Transferring knowledge through peer-reviewed assessment : the creation of a community of practice and the threats to its survival

While it is generally accepted in the learning and teaching literature that assessment is the single biggest influence on how students approach their learning, assessment methods within higher education are generally conservative and inflexible. Constrained by policy and accreditation requirements and the need for the explicit articulation of assessment standards for public accountability purposes, assessment tasks can fail to engage students or reflect the tasks students will face in the world of practice. Innovative assessment design can simultaneously deliver program objectives and active learning through a knowledge transfer process which increases student participation. This social constructivist view highlights that acquiring an understanding of assessment processes, criteria and standards needs active student participation. Within this context, a peer-assessed, weekly, assessment task was introduced in the first “serious” accounting subject offered as part of an undergraduate degree. The positive outcomes of this assessment innovation was that student failure rates declined 15%, tutorial participation increased fourfold, tutorial engagement increased six-fold and there was a 100% approval rating for the retention of the assessment task. In contributing to the core conference theme of “seismic” shifts within higher education, in stark contrast to the positive student response, staff-related issues of assessment conservatism and the necessity of meeting increasing research commitments, threatened the assessment task’s survival. These opposing forces to change have the potential to weaken the ability of higher education assessment arrangements to adequately serve either a new generation of students or the sector's community stakeholders.

Transferring knowledge through peer-reviewed assessment : the creation of a community of practice and the threats to its survival

While it is generally accepted in the learning and teaching literature that assessment is the single biggest influence on how students approach their learning, assessment methods within higher education are generally conservative and inflexible. Constrained by policy and accreditation requirements and the need for the explicit articulation of assessment standards for public accountability purposes, assessment tasks can fail to engage students or reflect the tasks students will face in the world of practice. Innovative assessment design can simultaneously deliver program objectives and active learning through a knowledge transfer process which increases student participation. This social constructivist view highlights that acquiring an understanding of assessment processes, criteria and standards needs active student participation. Within this context, a peer-assessed, weekly, assessment task was introduced in the first “serious” accounting subject offered as part of an undergraduate degree. The positive outcomes of this assessment innovation was that student failure rates declined 15%, tutorial participation increased fourfold, tutorial engagement increased six-fold and there was a 100% approval rating for the retention of the assessment task. In contributing to the core conference theme of “seismic” shifts within higher education, in stark contrast to the positive student response, staff-related issues of assessment conservatism and the necessity of meeting increasing research commitments, threatened the assessment task’s survival. These opposing forces to change have the potential to weaken the ability of higher education assessment arrangements to adequately serve either a new generation of students or the sector's community stakeholders.

The assumptions and effects of conservative procedures in low -dose risk assessment for setting safety standards

Conservative procedures in low-dose risk assessment are used to set safety standards for known or suspected carcinogens. However, the assumptions upon which the methods are based and the effects of these methods are not well understood.^ To minimize the number of false-negatives and to reduce the cost of bioassays, animals are given very high doses of potential carcinogens. Results must then be extrapolated to much smaller doses to set safety standards for risks such as one per million. There are a number of competing methods that add a conservative safety factor into these calculations.^ A method of quantifying the conservatism of these methods was described and tested on eight procedures used in setting low-dose safety standards. The results using these procedures were compared by computer simulation and by the use of data from a large scale animal study.^ The method consisted of determining a "true safe dose" (tsd) according to an assumed underlying model. If one assumed that Y = the probability of cancer = P(d), a known mathematical function of the dose, then by setting Y to some predetermined acceptable risk, one can solve for d, the model's "true safe dose".^ Simulations were generated, assuming a binomial distribution, for an artificial bioassay. The eight procedures were then used to determine a "virtual safe dose" (vsd) that estimates the tsd, assuming a risk of one per million. A ratio R = ((tsd-vsd)/vsd) was calculated for each "experiment" (simulation). The mean R of 500 simulations and the probability R $<$ 0 was used to measure the over and under conservatism of each procedure.^ The eight procedures included Weil's method, Hoel's method, the Mantel-Byran method, the improved Mantel-Byran, Gross's method, fitting a one-hit model, Crump's procedure, and applying Rai and Van Ryzin's method to a Weibull model.^ None of the procedures performed uniformly well for all types of dose-response curves. When the data were linear, the one-hit model, Hoel's method, or the Gross-Mantel method worked reasonably well. However, when the data were non-linear, these same methods were overly conservative. Crump's procedure and the Weibull model performed better in these situations. ^

The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and its Association with Quality of Life in Ambulatory Patients Receiving Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the scored Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) tool as an outcome measure in clinical nutrition practice and determine its association with quality of life (QoL). DESIGN: A prospective 4 week study assessing the nutritional status and QoL of ambulatory patients receiving radiation therapy to the head, neck, rectal or abdominal area. SETTING: Australian radiation oncology facilities. SUBJECTS: Sixty cancer patients aged 24-85 y. INTERVENTION: Scored PG-SGA questionnaire, subjective global assessment (SGA), QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3). RESULTS: According to SGA, 65.0% (39) of subjects were well-nourished, 28.3% (17) moderately or suspected of being malnourished and 6.7% (4) severely malnourished. PG-SGA score and global QoL were correlated (r=-0.66, P<0.001) at baseline. There was a decrease in nutritional status according to PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and SGA (P<0.001); and a decrease in global QoL (P<0.001) after 4 weeks of radiotherapy. There was a linear trend for change in PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and change in global QoL (P=0.003) between those patients who improved (5%) maintained (56.7%) or deteriorated (33.3%) in nutritional status according to SGA. There was a correlation between change in PG-SGA score and change in QoL after 4 weeks of radiotherapy (r=-0.55, P<0.001). Regression analysis determined that 26% of the variation of change in QoL was explained by change in PG-SGA (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The scored PG-SGA is a nutrition assessment tool that identifies malnutrition in ambulatory oncology patients receiving radiotherapy and can be used to predict the magnitude of change in QoL.