1. Introduction

2. Using the Assignment Response Checklist

3. Assignment Response Checklist

4. Sample Application

5. Enquiries

6. Download this document

Purpose

The Assignment Response Checklist is a set of standard annotations that can be used by staff in the marking of student assignments. The Checklist is designed to give quick and comprehensive feedback on a range of writing problems common in student work - grammar, paragraph structure, citations etc. The purpose of the Checklist is to improve the quality of feedback provided to students and to help students identify those structural aspects of their writing that need improvement.

The Checklist was originally developed in conjunction with the Monash University Language Policy (1996) which recommended the development of a set of correction symbols for use across the university, both as an 'efficient' form of feedback to students on their writing and as a way of 'reinforcing the learning process across different subjects'. It is now presented as a staff resource as a further response to the Victorian Auditor-General's report on International Students, 2002. The report highlights the need for academic staff to provide guidance to students on their writing.

Design and trialing of the Checklist

The format of the Assignment Response Checklist is similar to that used by scholarly journals in the correcting of proofs (e.g. APA Manual). For its specific focus on student writing problems, the Checklist draws on theoretical developments in the field of error analysis (e.g. Corder, 1981; Taylor and Nightingale, 1990). It also draws on the experience of staff in the Language and Learning Services Unit (LLS) in their work with students.

The Checklist is organised around a list of problem-types, shown in Table 1. This list is an extensive (but not exhaustive) one, the aim being to develop a finite set of categories that could be readily applied by teaching staff across the university.

Table 1: Problem types used in the Assignment Response Checklist

In the development process, the main criteria used to select categories were that they be problem types: i) frequently observed in student writing and ii) amenable to succinct explanation to students. There was also an effort to include categories that could be applied to the writing of students both from English speaking and non-English speaking backgrounds (ESB and NESB).

In the list above, problem types are organised hierarchically ranging from problems at the word level to those at a broader textual level. Each category in the list is explained and exemplified in the Assignment Response Checklist.

The Checklist was trialed with staff from a range of departments - biology, linguistics, management (undergraduate) and engineering (postgraduate) - in the marking of approximately 200 student assignments. Overall, responses from participating staff were very favorable. Results from the trial were used subsequently to make minor revisions.

It is important to note that the Checklist is designed to give feedback on language and style matters in student work, but not on issues of academic content. Content issues are best handled in the conventional way i.e. as written comments in margins and/or at the end of a piece of work. For other language problems not covered in the Checklist (e.g. redundancy), staff would need to use their own annotations or comments.

Using the Checklist in Departments

To assist staff in adopting the Checklist, LLS staff are available to conduct in-service sessions by arrangement with departments. Information on how to use the Checklist is presented in the next section - Using the Assignment Response Checklist.

References

Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Monash Language Policy Committee (1996). Report of Working Party on Implementation of Language Policy.
Taylor, G. and P. Nightingale (1990). Not mechanics but meaning: Error in tertiary students writing. Higher Education Research and Development, 9:2. pp. 161-75.

Acknowledgement

The unit wishes to acknowledge the expert guidance and advice received from Professor Michael Clyne and Dr. Mark Newbrook.

This section outlines a suggested standard procedure for staff using the Checklist and also a number of possible variations aimed at optimising its value as a teaching tool.

Suggested Procedure

1. Before using the Checklist with student work, staff should spend about 10 minutes familiarising themselves with the Checklist's categories of problem types and their corresponding annotations.

2. When marking students' work, refer to the Assignment Response Checklist - Staff Version, marking work with annotations where appropriate.

3. Return work to students with an accompanying copy of the Assignment Response Checklist - Student Version. (As an alternative, the Student Version can be included in the subject outline distributed at the commencement of a course, to be used for ready reference during semester.)

4. Ask students to check thoroughly their returned assignment, note problems identified and make necessary changes.

Variations

1. Longer assignments
   For longer assignments, it may not be practicable to use the Checklist on the entire assignment. In this case, use it on only a section of the assignment (e.g. the first few pages). Ask students to check whether the problem types you have identified in this section are present in the remainder of the work.

2. Seriously flawed writing
   For seriously flawed writing, it may not be practicable to use the Checklist on the entire assignment, nor to attend to all problems identified in the piece. Use the Checklist on only a section of the assignment, or attend only to selected problem types (for example sentence structure and citations), indicating to students that this is what you have done.

3. Redrafting
   The Checklist can be used for feedback on drafts of work, including drafts of postgraduate work. Follow the suggested procedure above. Ask students to resubmit their work, using the Checklist to work out the revisions they need to make.

4. Peer editing of work
   The Checklist can be used by students as well as staff to give feedback on work. Distribute to students copies of the Assignment Response Checklist - Staff Version. Ask them to work in pairs and to provide feedback on each other's work before they submit it to you.

5. Using the Checklist to clarify expectations
   You can explain the Checklist in a lecture or tutorial early in the semester, clarifying any particular expectations of writing matters in your subject. You may wish to discuss the main types of problems you have previously observed in student writing, and to provide subject-related style guides and other information, where appropriate.

6. Customising the Checklist
   Departments may wish to adapt the Checklist to suit their specific requirements. The problem types included are of a general nature, designed for use in any subject area. You may find a need for additional categories that apply to your particular subject (e.g. poor integration of graphical material in a technical subject). Similarly, you may find that some categories in the present version are less relevant to your students and could be omitted. This process of 'customising' the Checklist can also be conducted in consultation with Language and Learning Services staff.

Text Level: Word

Text Level: Sentence

Text Level: Paragraph

Text Level: Textual

For further information about the Assignment Response Checklist contact:

arc-staff.doc
Microsoft Word Document