Assessment for learning

Many education institutions are still assessing learning rather than assessing for learning, resulting in a poor assessment experience for learners.

"Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment." (Boud, D in Knight 1995, p. 35)

One way of defining poor assessment is to describe the opposite, i.e. to outline what high quality assessment is. There are many principles to guide high quality assessment, some of which are listed here (Land, in QAA 2005; McMillan 2000; Pitman 1999). Assessments should be:

• beneficial and sustainable
• authentic
• fair and transparent
• reliable and valid
• constructively aligned
• managed efficiently.

A selection of principles is discussed below.

Beneficial and sustainable

High quality assessment should directly influence the learning process in a positive way (Boud 1995; Land, in QAA 2005). Examples of adverse effects include the weakening of morale and motivation (Drew 2001; Land, in QAA 2005) but they also include detrimental effects on learning, such as inadvertently rewarding memorisation, focusing on topics that are easy to assess at the expense of more important learning outcomes, and encouraging learners to focus on content that is assessable or assessments that are weighted more heavily (Boud 1990). Instead of teaching this kind of shallow learning, assessments should be encouraging learners to apply critical thinking and become more autonomous or self-determining learners (Boud 1990).

Another way of stating this is that assessments should “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of students to meet their own future learning needs” (Boud 2000, p. 15), that is, assessments should be sustainable. Sustainable assessments encourage learners to engage in their own learning, interact with others and focus their attention on the process of learning. This implies an emphasis on formative assessment (for learning), because of the importance of feedback in supporting active learning, over summative assessment (for certification) (Scriven, in Boud 1995). Summative assessment also influences learning but in a way that is not sustainable because it authoritatively states what is important and takes responsibility away from the learner (Boud 2000).

Learners should ultimately be able to determine by themselves if they have met standards appropriate for whatever task is required and seek feedback from their environment (Boud 2000) and even from themselves through self assessment. They should not have to limit themselves to shallow rote learning or learning that is determined by others.

Authentic

Assessments should be authentic, meaning they should reflect a realistic context outside of the course itself (Boud 1998). At a deeper level, authentic assessments are “contextualised complex intellectual challenges, not fragmented and static bits or tasks” (Wiggins 1989 p. 711, in Boud 1998). With the shift away from norm-referenced assessments (that focus on ranking) to criterion-referenced assessments (that focus on assessing a learner’s performance against learning outcomes rather than against other learners) (Pitman 1998), assessments are less fragmented and less contrived (that is, more authentic). Together, criterion-referenced and authentic assessments lead to more independent learners who are better able to apply skills learned in higher education in the professional context (Boud 1995).

Constructively aligned

High quality assessment is integrated with learning (Biggs 2002) so that it is part of a teaching system. Having an integrated system helps close the gap between learners who have a surface approach to learning and those who naturally grasp the importance of deep learning (Biggs 1999). This integrated system requires educators to be clear about what learners should actively learn by stating intended learning outcomes (ILOs) and then set up all aspects of the system so that they are aligned according to those outcomes – this kind of system is known as ‘constructive alignment’ (Biggs 1999; Biggs and Tang 2007). It is ‘constructive’ because learners construct their own outcomes, and ‘alignment’ refers to how outcomes, teaching/learning activities and assessments need to be aligned (Biggs and Tang 2007). Regarding constructivism, the previous sections on sustainability and authenticity have already discussed how learners should be active and autonomous. Therefore, this section will focus more on how teaching and assessment can be aligned.

The constructive alignment process is as follows (Biggs and Tang 2007):

1. The ILOs cannot simply state what topics learners need to know about but rather they need to identify the activities and change in behaviour required to achieve the outcomes. They need to be expressed in the form of a verb to describe the learning activity, its object or content and also specify the context and standard required.
2. The learning environment containing activities need to address the verb and bring about the ILO.
3. The assessments should also contain that verb and learners’ performances can be judged against the criteria.
4. The judgments can be transformed into standard grading criteria.

Biggs (1999) has also devised a hierarchy of verbs to help devise ILOs called the structure of the observed learning outcome (SOLO) taxonomy. Examples of verbs from the SOLO taxonomy are ‘memorise’ and ‘define’, which are at the knowledge or quantitative end of the hierarchy, and ‘theorise’ and ‘reflect’, which are at the deep understanding or qualitative end. Getting these verbs right has the flow-on effect of guiding the activities and assessments (Osborne, in QAA 2005) as well as ensuring the outcomes at the institutional, programme and course levels are met.

Efficient

As stated above, amongst other principles, high quality assessments need to be beneficial, sustainable, authentic and constructively aligned. Adhering to these principles requires time, effort and resources that academics and institutions cannot afford, especially due to the ‘massification’ phenomenon (Ross, in QAA 2005). Therefore, it is important to also ensure that assessments are efficient in their delivery.

Ross (in QAA 2005) suggests two strategic options for gaining efficiency, based on the work by Gibbs and Jenkins (1982): ‘control’ and ‘independence’ strategies. Control strategies include multiple-choice questions, fewer assessments and shorter assessments. Independence strategies include ‘front-end loading’ (where effort is spent at the beginning of the assessment process, unpacking, engaging and negotiating with the criteria (Hornby, in QAA 2005)), self assessment and peer assessment. By encouraging independent assessment strategies, efficiencies are gained because responsibility is shifted to the learner. Boud also strongly supports self assessment and peer learning because they foster self-determination and lifelong learning skills (Boud 1998; Boud, Cohen and Sampson 1999; Boud and Falchikov 2005). A combination of control and independence strategies can be effective and efficient.

In closing

High quality assessments promote learning. The focus of assessments should not be on measuring one student's knowledge of content against another student's knowledge. This kind of assessment is subject matter expert or content focused, not learner focused, and mostly encourages shallow learning (e.g. memorisation). Instead, assessments should be, amongst many other things, beneficial, sustainable, authentic and constructively aligned so that learners are self determined and equipped for lifelong learning.

References

• Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75.
• Biggs, J. (2002). Aligning the curriculum to promote good learning, Constructive alignment in action: Imaginative curriculum symposium, 4 November, LTSN Generic Centre. Retrieved April 21, 2009 from http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/1023.pdf.
  
• Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd edn, The Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education, Berkshire.
  
• Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
  
• Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values, Studies in Higher Education, March, 15(1), 101-11.
  
• Boud, D. (1995). “Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary?”, in P. Knight (ed) (1995), Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, Kogan Page, London, pp. 35-48. Retrieved April 21, 2009 from http://www.education.uts.edu.au/ostaff/staff/boud_publications.html.
  
• Boud, D. (1998). Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment, Presentation to the Conference ‘Effective Assessment at University’, 4-5 November, University of Queensland.
  
• Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society, Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. Retrieved April 21, 2009 from http://www.education.uts.edu.au/ostaff/staff/publications/db_28_sce_00.pdf.
  
• Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-426.
  
• Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (2005). “Redesigning assessment for learning beyond higher education”, in A. Brew and C. Asmar (eds) Research and Development in Higher Education 28, HERDSA, Sydney, pp. 34-41.
  
• Drew, S. (2001). Student perceptions of what helps them learn and develop in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 309-331.
  
• Gibbs, G. and Jenkins, A. (1992). Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education, RoutledgeFalmer, London, in Ross, D.A. (2005). “Streamlining assessment – how to make assessment more efficient and more effective – An overview”, in Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), Enhancing practise: Reflections on assessment Vol 1, Scotland. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/publications/Default.asp.
  
• Hornby, W. (2005). “Dogs, stars, Rolls Royces and old double-decker buses: efficiency and effectiveness in assessment”, in Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), Enhancing practise: Reflections on assessment Vol 1, Scotland. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/publications/Default.asp.
  
• Land, R. (2005). "Streamlining assessment: making assessment more efficient and more effective", in Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), Enhancing practise: Reflections on assessment Vol 1, Scotland. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/publications/Default.asp.
  
• McMillan, J.H. (2000). Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school administrators, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8). Retrieved March 24, 2009 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=8.
  
• Osborne, M. (2005). “Constructive alignment of learning outcomes to assessment methods – An overview”, in Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), Enhancing practise: Reflections on assessment Vol 1, Scotland. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/publications/Default.asp.
  
• Pitman, J., O’Brien, J.E. and McCollow, J.E. (1999). High-quality assessment: We are what we believe and do; A presented by John Pitman at the IAEA conference, Bled, Slovenia, May, Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, Brisbane.
  
• Ross, D.A. (2005). “Streamlining assessment – how to make assessment more efficient and more effective – An overview”, in Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), Enhancing practise: Reflections on assessment Vol 1, Scotland. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/publications/Default.asp.
• Scriven, M. (1967). "The methodology of evaluation", in R.W. Tyler et al. (eds), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation, American Educational Research Association Monograph, Rand McNally, Chicago, cited in D. Boud (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary?, in P. Knight (ed) (1995), Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, Kogan Page, London, pp. 35-48. Retrieved April 21, 2009 from http://www.education.uts.edu.au/ostaff/staff/boud_publications.html.