Advertisement

Assessment for Learning

  • Carlo PerrottaEmail author
  • Denise Whitelock
Chapter

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to discuss four influential papers that exemplify the degree of theoretical and empirical development in e-assessment. The distinction between summative and formative (“for learning”) forms of assessment is examined in light of the regulatory environments in education, which favour experimentation in the area of low-stakes, developmental assessment, but tend to constrain the adoption of more innovative approaches in high-stakes, summative assessment. Drawing on the seminal contributions of Royce Sadler, the chapter introduces the theory of feedback at the heart of e-assessment, focusing in particular on the importance of self-regulation, motivation and dialogue. It then turns to the work of Nicol, MacFarlane-Dick and Milligan to describe seven principles of good assessment practice and their technological implications. In the final section, the chapter examines Randy Elliot Bennet’s notion of “inevitable innovation” in assessment to articulate a more critical analysis of the innovation trajectory of e-assessment. In the conclusion, the paper argues that while it is true that assessment shapes teaching and learning to a great degree, different ways to conceptualise learning and technology also influence practices and innovations in e-assessment.

Keywords

Technology-enhanced assessment Feedback Assessment for learning Formative assessment 

References

  1. Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012, April). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 267–270). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1). Available online at http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1667
  3. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 134–138). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dweck, C. S., Mangels, J. A., & Good, C. (2004). Motivational effects on attention, cognition and performance. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition (pp. 41–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Ito, M., Horst, H. A., Bittanti, M., Stephenson, B. H., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., et al. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laurillard, D., Alexopoulou, E., James, B., Bottino, R. M., Bouhineau, D. (2007). The Kaleidoscope scientific vision for research in technology enhanced learning. Position paper prepared for the European Commission, DG INFSO, under contract N. IST 507838 as a.. 2007. <hal-00190011>. Available online at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190011/document
  13. Levy, S., & Dweck, C. (2003). The impact of children’s static versus dynamic conceptions of people on stereotype formation. Child Development, 70(5), 1163–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nicol, D. J., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment in terms of the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  16. Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sutherland, R., Eagle, S., & Joubert, M. (2012). A vision and strategy for technology enhanced learning (Report from the STELLAR network of excellence). Retrieved fromhttp://www.teleurope.eu/pg/file/read/152343/a-vision-and-strategy-for-technology-enhanced-learningreport-from-the-stellar-network-of-excellence
  22. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wertsch, J. V., Del Río, P., & Alvarez, A. (Eds.). (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Whitelock, D. (2010). Activating assessment for learning: Are we on the way with Web 2.0? In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based-E-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 319–342). IGI Global: Hershey, PA.Google Scholar
  25. Whitelock, D., Twiner, A., Richardson, J. T. E., Field, D., & Pulman, S. (2015). OpenEssayist: A supply and demand learning analytics tool for drafting academic essays. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Poughkeepsie, New York (pp. 208–212). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  26. Whitelock, D., & Watt, S. (2008, July). Putting pedagogy in the driving seat with opencomment: An open-source formative assessment feedback and guidance tool for history students. Paper presented at the 12th CAA International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference, Loughborough, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Institute of Educational TechnologyThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations