Developing an Evaluation Plan When developing an evaluation plan, it is essential to begin with the end goal of the course in mind. What must students know or be able to do by the end of the course? This approach is called Backward Design, and it ensures that assessments align with intended learning outcomes. This means using the CLOs to identify the knowledge and skills students will demonstrate by the conclusion of the course. In This Section Backwards Design Framework Backwards Design for Evaluations Evaluation Plan Backwards Design Framework Backward Design helps to ensure that learning activities and content are purposefully selected to support and prepare students for assessment. This approach sets students up for success and mitigates concerns about “busy work” or unclear connections between assessments and course content. The following video [2:33] provides a brief introduction to Backwards Design. We can think of the flow of our course design as follows Process of Backwards design. Start with the learning outcomes, then design assessments. Following this, create learning activities, and end with the content creation. Begin course design with the end in mind: first, review the CLOs and determine the assessments that appropriately measure each learning outcomes. Next, build learning activities that prepare students for those assessments. Finally, identify and develop the content which will support those learning activities. Tip Generative AI can also be a useful tool in course development, whether you are designing your course content or creating assessments. It can also be integrated into assessments themselves. To learn more about GenAI and explore some examples of its use in assessments, visit the GenAI page of the CTL website. Backwards Design for Evaluations To develop a backward design evaluation plan, ask the following questions: Key Questions What must students be able to demonstrate by the end of the course? How can the CLOs be demonstrated and assessed in an authentic, relevant, and meaningful way? What formative assessments and activities can be planned to build to the summative assessments? What needs to be taught and explored to get there? What educational technology (EdTech) tools can be used to effectively support meaningful learning? How can UDL principles be incorporated into assessment design? Tip Ensure assessments are authentic and aligned with the course and program objectives. Authentic assessments: Mirror realistic tasks and reflect real-world relevance or expectations, Present cognitive challenges that expand cognitive function, critical thinking, and broaden perspectives, Connect students to material in a meaningful and novel way, and Support long-term retention of essential knowledge and skills. Degree vs Non-Degree Level Assessment Wise Practices If teaching in a degree program, there are a few additional considerations when developing assessments. Since degree-level CLOs generally align with higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, the assessment strategy, questions, and tasks should reflect the complexity of the CLOs and cognitive level being assessed. Visit this website for sample assessment questions and practice activities aligned with each level of Bloom’s taxonomy. Additionally, assessments must also align with the Degree Level Standards outlined in the OQF that are aligned with the CLO. Generally, degree-level assessments evaluate a deeper level of knowledge and may require demonstration of learning across different contexts. In practice, higher-level assessments not only evaluate knowledge of content in terms of breadth, depth, and complexity, but also assess how effectively students synthesize, integrate, and communicate that knowledge. This is often reflected in higher expectations for written and oral communication, referencing sources properly, and the level of detail and design in reports. Important Smaller assessments, such as quizzes and in-process marks, have a limited and specific role in degree-level learning. They should primarily be used to check for understanding rather than as formal assessment structures. Authentic Assessments will naturally help align your assessment to the CLOs and OQF. Evaluation Plan Once the appropriate assessments for the course are determined, the evaluation plan can be developed or updated in your course outline. Considerations (ACAD-135 Policy) No single assessment can be worth more than 30% without the prior authorization of the Associate or Executive Dean or as dictated by accreditation or licensing requirements. If it is a scaffolded assignment worth over 30% total, enter the pieces as unique assessments. Every CLO must be assessed and evaluated twice, ideally through different types of assessment. Authentic assessments should be used wherever possible to encourage impactful and durable learning. Process for Updating Evaluation Plan in Coursedog 1 Choose the appropriate evaluation type based on the Coursedog Evaluation Categories (see below for assessment descriptions). 2 Include the assessment weight (%) as a whole number. Note: there should not be decimal places in the evaluation plan. 3 Indicate which week(s) the assessment is due. 4 Provide a brief description of the assessment. 5 For each assessment, add aligned CLOs and EESs. 6 If you have a scaffolded assignment, indicate the due dates for each component, assign separate weightings, and label each part clearly in the title (e.g., Case Study Analysis – Part 1: Literature review – 10%; Case Study Analysis – Part 2: Framework – 5%; Case Study Analysis – Part 3: Final report – 15%). 1. Choose the appropriate evaluation type based on the Coursedog Evaluation Categories (see below for assessment descriptions). 2. Include the assessment weight (%) as a whole number. Note: there should not be decimal places in the evaluation plan. 3. Indicate which week(s) the assessment is due. 4. Provide a brief description of the assessment. 5. For each assessment, add aligned CLOs and EESs. 6. If you have a scaffolded assignment, indicate the due dates for each component, assign separate weightings, and label each part clearly in the title (e.g., Case Study Analysis – Part 1: Literature review – 10%; Case Study Analysis – Part 2: Framework – 5%; Case Study Analysis – Part 3: Final report – 15%). Important The weighting of the assessment should be reflective of the work required from the student. Good alignment can support academic integrity and help students perform better when they feel the expected work is reflective of the grade weighting. Note When setting due dates and times, consider students’ needs, obligations, and level of understanding. For example, cultural or religious observations may affect a student’s ability to submit assessments on specific days. Select submission times that are easily understood, such as 11:59 p.m., and avoid scheduling deadlines during statutory holidays, religious celebrations, and school breaks. To help support scheduling, the University of Guelph has an excellent Religious Holiday Calendar. Coursedog Assessment Descriptions Follow the Evaluation Category descriptions below to help identify appropriate assessments and recommended weightings to build the Evaluation Plan. Assignment Assignments capture many ways for students to demonstrate learning, may be completed individually, in pairs or in groups, and may occur in-class, out of class, or online. Assignments are typically formative assessments focused on a specific topic and may be scaffolded individually to culminate in a larger assignment or other summative assessment. It is recommended that faculty use specific titling or description to differentiate between the focus and complexity of an assignment identified on the evaluation plan. Examples: written submission (possibly including visual components), poster or pamphlet, video, structured discussion or debate. Note See Report section below for lab/shop, experiment, health or public safety reporting assessments. Recommended weighting: 5%-30% Assignments may comprise of multiple components/parts (scaffolded) and this can be reflected in the title (e.g., Assignment 1 - part A, part B, part C). Capstone Project A focused, summative project designed to integrate learned skills and knowledge acquired during the course and program. The capstone project emphasizes practical application and applied learning, guided closely by faculty to ensure mastery of new concepts introduced during the project and may involve working with a community partner. Additionally, students engage in the development and enhancement of durable skills, such as critical-thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and effective communication. Capstones often involve research and a final presentation or report. Capstones are most impactful when self-determined, where students have input into the topic or deliverable, and are often the final assessment students will complete (aside from exams). Recommended weighting: 30% May warrant higher weighting, with authorization from your Executive or Associate Dean. Case Study An in-depth analysis of an authentic scenario or problem requiring the application of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. A detailed description including all relevant data, questions, and directive for completion is provided to students, who may work individually, in pairs or in groups to engage in decision-making related to evaluation of the problem at hand and creating a potential solution. Case studies may range in complexity based on academic content and level of learning expectations. Examples: A real-world problem related to course or program focus; an intensive, systematic investigation of a single individual, group, community, or some other requiring analysis of in-depth data relating to several variables; a hypothetical context based on “what if” information and implied data. Recommended weighting: 10%-20% Essay/Paper A structured, written assignment that explores a specific topic in-depth or compares two or more topics. Essays and papers require students to conduct research, organize their thoughts, and present arguments or analyses in a structured format. Typically, students are required to adhere to set structural and citation requirements (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). An essay/paper is often a summative assessment for a module or course. Recommended weighting: 20%-30% Weight should be dependent on the depth of research and analysis, length, etc. Exam A formal assessment conducted under timed conditions to evaluate students' knowledge and understanding of course content. Exams typically occur at the mid-point (mid-term exam) of the course and at the end (final exam). Written exams focus on knowledge of facts, figures, and other discrete information crucial to a course, but can involve engagement in higher order demonstrations of comprehension, problem-solving, analysis, synthesis, critique, and even creativity. Exams may comprise one or more question types and may be structured to mirror licensing exams or other professional designation requirements. Some Exams may be performative, requiring students to apply skill sets to demonstrate level of mastery. Recommended weighting: 25%-30% In-Process Low stakes activities or assessments that check for understanding, synthesize content or scaffold to work towards meeting course learning outcomes. They are designed to provide feedback to faculty about student engagement and understanding and inform just-in-time teaching strategies. These activities are conducted and evaluated in class (in-person or synchronous online); however, these marks may not be achieved solely through attendance. May be evaluated as “best of....”, such as “best 5 of 7 will be included towards overall grade”. Examples: Recall activities (e.g., Kahoot), structured small group discussion or debate, completion of a graphic organizer (e.g. Venn diagram, KWL chart, compare and contrast), illustration of a concept or procedure, description of applying content to a new context. Recommended weighting: 15% or less TOTAL weighting Each in-process activity may carry a weight of 2%-3% and multiple in-process assessments are conducted throughout the semester on varying weeks. Lab/Shop Activity An on-campus activity involving observation, testing, experimentation, application of course concepts, or other hands-on learning with tools, equipment, and resources authentic to a specific field of study. These assessments are submitted or completed in-person and may be completed individually or collaboratively. Lab/shop activities allow students to apply theoretical concepts to experiments, fostering hands-on learning. These activities may include multiple components such as hands-on skill application, generation of a draft report, analysis or reflection, and/or written responses to set questions. Examples: Laboratory experiment, shop practicum, activity report or observation, application or demonstration of skills. Recommended weighting: 5%-15% Weight should be dependent on the number of components and complexity. Individual lab/shop activities may be scaffolded over consecutive classes to complete a larger lab/shop report (see Report section below). Online Activity A low-stakes assessment completed asynchronously (completed on a student's own time) using an online platform (e.g., DC Connect). They are designed to provide feedback to faculty about student engagement and understanding and inform just-in-time teaching strategies. Online activities may be selected for hybrid, online or flexible/HyFlex delivery modes. Examples: Discussion posts, graphic organizers, weekly quizzes, Kritik or Padlet activities or publisher or SALS ONLINE modules (e.g., academic integrity). Recommended weighting: 10% or less Portfolio A compilation of artifacts, with or without self-reflective narratives, that showcase progress, subject or discipline-specific mastery and achievement of course learning outcomes, providing a comprehensive overview of student learning. Portfolios are typically a summative (final) assessment and may or may not be submitted at various points for formative feedback throughout the course. Examples: Photographs, graphic illustrations, coding logs, short stories, recipes, project plans, diagrams, or communication samples. Recommended weighting: 20%-30% Weight should be dependent on the number, detail and complexity of required components/inclusions/artefacts. Presentation Students present their ideas, explain a process, provide information or instructions, or raise or debate questions regarding an assigned subject. This can be completed individually or as a group and delivered live in class or pre-recorded and submitted. Presentations may or may not include visual support (e.g., slide shows, images, illustration) and are designed to demonstrate learning and understanding and develop communication skills. Recommended weighting: 15%-20% Project An in-depth, extended investigation of a designated or self-selected topic or scenario, culminating in one or more deliverables such as a paper, report, presentation, or creative activity (e.g., academic poster, video). Projects typically address authentic/real-world situations or problems and may be completed over a period of days, weeks or months, individually, in pairs or in groups. They require the application of course concepts and theories, research and project-management skills, critical and creative thinking, and collaborative and interpersonal skills in the case of group/team projects. Projects may be divided into parts requiring submission at various points throughout the assigned period. Ideally, formative feedback is provided on each part of a project to improve the overall performance and result of the final project submission. Recommended weighting: 15%-25% Report A detailed account of an activity, event/occurrence or experiment, sharing key elements such as process, product/result, analysis, participants and/or stakeholders. Reports may or may not include diagrammatic illustration of equipment or products, graphic representation of process(es) or location mapping. They typically include an analysis of or reflection on observations and/or the outcome and may be completed individually or in pairs. Examples: Laboratory experiments, trades labs, emergency services incident, animal or human medical/health. Recommended weighting: 5%-15% Weight should be dependent on complexity and extent of required work. Simulation An interactive and authentic representation of real-world scenarios, allowing students to demonstrate skills in a controlled environment. Simulations are non-linear in nature and require students to use critical and creative thinking skills to respond to ambiguity through direct decision-making. Simulations may be completed individually or as a group and may be used as either formative or summative assessments of student learning depending on the duration and complexity of the scenario, the autonomy of the student and the expectations relative to level of learning and experience. Recommended weighting: 10%-25% Weight should be dependent on complexity and expectations relative to student learning, understanding and skill performance. Test A formal assessment conducted under timed conditions to evaluate students' knowledge and understanding of course content. Typically, written tests are longer in duration and number of questions than quizzes, but shorter than exams, and occur at the end of content modules or core topics. Written tests may comprise one or more question type and may be structured to mirror licensing or other professional designation requirements. Some tests may be performative, requiring students to apply skill sets to demonstrate level of mastery. Recommended weighting: 15%-20% Quiz Short, specific assessments using a variety of question types (e.g., multiple choice, short answer, etc.) to gauge students' understanding of specific topics or weekly content. Recommended weighting: 5%-10% Note Don’t forget that each assessment should include a rubric. Rubrics should be distributed and reviewed with students at the same time as the assessment is introduced. References Bowen, Ryan S., (2017). Understanding by Design. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/understanding-by-design/. Content on this page adopted and modified Open Educational Resources (OER) under a Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) from BC Campus (2019). Facilitating Learning Online - Fundamentals 2019 OER. Retrieved from https://scope.bccampus.ca/course/view.php?id=477. Content on this page adopted and modified Open Educational Resources (OER) under a Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) from Lethbridge College (n.d.). Facilitating Learning Open Course. Retrieved from https://lc-educationaldevelopment.com/public-open-courses. Content on this page adopted and modified Open Educational Resources (OER) under a Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) from University of Calgary (n.d.). Lesson 6: Structuring Course Content. Retrieved from https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/module/developing-online-courses/example-course-structures. Darby, F., & Lang, J. M. (2019). Small teaching online: Applying learning science in online classes. Jossey-Bass. Kolomitro, K., & Gee, K. (2015). Developing effective learning outcomes: A practical guide. https://www.queensu.ca/ctl/teaching-support/learning-outcomes. Nilson, L. B. & Goodson, L. A. (2018). Online teaching at its best. Jossey-Bass. Zeni, P., Opperwall, D., Stodola, J., Logue, A. & Mcnab, E. (2022). High quality online courses: How to improve course design & delivery for your post-secondary learners. eCampusOntario. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/hqoc/. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.