Lots of thinking but not good at writing it down

Now 7 September and I don't know where time is disappearing to. Am reading the book that I am going to critique and so many questions come into my head, the main one being that there are many theories around but where are the practical applications. Work has been full on and by the time one hits study time after a small break for food the gray matter wants to shut down - a bit like what some students feel like when looking and thinking about assessments. There are so many types; when thinking about formative, what comes to my mind is a form of assessment that enables a student to build on to current knowledge and understanding thereby increasing self awareness of the topic/area of knowledge.However on reading about some, what I think of as formative, others see as summative. An example in point is that of the portfolio development. Currently students must 'produce' a portfolio which is assessed and a mark is appended. As described by Biggs and Tang this is a declarative assessment - where the 'backwash (must) be positive; where the intended outcomes are clearly written and, most importantly, understood. Thus the rubrics for asessment points must be clearly written signposts as to expectations so that students can see what is expected at a certain marking level and what needs to be done to gain that mark. I have been talking with a colleague about the portfolio assessment and, through that discussion, and papers that I have found, we are having exploratory discussions about the 'hows' of developing a clearer summative assessment. Yet this also raises the issues of assessing what is essentially qualitative work using a quantative format. And as stated by Biggs and Tang, are we assessing learning outcomes (ie what is in the course outline and the students have known them all along) or are we assessing how well the student has completed the task. Two very different concepts.
When examing this issue the matter of marker subjectivity must be raised. To quote Smith and Coombe 'little

attention appears to have been paid to the role of the marker.' 'Marking as a distinct field of practice is rarely discussed in higher education literature; and yet I would argue that this is an area that most lecturers express concern about, particularly the subjectivity. We all bring our own views to any topic and, particularly when marking aassessments, know what we want to see. This is where second marking, at any level, is of great value, for staff and students; for students to know that at least two lecturers have been involved (not in every paper) and for staff to continually be appraised of their own foibles. As stated by  James and McInnis (2001, p. 28): ‘‘For academics, assessment is among their more time-consuming activities, and the mechanical aspects of reviewing and grading student work can be routine.’’ This also gives rise to the "somewhat cynical, 'give them what they want approach' to the learning (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2002) which leaves any hope of a deeper level of learning and understanding trailing in the dust. Engagement with the student is compromised.
Biggs and Tang discuss 'Holistic grading' where the students are asessessed on the level of reflective writing which relects the learning that has taken place. This is an area that appeals to me. The students are given the specific question to answer in essay form, they are given the time to do it (not a three hour essay writing task) and  the marking criteria are based  not solely on content but through the structure used, the argument presented, the level of knowledge provided through research etc.  I have used this once and now read about it in Biggs and Tang and know how to 'do it better'.  I have in my office a quote by E. M. Forster "How can I know what I think until I see what I say?" Interestingly they use that quote - the writer's thinking becomes transformed. So many thoughts - not enough time, maybe that book will come!! The reader of this will know what I mean.
 
 
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at University (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press
Smith, E., & Coombe, K. (2006). Quality and qualms in the marking of university assignment by sessional staff: An exploratory study.Higher Education  51: 45–69

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2002). Identifying academics' orientations to assessment practice. Higher Education 43, 173 - 201