Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
and Parrett's words 'cue deaf') may not be as
aware that there are specific meanings imbued
in the criteria and standards which they need to
grasp and orient towards when being assessed,
thus being more likely to experience examination
failures than 'cue seekers'.
In that sense the conclusion can be drawn that
frequent assessment and feedback from the teacher
in net-based courses could be one way to support
both 'cue seekers' and 'cue deaf' students to gain
a better awareness of what's expected of them and
may help them to direct their learning to meet the
requirements for successful study outcomes. The
many assessments throughout the course with
rich feedback from the teacher could transmit the
implicit meaning or the “hidden curriculum” and
make it more explicit to the students. Neverthe-
less, it must be questioned if frequent comments
in assessments by the teacher really support the
idea of autonomous, independent and self-directed
learners, or if it creates more teacher dependent
students than ever (Torrance, 2007).
The frequent assessments could also limit the
students engagement in the course materials by
triggering them to focus only on what they believe
will be rewarded when assessed: “They are strate-
gic in their use of time and 'selectively negligent'
in avoiding content that they believe is not likely
to be assessed (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004).
The time spent on constant production of
assessment products to be sent for feedback to
the tutor could also be restraining when it comes
to interactions with peers. This could especially
be an issue since distance and online studies are
often conducted parallel with other commitments,
for example work or/and family life, which gives
some students little room for engagement in the
role of co-constructor of knowledge.
One could also assume that the frequent need
to write feedback to the students results in a heavy
work load for the teacher when dealing with large
study groups online. As the teacher usually does
not have unlimited time to invest in a course one
could also suspect that this frequent assessment
pattern leaves very little room for teachers to sup-
port their students' learning by other means than
commenting their assessment products.
Could Peer Assessment
be the solution?
This background made us interested in exploring
peer assessment further. Could this be a way of
making it possible for students to be actively in-
volved in assessing each other, adding something
to their learning process? Could peer assessment
support the idea of students as co-constructors
of knowledge and open up for more student au-
tonomy? What challenges would we face if we
were to introduce peer assessment in the online
setting?
Interest in formative assessment as a possible
way to support students' learning seems to be in-
creasing at the moment. However, as pointed out
by for example Gibbs & Simpson (2004), Torrance
(2007) and Sadler (2008), even the best intentions
with using assessment to enhance student learn-
ing, could have the opposite effect. As Torrance
(2007) points out, there is a risk that some uses of
more formal assessment result in learning being
displaced by procedural compliance. In such cases
the students may learn how to produce a product
which is likely to pass examination, but the grade
will be achieved despite the fact that the student
hasn't developed a deeper understanding of the
subject as intended. Thus the underlying risk of
formative assessment could be to produce reduc-
tionist learning and instrumental accountability
rather than meaningful empowerment.
Of course, we don't want to replace learning
with procedural compliance; we want our students
to truly engage in the course materials. We want
them to develop their understanding of the subject
in a rich and deep way including what different
theories contribute when it comes to understand-
ing the world and its phenomenon, and be able to
apply their understanding in other contexts than
in the course and assessment situation.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search