Development of DYNAMIX Policy Mixes - Deliverable 4.2, revised version, of the DYNAMIX project

This report documents the development of the initial dynamic policy mixes that were developed for assessment in the DYNAMIX project. The policy mixes were designed within three different policy areas: overarching policy, land-use and food, and metals and other materials. The policy areas were selected to address absolute decoupling in general and, specifically, the DYNAMIX targets related to the use of virgin metals, the use of arable land and freshwater, the input of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, and emissions of greenhouse gases. Each policy mix was developed within a separate author team, using a common methodological framework that utilize previous findings in the project. Specific drivers and barriers for resource use and resource efficiency are discussed in each policy area. Specific policy objectives and targets are also discussed before the actual policy mix is presented. Each policy mix includes a set of key instruments, which can be embedded in a wider set of supporting and complementary policy instruments. All key instruments are described in the report through responses to a set of predefined questions. The overarching mix includes a broad variety of key instruments. The land-use policy mix emphasizes five instruments to improve food production through, for example, revisions of already existing policy documents. It also includes three instruments to influence the food consumption and food waste. The policy mix on metals and other materials primarily aims at reducing the use of virgin metals through increased recycling, increased material efficiency and environmentally justified material substitution. To avoid simply shifting of burdens, it includes several instruments of an overarching character.

Fairness in assessing group projects: a conceptual framework for higher education

Group projects form a large and possibly growing component of the work undertaken for assessing students in higher education, and especially in post-graduate work in business. Yet the assessments sources, methods and purposes result in an array of combinations that the literature fails to capture in its full complexity. Tutors may be able to assess the work of the group as well as they might the work of any individual. But grades - and degrees - are awarded to individuals. Writers on higher education speak of using self- and peer-assessment as a way of qualifying the evaluation of group work so as to differentiate between individuals. But these commonly used terms - drawn from approaches to assessing individual work - are ambiguous or even misleading in the context of group work. This paper proposes a framework for discussing the assessment of group projects in an effort to help identify how the benefits of group learning and be translated into fairer summative assessments.