The syllabus of the affiliating university (Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol) involves provision of continuous internal assessment (CIE), included as specific weightage in the semester results of all undergraduate and post-graduate courses. Departments adopt evaluative as well as non-evaluative internal assessment strategies to assess the subject understanding, communication, presentation and problem solving skills of the students. During the entire course of each semester, an emphasis is laid on periodic monitoring of the participation of students during class activities to assess their learning levels like multiple question and answer sessions, surprise class test and interactive group discussions. Based on the feedback received, special focus is directed towards addressing the learning gaps amongst the students. Apart from formative assessment, varied summative assessment methodologies have been adopted by the Department like written internal assessment examination along with which improvement/supplementary tests are conducted for students to motivate them to perform better. Assessment in learning is often defined as process of documenting the progress of the students. In order to encourage qualitative learning and to determine the learning outcome, Departments have incorporated various tools and techniques to assess the learning levels of the student. They are broadly formative and summative as well as evaluative and non-evaluative assessment. Great emphasis is laid on continuous assessment during and after course completion. Multi stage assessment framework allows students to self-introspect their growth and learning levels and motivates them to do better in the successive assessment. Apart from academic performance, assessment also includes observing the participation and engagement of students in both classroom as well as extracurricular activities. Observational Assessment also plays a crucial role in ascertaining the learning level of each student. Important observations are made regarding several aspects of the students like their concept clarity, interaction with classmates, awareness about the surrounding environment etc. This tool enables the faculty members to understand the specific needs and learning gaps ,if any of the students concerned.
INFORMING STUDENTS ABOUT ASSESSMENT:
EVALUATIVE AND NON-EVALUATIVE ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES
Written Examinations and Viva-Voce to assess the subject knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving skills
The objective of Written Assignments during class hours aims to evaluate the critical thinking skills as well as the ability to formulate and express their understanding of the topics taught in class. An important component of assessment includes Viva voce which helps to assess the in depth learning amongst students and their ability to communicate their ideas on any given aspect of the syllabus. The primary reason of adopting this mode is to prepare the students for future employment opportunities which focuses on applied knowledge and communication skills. Designated Faculty members provide mentorship to the students of final year (who are divided into groups) for their research-based project work by teaching them both the theoretical as well as practical aspects of research paper writing.
Written Internal Assessment Examinations
Special Assessment for Slow Learners
Power-point presentations by students to assess their subject knowledge, communication and presentation skills
Student Seminars to assess their subject knowledge, communication and presentation skills
Assignment submission through Google Classroom
You tube video tutorial provided and questions are set based on that for evaluation
Group Discussion (non-evaluative) and submission of report (Evaluative) through MOODLE site, online and offline classes:
Another method of continuous assessment is assigning questions to students on a particular topic using online platform QUIZIZZ.
Mock test conducted keeping the pattern of question same as that of ESE question paper to make the students accustomed to the pattern of ESE examination. Questions posted in MOODLE class and test taken as part of continuous evaluation on a particular topic of a paper.
USE OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY FOR SETTING QUESTION PAPERS
USE OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY FOR SETTING QUESTION PAPERS
CATEGORY | EXCEPTIONAL (4) | SATISFACTORY (3) | UNSATISFACTORY (2) | POOR (1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
PRESENTATION OF THE ABSTRACT THOUGHT | The abstract thought/issue is clearly/vividly put into words | The choice of words/expressions for depicting abstract thought/issue needs clarity | The abstract thought is less clear and not framed well | The abstract thought is not understood |
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARGUMENTS | Arguments are framed logically keeping the validity and the abstract thought in mind; thus maintaining the balance of the answer | Arguments are framed asymmetrically, not approximating the abstract thought | Arguments are one sided, and loosely framed | The arguments do not stand at all |
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND | The perception/understanding of the Philosophy is clearly understood | The understanding of the Philosophy behind needs to be structured | The Philosophy behind is twisted and the understanding went wrong in places | Failed to grasp the Thought/Philosophy behind |
USE OF PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE | Use of Philosophical terminologies with all its connotations are excellent | Doubts and confusion regarding Philosophical terminologies are evident at places | Use of Language and its construction is not satisfactory and for most of the cases not philosophical | Totally misinterpreted and was unable to apply Philosophical language |
SYMMETRICAL WITH THE QUESTION | The answer includes all relevant points which were asked for in the question. Hence symmetrical with the Question | A few relevant points are too brief making the answer seemingly lose its strength | The answer is given flat and does not satisfy the requirement of the question | Inclusion of too many issues which are not relevant |
USE OF CRITICAL THINKING | The mode of presentation clearly projects the effort towards critically thinking of the issue | The use of ratiocination/critical thinking is projected as optional | The mode of presentation projects the use of critical thinking to the minimal | The presentation do not exhibit any trace of critical approach |
CONCLUSION | Well Constructed | Fairly constructed | Abrupt ending | Too brief and scanty an end |
RUBRICS FOR ASSESSMENT OF GROUP DISCUSSIONS( NON EVALUATIVE)
CATEGORY | EXCEPTIONAL (4) | SATISFACTORY (3) | UNSATISFACTORY (2) | POOR (1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
THE INITIATION OF THE ABSTRACT THOUGHT MADE BY THE GROUP | The abstract thought/issue/topic is addressed as a good kick start | Addressing of the abstract thought/issue was conventional | The abstract thought is less clear and not framed well | The abstract thought is waved to a certain extent |
CONSTRUCTION OF THE THEORY | The theory is validated thus maintaining the balance of the talk | The theory has no supporting data and hence seems asymmetrically | The theory is loosely framed | The theory loses its ground at the onset |
COORDINATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND | The Group shows structure required | Coordination has failed at certain points and hence the understanding of the Philosophy loses the required | The Philosophy behind is twisted and the understanding went wrong in places | Frail signs of coordination |
USE OF PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE | The group has used Philosophical terminologies with all its connotations. | The group has used Philosophical terminologies along with common sensical terms | Use of Language and its construction is not satisfactory | Totally misinterpreted and was unable to apply Philosophical language |
USE OF CASE STUDY FOR MORAL EVALUATION | The Group has depicted case study(present situation) in regard to the moral evaluation of the theory making it symmetrical | The case study showcased are not that strong | The case study was ambiguous | Did not take help of any case study |
USE OF CRITICAL THINKING | The group as well as individual members clearly projected the efforts towards critically thinking over the issue | Less use of ratiocination/critical thinking made | The use of critical thinking flattened at places | Too much common sensical |
USE OF TIME AND CONCLUSION | Sensible use of time to reach the conclusion. Could relate with the initial point | Fairly less time management hence conclusion not well constructed | Scanty and not a logical end | Abrupt ending |
RUBRICS FOR ASSESSMENT OF PHILOSOPHICAL MUSINGS ( NON EVALUATIVE)
CATEGORY | EXCEPTIONAL (4) | SATISFACTORY (3) | UNSATISFACTORY (2) | POOR (1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
How far is the thought unmindful | The unmindful initiation | The framing is intentional | The framing is rational | The framing is rationally structured |
How the issue is made/ presented as philosophical | The thought is understood to be philosophical | Addressing of the thought/issue was conventional | The thought is less clear and not framed well | The thought is waved to a certain extent |
Picking up from every day experience | Presentation is free flowing | Presentation has a backup from reason | Presentation is more theoretical | Presentation is structured on logic |
Use of his own philosophy | Unmindful use of one’s perception | Purposeless showcasing of facts | Purposeful presentation | Tendency to reach certainty |
Allowing free thinking | Highly imaginative and free | Has traces of imagination | Shows restraint and structure | Shows absolute structuring |
How far is it therapeutic | Sends a message of healing the mind | Sends minor provocations | Sends lesser initiatives and builds pressure | Highly regimented |
How far it shows mind’s capacity to create and transmit peace | The thought had peace/reconciliation/equal feeling messages | The thought had traces of hope giving message | The thought indicated strife | The thought provoked conflict |