Assessment 2.0Luís TinocaInstitute of EducationUniversity of Lisbon

Agenda

Web 2.0: New learning landscapes

Learning 2.0:

New learning cultures

Assessment 2.0: the chalenges of e-assessment

New learning landscapes

Web 2.0

Bologna Process (European Commission, 2008)

challenged higher education to promote learning environments that are

centered in the development of competences

The e-learning explosion

The emergence of new digitally

supported learning environments Garrisson & Anderson (2003),

McConnell (2006),

Pereira et al. (2009)

• Collaborative

• Student centered

Language and communication

• Four main types of metacompetences

(Pereira et al., 2009):» Problem solving

» Group work

» Metacognitive

» Fluency in ICT use

New learning culture

8

Learning

Complicated Complex

Technological mediation

Learning theories 2.0

Student centered Participative

Open Transparent

Learning 2.0 (Redecker, 2009)

• Conectivism (Siemens, 2005)

• Comunities of Learning

(Wenger et al., 2002)

• Comunities of Inquiry

(Garrison & Anderson, 2003)

• Produsage (Bruns & Humphreys, 2007)

C-Learning: learning with others

from e-learning to c-learning Mota (2009)

Comunity

Comunication

Colaboration

Conections

Learning is framed by social processes

Alec Couros (2006)

Assessment 2.0

“Tell me how you assess I´ll tell you how you teach”

Abrantes (1990)

A new assessment culture

Emerging from the growing criticism of traditional testing methods relating to the unrealistic nature of the tests, the loss of faith in them as valid measures of learning, and an over-reliance on tests as the ultimate goal of the instruction process.

Assessment OF learningassessment focused on measurement and scaling

Assessment FOR learning

assessment meant for the students, through feedback, to understand their own learning processes and the goals that they intend to achieve

From psychometrics to edumetricsEdumetrics criteria are recognized as more valid and fair for competence based assessment, given their emphasis in flexibility and authenticity, as well as their integration into the learning process valuing the formative function of assessment

The challenge of e-assessment

“Confusion of tongues”

“e-assessment occurs when there is an automated marking/response to student input on-screen in a test, informing on the process of answering a question and providing feedback to learners and their teachers through well-crafted advice and reports”. (Beevers, 2010)

“e-assessment is sometimes used to refer solely to on-screen assessment but, in its broadest sense, can refer to all technology-enabled assessment activities”. (JISC, 2010)

e-assessment our definition

e-assessment refers to all technology-enabled

assessment activities where the design and

student activities (complete, present, submit) must

be mediated by technologies.

It is regarded as optional the format in which the

instructor presents the assignment, as well as the

way feedback is provided@ssess – project financed through FCT (PTDC/CPE-CED/104373/2008)

Steps of an e-assessment strategy

• design• presentation

Instructor

• complete• present• submit

Student • classification• feedback

Instructor

must be mediated by technologies

e-assessment benefits (JISC, 2010)

• Greater variety and authenticity in assessment designs

• Improved learner engagement

• Choice in the timing and location of assessments

• Capture of wider skills and attributes

• Efficient submission, marking, moderation and data storage

• Consistent, accurate results

• Increased opportunities for learners to act on feedback

• Innovative approaches based around the use of creative media and online peer and self-assessment

Conceptual framework for e-assessment

authenticity

transparency

practicability

consistency e-assessment

four dimensions identified as especially relevant

for online contexts

E-assessment

authenticity

similarity

complexity

adequacy

significance

consistency

instruction-assessment alignment

multiple indicators

relevant criteria

competences-assessment alignment

transparency

democratization

engagement

visibility

impact

practicability

cost

efficiency

sustainability

Authenticity

• Similarity – competeces needed in real/professioanl life

• Complexity – cognitive chalenge• Adequacy – adequate performing

conditions• Significance – value for students,

instructors and employers

Consistency

This dimension emerges as an answer to the traditional demands for validity and reliability, associated with psychometric indicators.

• Instruction-assessment alignment

• Relevant criteria

• Competences-assessment alignment

• Multiple indicators – assessment methods, contexts and assessors

Transparency

• Democratization – availability and participation

• Engagement – participation in the definition of the learning goals

• Visibility – present/share processes and/or products

• Impact – effect on the learning process and on course design

Practicability

• Cost – time, digital resources, training, …

• Efficiency

• Sustainability – implement and sustain the proposed assessment design, taking into account the learner profiles and the contextual constraints, both for the organizations and for the assessors

Discussion

These dimensions are articulated, representing several

degrees of reciprocal interdependence.

The criteria, more than just illustrating

the different features of each dimension,

allow for the operational description of

each criterion stage of implementation, and so contribute

to the evaluation of the achieved assessment strategy

quality level.

Discussion

What can be the contributions of e-assessment for the assessment culture?

How can e-assessment be usedfor internal improvement and external accreditation?

From a research standpoint should all dimensions be regarded as equally important?

Thank You!Gracias!

Obrigado!

I care so I share

http://www.slideshare.net/luistinoca

ltinoca@ie.ul.pt

@luistinoca