The ‘A’ in Assessment!

Getting it is a tricky matter …

Nowadays, being a University Teacher has its challenges. On the job, you no longer are supposed to know it all, you know that hopefully, but most importantly, your students are aware of it, too. In student-centered learning environments students have the right to negotiate what and how they are learning. This requires a high level of flexibility on the teacher’s part, whose role now reveals to be an orchestrator of learning! Obviously, an orchestrator is someone who leads his musicians through a symphony let’s say, from the first note, till a standing ovation! Likewise, a teacher ‘orchestrator’ watches over the entire learning process from A to Z, from objectives to grading, and in-between.

Sounds like a lot to handle! Maybe, and it does not get easier as we shift, gradually and surely, towards student-centred learning environments. The use of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) is an unavoidable eminence. TEL can be “Any online facility or system that directly supports learning and teaching’’ [1]. Naturally, assessment which could be a challenge in exclusively physical learning environments, its application within TEL might pose an even bigger challenge.

The point of this article is not to scare you, but to acknowledge that teaching is getting gradually challenging and there is need for teachers and their teaching practices to be reinvented to cater for current needs. As a teacher myself, I struggled with the notion of students overseeing their learning especially in an international, multicultural settings. The most challenging part was to come up with an assessment framework which is favourable for all my students, or at least an optimistic majority.

I always fear that I am being unjust to my students … How can I make my assessment fair but interesting? Exams are so last-year… Projects could be confusing though…

There are two types of assessment we should fret about to know whether our study objectives are met or not. Formative assessment refers to assessment that is specifically intended to generate feedback on performance to improve and accelerate learning [2]. I once did a ‘court session’ mid-course to evaluate my students’ knowledge on collaborative learning. They had to read 7 articles in one week, yes you heard me, pick a side and argument it in teams. The other type of assessment is summative defined as a judgement which includes all the evidence up to a given point. This point is seen as a the final point of the ‘judgement’ process [3].

Linear models of assessment which worked best in teacher-centered learning environments, are cannot keep it up in environments where learners are more responsible of their own learning, and where assessment tackles both processes and outcomes of learning. An example of an outdated model could be Natriello’s 1980s [4] model of assessment. It basically defines assessment as a practice to evaluate students’ performance and knowledge on a certain notion. The assessment process according to Natriello is made of 8 linear steps; at first, teachers set a purpose for their evaluation, then they assign tasks to students, third, they define criteria for the expected performance, after that, they add standards for passing or failing, which lets them gather information on students’ performance. Then comes the time when their performance is appraised, and feedback is provided to performers, and finally, the outcomes of the evaluation are monitored.

Natriello’s definition seems to work best in individual learning settings, especially that the monitoring part comes at the end of the assessment process. Nowadays, when learning is viewed from socio-cultural and socio-cognitive perspectives, learning processes and their evaluation is essential and best performed continuously,. TEL environments are complex in that designers, i.e. teachers, need to account for physical, technological, pedagogical, didactic, social, cultural, cognitive, and affective [5] aspects during the design process. That is why, it is not easy to sustain a learning environment which balances these aspects as fairly as possible.Assessment in Technology Enhanced Learning is broad. There are so many things to assess and here are few examples: Assessing learning outcomes, assessing learning processes, assessing learning methodologies, assessing the enhancement in TEL, self-assessment of students etc… . This suggests that assessment of learning is even more interconnected and complex than ever. But, it could be made easier when teachers ask themselves the following question. What am I measuring exactly? Is it a quantitative improvement (like grades, scores, engagement time etc…) or a qualitative one (such as reflection on learning and practice, deeper understanding, richer understanding etc …) [6]. For instance, if a teacher wants to assess the students’ thinking process on a certain task, multiple choice questions would probably be a bad idea Vs. for example online diary notes. Within TEL environments based on social learning, thinking about summative and formative assessment in a traditional way defeats the original purpose of using technology to enhance social learning. Generally, technology should be used to enhance a process, and this is rarely done by mere copying from physical to virtual learning environments. Assessment in TEL should be conceived virtually and originally for online assessment, otherwise it might end up being out of context.

In the following section, I give examples of formative and summative assessment methods which can be applied in virtual learning environments, in formal and non-formal settings. I start with the formative:

1. Portfolios of products and assignments, accessible to both students and teachers;
2. Self-reflection diaries where students can think aloud about certain topics, their current knowledge level and aspects which need improvement, in addition to possible strategies to reach the desired improvement;
3. Free style peer-feedback, meaning rubrics-free, in peer learning contexts.

As for summative assessment methods, I suggest the following:

1. Scripted tasks, loose or tight, in the form of open ended assignments like essays, videos, posters etc … including objectives low on Bloom’s Taxonomy.
2. Rubrics for evaluation either teacher-made or learner-made which make it easier to direct the flow of assignment without inhibiting learners’ creativity.

Assessment is no longer an attempt to check whether a student knows the answer to a simple question. Rather, the entire learning process is to be evaluated including teachers’ pedagogical choices. It is not easy to implement the proposed assessment methods, on the other hand, understanding students’ learning and thinking processes gives a better insight on students’ motivation and its impact on their performance.

Here, I lay down some assessment hacks which I picked up while practicing assessment in social and computer supported social learning settings.

1. Using technology in assessment for the sake of it, can be counter-productive;
2. Discussing assessment strategies with students and argumentating the choices by stating the benefits can help in motivating learners into owning their learning tasks;
3. Criteria for pass/fail in assessment need to be thoroughly discussed with the students, thus ensuring fairness even through rubrics developed by students themselves for peer evaluation purposes;
4. Resistance to student-centered learning environments can take place, but constructive dialogue can help in toning it down, especially with unorthodox assignments.

Summary

Assessment in Technology Enhanced Learning is no easy task, especially that maintaining an integrated and balanced learning environment is a delicate matter. Learning processes are now equally important to learning outcomes, hence assessment in virtual learning environments need to be planned accordingly.

References

1. Walker, R., Voce, J., & Ahmed, J. (2012). Survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. Accessed January, 18, 2013.
2. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 77–84.
3. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. British journal of educational studies, 53(4), 466–478.
4. Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_4
5. Toikkanen, T.(2012): Sosiaalinen media ja oppimisen uudet mahdollisuudet. Laatua e-oppimateriaaleihin, s. 25–32. Tampere: Opetushallitus. http://oph.fi/download/144415_Laatua_e-oppimateriaaleihin_2.pdf
6. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, media and technology, 39(1), 6–36.

About the Author

Hany Hachem is currently a consultant at LifeLearn Platform. He has two MAs in Educational Technology. His passion extends to Older Adult Learning, and he has published on this topic. Ultimately, he would love to see older-adulthood as a life phase where people can still engage actively with their communities.

This article is part of a series to explain LifeLearn Platform’s ideas on learning.

About the Editor

Tarmo Toikkanen is Chief Learning Scientist at LifeLearn Platform. He has over a decade of research experience in the fields of learning environments, participatory design, and educational psychology. His passion is to save the world by helping people learn and teach in better ways.