presentation and that it should exceed no more than 1000 words. A recommendation for improvement would be to include some sort of scaffolding detailing what is to be expected ould this be restrictive in within the article; particulary by way of structure students should be adhering te. tem of the creativity afforded to the studont? Remember the context The purpose ofthe task, clearly aligns with outcomes it addresses and creates tasks that allows students to demonstrate these outcomes. The assessment is relatively clear in Uesuilbiny Ue teyulrainenis Ww attiteve Ureve Culasis al # basic fave, omeves Une lack of ‘quality expectations for students in the task descriptions holds this assessment back from allowing students to demonstrate outcomes at an exceptional level. Discussion of the design of the task and marking rubric ‘The overall design of the assessment itself is not very accessible as it assumes that al of the students undertaking this task wil have either a personal device or access to @ device, both at home and at echoal. The assignment itsolf rolias heavily on digital accoss for tho research to be conducted but more important in the context ofthe construction of the presentation. Students are directly instructed to select a digital platform of their choice, ‘however, depending on the context ofthe school (Particularly if tis not a BYOD school) not all students will necessarily have access to this. In order to accommodate for this, students should be given time in class to complete the task ar mare than two weeks to conduct and compile their research ™ ea ‘The assessment provides the opportuni for students to present their understanding in two itera! foemate; via a writen artcia and pragantatinn Rath aceacemant formate have 2 ‘elevant conection to the context ofthe ask and hence uohos the autrenty ofthe task 007 (ference This inclusion also differentiates for students with different preferences of delivery while still ‘asking every student for the same assessment, Having the flexibility to decide which digitalplatform they would feel most comfortable to present from would be helpful to, this was an Insightful way to allow for 2 more diverse range of responses. However, a downfall with this is that the rubric does not indicate how much each of the components of the task is wrth. The rubric itself is not subdivided, which leads to a number of possible complications. While there are varying levels of appropriate descriptors being used across the eriteron boxes ibis te marking guidelines, they ares all yeoupead wi a singe Staal vubric wil al criterion grouped together. While all of the outcomes listed in the “Outcomes assessed” ‘section of the cover page have been included in the marking guidelines, they have not been respectively allocated a mark value. ‘The set of marking guidelines included within this assessment are vague and far too broadly describe what atudents should be aiming to achieve. The rubric makes it very dificult for ‘marks to be awarded according to standards because specific marks are not allocated to ‘any ofthe distinct achievements of the outcomes. While it may be argued that the rubric would need to be left a litle mare vague because of the fact that students are allowed to choose their own topic from the given ist, the rubric should stil have been constructed in a way that was more segmonted than ite, For example, have a column do Hod to each of the outcomes but have each one separated into rows and assigned their own marks. The ‘educator may choose to vary the amount of marks each section is worth depending on how ‘much emphasis they would like for students to put on each segment; however, by not doing this at ll, the emphasis ofthe task will be unclear as wells the feedback for students as to whee thay cauie haun improved Tha marking lf may alsa he uijact te Bing a8 the criterion boxes have been allocated a range of possible marks with no indicated way of distinguishing what qualifies what grade, Good point - leaving it toa bit of subjectivity ‘Tho aecocsmont does, however, include a feedback form for both the student and the teacher to fil out after the marking guidelines. For the student, itis a form of set reflectionincluding questions regarding where the student feels they performed well, where they could have Improved and their plan for achievina success in the future. The teacher then has an identical feedback form to fil out reflecting on their thoughts on how well the student performed. High-quality feedback is one of the important parts of assessment (Beaumont et Great - you backed it al, 2011) and hence the feedback foms that have been included at the end of thispy assessment are of great value provided they are completed properly post-submission. Conelusior ‘One of the key preliminary indicators as to whether or not an assessment task will be effective is the degree to which it canbe viewed as authentic (Villarroel et al., 2018; Pellegrino, 2015). Research into whal makes an assessment effective has indicated that fa task has a level of authenticity throughout, students are more likely to engage init in a more cortical way which would help them to develop higher-order skills (Belocchi et al., 2011), Students also need to be given clear lack descriptors that match up with the outcomes, they're being assessed on (Moss, 2013; Pellegrino, 2015). In order for students to stive to achieve those outcomes, the best approach is to make sure that the marking guidelines/ rubrics given to them are clear and are highly descriptive. After the assessment task has been completed, arguably the most important part of the assignment is then that feedback is passed on in a constructive way (Beaumont et al., 2011). ‘These points are all particularly relevant within the Investigating Science unit and the Science teaching area in general, as tis a unit that is best understood when put into practice. Ths task excelled in ts use of authenticity; it maintained a consistent contextualised purpose through each component of the assessment and linked each task with the content outcomes relatively well. However, not there were areas within the ‘outcomes that weren't covered within the task which could have been added (Caws as well 4 theories) The task gave an adequate description of the requirements to complete the