Assessment and learning: Towards a theoretical base

The theoretical base for this initiative is drawn from Biggs' work on constructive alignment (Biggs, 1999; Biggs, 2002; Biggs, 2003). In short, this means that the curriculum aims, the assessment tasks and also the assessment criteria should match the learning outcomes. It is important that the assessment strategy reflects on the key roles assessment serves within particular contexts, namely: formative (i.e. to provide support for future learning); summative (i.e. to provide information about performance at the end of a unit of study); certification (i.e. selection by means of qualifications); and evaluative (i.e. a means by which stakeholders can judge the effectiveness of the system as a whole) (Hornby, 2003). Therefore, when considering particular elements of assessment, the varied functions of assessment need to be disentangled to avoid situations where too many purposes are sought within a particular assessment. The point is to adopt varied forms of assessment which are more suited to specific purposes.

Furthermore, within a skills and process teaching approach, assessment can have a further powerful role in that it affects not only what students learn but also how they learn (Norton, 2004). Therefore, assessment has a potentially powerful effect on learning because students see assessment as the curriculum, as explained by Gibbs (1999). Biggs makes the same point in saying that students learn what they think will be assessed rather than what is contained in the curriculum (2002). This signals two important pedagogic benefits of assessments. The first is that effective teaching can use this knowledge to strategically enhance students' learning. The second is that assessment can be used as a lever to make students actively engage with specific learning tasks. This means that the potential for learning can be maximized when assessments are designed to test the higher (e.g. critical thinking, development and application of generic skills) rather than the lower levels of knowledge (e.g. recall and simple applications) in the hierarchy of knowledge (Elton & Johnston, 2002). The current initiative identifies several methods of assessment that fulfil these objectives, for example projects, portfolios, presentations, and performances requiring students to demonstrate generic (e.g. teamwork, communication, problem solving, etc.) and professional/discipline-based skills in their application of knowledge within particular contexts. Such assessments involve the application of higher order knowledge involving critical thinking, making judgements, providing reasoned argument, critical reflection and evaluation. This, however, does not mean that there is no place for assessments that target lower levels of knowledge. For instance, in many professional environments, procedural knowledge is essential hence assessment strategies may need to reflect associated learning outcomes. For example, procedures and techniques involving computation, using and taking readings from equipment, following laboratory protocols and procedures and carrying out instructions may be assessed through demonstration, role play, lab reports, or by students producing an illustrated manual with instructions on how to use equipment. The more commonly used assessment methods (e.g. essays, written and oral examinations, reports, and short answer questions) often tend to focus on the lower levels of knowledge as they require students to recall, describe, report, recount, recognize, identify, and relate information. Although critical analysis, application and reflection may be expected within such assessments, they do not sufficiently engage students in knowledge transformation.

Assessment strategies must therefore include methods of assessment that create opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills actively and in transformative ways (Scouller, 1998). Additional methods of assessment that articulate transformative strategies may include analysis of case studies, provision of a response to a simulated scenario, planning and implementation of a community service project, making a video, producing a poster/leaflet/brochure, participating in a debate, etc. Such methods of assessment provide students with opportunities to identify problems, pose problems, define problems, analyze and review data, design, plan and implement activities/initiatives, and produce simulated/concrete outcomes that are based upon applied knowledge, thereby creating assessment contexts where students are called upon to apply their knowledge to real/ simulated situations. In agreement with others, we are arguing that assessment tasks must be used as a vehicle to promote deep rather than surface and strategic approaches to learning (Entwistle, 1987; Saljo, 1987). This not only prioritizes a need for "constructive alignment" but also raises the need to integrate varied forms of assessment to ensure that students are able to demonstrate contextual knowledge and skills.

Apart from the methods of assessment, the process itself must guard against promoting strategic approaches to learning. For instance, when assessment criteria are not explicit and transparent, it may encourage surface and strategic approaches to learning. Elander (2003) and Merry et al. (2000) stress the importance of providing explicit assessment criteria for the following reasons: students do not have the same understanding as their lecturers; it demonstrates principles of equity, fairness and accountability within assessment practices, and it is pedagogically sound on a common-sense level. However, students may sometimes use assessment criteria in "a strategic, marks oriented" and "formulaic way" to achieve the best possible grades (Norton, 2004). Therefore, while assessment criteria are essential, they can pose a problem by encouraging over-dependence on lecturers' guidance and can in some instances result in students "concentrating on the mechanics of the task rather than meaningful engagement with the learning process" (Norton, 2004). A solution offered by Norton is to reconceptualize the assessment criteria as learning criteria (Norton, 2004). Given this, this local initiative stresses explicitness and transparency in the formulation of assessment criteria and the provision of formulaic-style guidelines is discouraged to minimize surface and strategic approaches to learning.

In addition to providing a framework for identifying a range of methods of assessment, the above-mentioned theories also provide a basis to align the methods of assessment with the ECU graduate attributes framework. This is achieved by contextualizing generic skills within a selection of appropriate assessment methods. This facilitates both the development and application of process skills and abilities in real or simulated contexts. It also, in the words of the Teaching and Learning Committee of the Australian Technology Network, helps to "shape[s] the contribution they [students] are able to make to their profession and as a citizen [citizens]" (2000).

Overall, these theoretical contributions provide a foundation upon which to build sound assessment practices when implementing the ECU graduate attributes framework within this context. A set of guiding principles is proposed:

1. Promote constructive alignment (Biggs, 1999; Biggs, 2002; Biggs, 2003)

2. Use assessments as a lever to engage students actively with a task. This requires a shift from an emphasis on evaluating declarative knowledge to include the assessment of procedural, strategic, and conditional knowledge and understanding (Biggs, 2002; Biggs, 2003; Gibbs, 1999; Taylor, 1994)

3. Provide opportunities for students to develop and be assessed on generic skills and content in a coherent and progressive way with continuous feedback (Hornby, 2003; Brown et al., 1994)

4. Include multiple assessment methods within the assessment strategy to test for the hierarchy of knowledge (Elton & Johnston, 2002)

5. Make the assessment criteria explicit and transparent (Elander, 2003; Merry et al., 2000; Taylor, 1994) but guard against a mechanistic approach to learning (Norton, 2004; Martin & Saljo, 1997; Norton et al., 1996)

In summary, these guiding principles highlight two things about learning and assessment. The first is the importance of using assessment to enable learning rather than just to measure learning. The second relates to the importance of creating opportunities for students to develop and demonstrate both contextual knowledge and disciplinary and generic skills. Yet to realize these aims it is imperative to explore the use of a wider range of assessment methods, which leads us back to the concerns around the methods of assessment being used in certain situations at ECU.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

متحف الكفيل يباشر صيانة منسوجات تراثية تابعة للعتبة العسكرية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تستذكر مظلومية الإمام الكاظم (عليه السلام) عبر مجلس عزاء

قسم العلاقات العامة يناقش مع منتدى شباب الإسكان إقامة مهرجان تكريم طالبات المدارس المرتديات العباءة في القادسية

سماحة السيد الصافي يدعو إلى توحيد الجهود في تحقيق التراث لضمان الرصانة والدقة وخدمة الساحة العلمية

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

6 فواكة تساعدك على الشعور بتحسّن عند المرض

حفاظا على صحة العين.. هذا أفضل وقت لتناول فيتامين أ

الاستخدام اليومي لسماعات الأذن.. أخطر مما تتصور !

هل توقيت نشاطك اليومي يؤثر على صحة دماغك؟.. العلماء يجيبون

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

ابتكار ألماني قد يغيّر مستقبل صناعة البلاستيك

تحديثات وأرباح عبر المشاهدات.. ما الذي تخطط له "لينكد إن"؟

"الكوكايين الوردي".. مخدر جديد يثير قلق السلطات الأميركية

دراسة: تغيّرات في أسلوب القيادة قد تكشف مبكرا عن الخرف !

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Parents with Learning Disabilities CONCLUSION

PROVISION OF SUPPORT

CARING FOR CHILDREN

EUGENICS AND ETHICAL ISSUES

PARENTING

DISCRIMINATION AND DIVERSITY

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Parents with Learning Disabilities

Legislation and Learning Disabilities CONCLUSION

LEGAL SAFEGUARDS

MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998