to A-E grading ensuring

Student is able to identify literacy devices and can effectively explain

accurate translation of assessment data into appropriate reporting formats (Kennedy

how the device is used as a tool by the author to create context, express

& Brady, 2012, p. 100). As noted in the activity features, the task grading scale allows

meaning and persuade the audience. Student is able to display

students, throughout the task, the opportunity to exhibit each level of understanding

knowledge of how literacy devices are used in their own work. Student

progressively. Students are able to display an Extended Abstract level of

cannot effectively and clearly explain the implementation of literary

understanding by lastly applying their knowledge to a new situation, assessing the

devices in their own work.

success of creating linkages between the assessment task and the focus content

Level 2: Multi-structural

descriptor. Employing SOLO taxonomy as the primary theoretical assessment

Student is able to identify literacy devices and can effectively explain

framework, as opposed to Webbs Depth of Knowledge and Blooms Taxonomy,

how the device is used as a tool by the author to create context, express

provides a systematic way of describing how a learners performance grows in

meaning and persuade the audience. Student is not able to display

complexity when mastering many tasks (The University of Queensland, 2013, p. 2)

knowledge of how literacy devices are used in their own work.

easily measureable and transferable to A-E grading. The generalised and systematic

Level 1: Uni-structural

nature of the SOLO taxonomy lends to its ability to be adapted for assessment of

Student is able to identify literacy devices but cannot effectively explain

specific outcomes (The University of Queensland, 2013, p. 2). The five levels of the

how the device is used as a tool by the author to create context, express

taxonomy may be used as either measuring developmental benchmarks in formative

meaning and persuade the audience. Student is not able to display

assessment or as a tool to assess depth of understanding in a summative assessment.

The grading scale specifically seeks a quantitative assessment of students

knowledge of how literacy devices are used in their own work.

Level 0: Pre-structural

knowledge of literary devices assessable in the accuracy and amount of detail they

Student is unable to correctly identify literary devices, describe how

provide. Although a minor aspect, the effectively communicate aspect of the grading

they are used by the author or demonstrate and explain understanding

schema is concerned with qualitative knowledge in the higher levels of understanding

within their own work.

as assessment at this level becomes qualitative (Biggs, 1995, p. 7). Although

assessment at this level (lower levels) is primarily quantitative (Biggs, 1995, p. 7),
reserving the grading of qualitative assessment of student work until the higher levels

of the grading schema provides a limitation of failing to acknowledge the value of a

sophisticatedly presented answer although the information may be incorrect. While
not reflected in the lover levels of the grading schema the qualitative value of an
answer may however be communicated through marking notes or student teacher
conversations.
As discussed in the activity features the above grading schema is designed
as a summative assessment to be conducted at the conclusion of a literary devices
unit. However the task and schema also lends to a diagnostic mode of assessment as it
reveals lack of understanding, gaps and misconceptions in students knowledge,
which, as essential components of prior knowledge, a re crucial to further English
studies. In this regard the information gained from the summative assessment task
maybe become a developmental assessment to predict performance (Biggs, 1995, p.
2) for future studies.
Although primarily based on Biggs SOLO taxonomy, the grading schema
stems from the fundamental concern of Blooms Taxonomy, as a starting point for
thinking about what we want students to learn (Killen, 2013, p. 98). Using Biggs'
Model of Constructive Alignment as the precursor to developing the activity ensures
coherence between assessment, teaching strategies and intended learning outcomes
in an educational programme (McMahon & Thakore, 2006). As a multilevel chart of
classifying levels of thinking, Blooms taxonomy, much like Webbs Depth of
Knowledge framework, influences the grading schema through the concepts it
endorses including selecting an activity focused on encouraging students to achieve
specific learning outcomes. Outcomes that are pre-established through the planning of
an aligned curriculum. The formation of the activity, designed to consider the type of
knowledge they are attempting to acquire and the cognitive processes that need to be
applied to that knowledge (Killen, 2013, p. 99) works through each level of Blooms
cognitive process as reflected and consolidated in Biggs SOLO taxonomy.
!

References
!
ACARA.!(2010).!Australian*Curriculum*.!Retrieved!from!Curriculum!browser:!
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Browse?a=E&a=M&a=S&a=H&a=G&a
=ENB&a=CNC&a=da&a=dr&a=ma&a=mu&a=va&a=DI&a=DE&a=HPE&y=9!
!

Biggs,!J.!(1995).!Assessment!for!Learning:!Some!Dimensions!Underlying!New!
Approaches!to!Educational!Assessment.!The*Alberta*Journal*of*Educational*
Research*,*XLI!(1),!1U17.!
!
Kennedy,!K.,!&!Brady,!L.!(2012).!Assessment*and*Reporting*Celebrating*Student*
Achievement*4th*Edition.!Australia:!Pearson.!
!
Killen,!R.!(2013).!Effective*Teaching*Strategies*Lessons*from*Research*and*Practice*
6th*Edition*.!Melbourne,!VIC,!Australia!:!Cengage!Learning!.!
!
McMahon,!T.,!&!Thakore,!H.!(2006).!Achieving!Constructive!Alignment:!Putting!
Outcomes!First!The!Quality!of!Higher!Education!3!.!
T!
he!University!of!Queensland.!(2013).!Biggs*structure*of*the*observed*learning*
outcome*(SOLO)*taxonomy.!Retrieved!from!Teaching!and!Education!Institute:!
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/downloads/Biggs_Solo.pdf!
!
!