How Does Technology Enable Scaling Up Assessment for Learning?

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter brings recent critical thought from the field of educational technology to bear on the challenge of scaling up Assessment for Learning (AfL). Three different types of ‘scaling up’ are presented, illustrated through three different ‘technology-enhanced’ AfL approaches. Recent advances in providing feedback through audio, video and screencast technologies are used to explore ‘doing more with less’ as a form of scaling up. Technology enables providing more and richer feedback information while requiring less staff time – but it remains unclear if this results in better learning or just better student experience. Technology’s ability to scale up our thinking from individual tasks up to programme level matters is explored through portfolios and curriculum mapping tools. Although these tools provide affordances for programmatic thinking, implementing these thoughts in the complex social environment of higher education presents its own challenges. Finally, scaling up AfL to serve large cohorts without linearly scaling up resources like teacher time is explored through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). However, given the low completion rates in MOOCs, we question if access to AfL is the same as real AfL opportunity. The chapter concludes with implications for scaling up AfL that have been synthesized from these illustrative examples.

References

  1. Bennett, S., Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2016). How technology shapes assessment design: Findings from a study of university teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet.12439.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boud, D. (1995). How can self assessment be implemented? In D. Boud (Ed.), Enhancing learning through self-assessment (pp. 177–188). New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  7. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2012). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carless, D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, D. (2014). Graduate course experience 2013: A report on the course experience perceptions of recent graduates. Melbourne, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, R. C. (2010). Evidence-based training methods: A guide for training professionals. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.Google Scholar
  12. Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2014). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 723–734). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Debuse, J. C. W., & Lawley, M. (2016). Benefits and drawbacks of computer-based assessment and feedback systems: Student and educator perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2016). Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551.Google Scholar
  15. Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2013). Patterns of resistance in managing assessment change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fawcett, H., & Oldfield, J. (2016). Investigating expectations and experiences of audio and written assignment feedback in first-year undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(1), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC research initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 134–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. In L. H. Meyer, S. Davidson, H. Anderson, R. Fletcher, P. M. Johnston, & M. Rees (Eds.), Tertiary assessment & higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice & research. Ako Aotearoa: Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  21. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
  23. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2014). UK review of the provision of information about higher education: National Student Survey results and trends analysis 2005–2013. London: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  24. Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. New York: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  26. Joughin, G. (2009). Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education: A critical review. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 13–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King, D., McGugan, S., & Bunyan, N. (2008). Does it make a difference? Replacing text with audio feedback. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–163.Google Scholar
  28. Laughton, D. J. (2013). Using audio feedback to enhance assessment practice – An evaluation of student and tutor perspectives. Student Engagement and Experience Journal.Google Scholar
  29. Laurillard, D. (2008). Digital technologies and their role in achieving our ambitions for education. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  30. Lawson, R., Taylor, T., French, E., Fallshaw, E., Hall, C., Kinash, S., & Summers, J. (2015). Hunting and gathering: New imperatives in mapping and collecting student learning data to assure quality outcomes. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(3), 581–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lefevre, D., & Cox, B. (2016). Feedback in technology-based instruction: Learner preferences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 248–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macdonald, R., & Joughin, G. (2009). Changing assessment in higher education: A model in support of institution-wide improvement. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 1–21). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsh, E., Roediger, H., Bjork, R., & Bjork, E. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Report of U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
  37. Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2014). Feedback models for learning, teaching and performance. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  38. Offerdahl, E. G., & Tomanek, D. (2011). Changes in instructors’ assessment thinking related to experimentation with new strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A., & Koller, D. (2013). Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. Paper presented at the 2013 Conference on Educational Data Mining, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
  41. Posey, L., Plack, M. M., Snyder, R., Dinneen, P. L., Feuer, M., & Wiss, A. (2015). Developing a pathway for an institution wide ePortfolio program. International Journal of ePortfolio, 5(1), 75–92.Google Scholar
  42. Price, M., Rust, C., O'Donovan, B., & Handley, K. (2012). Assessment literacy: The foundation for improving student learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  43. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhodes, T., Chen, H. L., Watson, C. E., & Garrison, W. (2014). Editorial: A call for more rigorous ePortfolio research. International Journal of ePortfolio, 4(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  45. Russell, T. (2013). The no significant difference phenomenon. Retrieved from http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/
  46. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Selwyn, N. (2011). In praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stödberg, U. (2012). A research review of e-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tomas, C., Borg, M., & McNeil, J. (2015). E-assessment: Institutional development strategies and the assessment life cycle. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 588–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. University of Minnesota. (2016). Hype Cycle for Education: Emerging Technologies in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://hypecycle.umn.edu/page/what-hype-cycle
  53. Warburton, B. (2009). Quick win or slow burn: Modelling UK HE CAA uptake. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations