Khoa học xã hội và nhân văn với sự nghiệp công nghiệp hóa hiện đại hóa đất nước

Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education Gordon Joughin Editor Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education 13 Editor Gordon Joughin University of Wollongong Centre for Educational Development & Interactive Resources (CEDIR) Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia gordonj@ouw.edu.au ISBN: 978-1-4020-8904-6 e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-8905-3 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8905-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008933305 # Springer ScienceỵBusiness Media B.V 2009 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work Printed on acid-free paper springer.com In memory of Peter Knight Preface There has been a remarkable growth of interest in the assessment of student learning and its relation to the process of learning in higher education over the past ten years This interest has been expressed in various ways – through large scale research projects, international conferences, the development of principles of assessment that supports learning, a growing awareness of the role of feedback as an integral part of the learning process, and the publication of exemplary assessment practices At the same time, more limited attention has been given to the underlying nature of assessment, to the concerns that arise when assessment is construed as a measurement process, and to the role of judgement in evaluating the quality of students’ work It is now timely to take stock of some of the critical concepts that underpin our understanding of the multifarious relationships between assessment and learning, and to explicate the nature of assessment as judgement Despite the recent growth in interest noted above, assessment in higher education remains under-conceptualized This book seeks to make a significant contribution to conceptualizing key aspects of assessment, learning and judgement The book arose from the Learning-oriented Assessment Project (LOAP) funded by the Hong Kong University Grants Committee, led by a team from The Hong Kong Institute of Education and involving all ten of the higher education institutions in Hong Kong between 2003 and 2006 LOAP initially focused on assessment practices, with the goal of documenting and disseminating practices that served explicitly to promote student learning This goal was achieved through conferences, symposia, and the publication of two collections of learning-oriented assessment practices in English1 (Carless, Joughin, Liu, & Associates, 2006) and Chinese2 (Leung & Berry, 2007) Along with this goal, the project sought to reconceptualize the relationship between assessment and learning, building on research conducted in the UK, the USA, Europe, Asia and Australia, and drawing on leading assessment theorists in Carless, D., Joughin, G., Liu, N-F., & Associates (2006) How assessment supports learning: Learning-oriented assessment in action Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press Leung, P & Berry, R (Eds) (2007) Learning-oriented assessment: Useful practices Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press (Published in Chinese) vii viii Preface higher education The initial outcome of this was a Special Issue of the journal, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, one of the leading scholarly publications in this field (Vol 31, Issue 4: ‘‘Learning-oriented assessment: Principles and practice’’) In the final phase of the project, eight experts on assessment and learning in higher education visited Hong Kong to deliver a series of invited lectures at The Hong Kong Institute of Education These experts, Tim Riordan from the USA, David Boud and Royce Sadler from Australia, Filip Dochy from Belgium, and Jude Carroll, Kathryn Ecclestone, Ranald Macdonald and Peter Knight from the UK, also agreed to contribute a chapter to this book, following the themes established in their lectures Georgine Loacker subsequently joined Tim Riordan as a co-author of his chapter, while Linda Suskie agreed to provide an additional contribution from the USA This phase of the project saw its scope expand to include innovative thinking about the nature of judgement in assessment, a theme particularly addressed in the contributions of Boud, Sadler and Knight The sudden untimely death of Peter Knight in April 2007 was a great shock to his many colleagues and friends around the world and a great loss to all concerned with the improvement of assessment in higher education Peter had been a prolific and stimulating writer and a generous colleague His colleague and sometime collaborator, Mantz Yorke, generously agreed to provide the chapter which Peter would have written Mantz’s chapter appropriately draws strongly on Peter’s work and effectively conveys much of the spirit of Peter’s thinking, while providing Mantz’s own unique perspective My former colleagues at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, David Carless and Paul Morris, the then President of the Institute, while not directly involved in the development of this book, provided the fertile ground for its development through their initial leadership of LOAP I am also indebted to Julie Joughin who patiently completed the original preparation and formatting of the manuscript Wollongong February 2008 Gordon Joughin Contents Introduction: Refocusing Assessment Gordon Joughin Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education: A Critical Review Gordon Joughin 13 How Can Practice Reshape Assessment? 29 David Boud Transforming Holistic Assessment and Grading into a Vehicle for Complex Learning D Royce Sadler 45 Faulty Signals? Inadequacies of Grading Systems and a Possible Response Mantz Yorke 65 The Edumetric Quality of New Modes of Assessment: Some Issues and Prospects Filip Dochy 85 Plagiarism as a Threat to Learning: An Educational Response 115 Jude Carroll Using Assessment Results to Inform Teaching Practice and Promote Lasting Learning Linda Suskie 133 Instrumental or Sustainable Learning? The Impact of Learning Cultures on Formative Assessment in Vocational Education Kathryn Ecclestone 153 ix x 10 11 Contents Collaborative and Systemic Assessment of Student Learning: From Principles to Practice Tim Riordan and Georgine Loacker 175 Changing Assessment in Higher Education: A Model in Support of Institution-Wide Improvement Ranald Macdonald and Gordon Joughin 193 Assessment, Learning and Judgement: Emerging Directions Gordon Joughin 215 Author Index 223 Subject Index 229 12 Contributors About The Editor Gordon Joughin is Coordinator of Academic Development in the Centre for Educational Development and Interactive Resources at the University of Wollongong, Australia He has worked in several Australian universities as well as the Hong Kong Institute of Education where he directed the final phase of the Hong Kong wide Learning Oriented Assessment Project His research and recent writing has focused on the relationship between learning and assessment, with a special emphasis on oral assessment His most recent book (with David Careless, Ngar-Fun Lui and Associates) is How Assessment Supports Learning: Learning-oriented Assessment in Action (Hong Kong University Press) He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia and a former President of the Association’s Hong Kong Branch About The Authors David Boud is Dean of the University Graduate School and Professor of Adult Education at the University of Technology, Sydney He has been President of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia and is a Carrick Senior Fellow He has written extensively on teaching, learning and assessment in higher and professional education, and more recently on workplace learning In the area of assessment he has been a pioneer in developing learning-centred approaches to assessment and has particularly focused on self-assessment (Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment, Kogan Page, 1995) and building assessment skills for long-term learning (Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term, Routledge, 2007) His work can be accessed at www.davidboud.com Jude Carroll is the author of A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education (Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, 2007, 2nd edition) and works at Oxford Brookes University in the UK xi 12 Assessment, Learning and Judgement 217 These movements raise a number of challenges, each far from trivial, which could well set the agenda for theorising, researching, and acting to improve assessment for the next decade and beyond Conceptual Challenges The conceptual challenges posed here call for the ongoing exploration of central tenets of assessment, subjecting them to critical scrutiny, and extending our understanding of the emerging challenges to orthodoxy noted in this book Core concepts and issues that demand further scrutiny include the following: The purposes of assessment While the multiple functions of assessment have long been recognised, confusion continues regarding how these functions can be held in creative tension Terminology does not help – the very term formative assessment, for example, suggests to many assessment of a certain type, rather than assessment performing a certain function The term learning-oriented assessment is a step in the right direction, but only if it is seen as a way of looking at assessment, rather than as a type of assessment A single piece of assessment may be, to varying extents, oriented towards learning, oriented towards informing judgements about achievement, and oriented towards maintaining the standards of a discipline or profession Of course, according to the definition of assessment proffered in Chapter 2, assessment will always entail judgements about the quality of students’ work, irrespective of the purpose to which these judgements are put The challenge is to define assessment in its own right, and to use this singular definition in understanding and defining each of assessment’s multiple purposes The location of assessment Boud has argued for locating assessment in the context of the world of work which students will inhabit on graduation This context not only helps to define what kinds of assessment tasks will be appropriate, but also emphasises the need for students to develop the capacity to assess their own work, since this becomes a routine function in the workplace Once this perspective is adopted, other constructs fall into place, including the use of complex, authentic tasks, the inclusion of generic attributes as integral objects of assessment, and tasks that deter plagiarism and engage students in learning through embedding assessment in current but constantly changing real world contexts The challenge is to unite the often necessarily abstracted nature of learning in universities with its ultimate purpose – students need not only to learn, but to learn in order to be able to act, and to be able to act in practice-like contexts where they can experience themselves as responsible agents and be aware of the consequences of their actions Assessment and judgement Assessment as measurement represents a paradigm that has been strongly articulated over decades Assessment as judgement, though underpinning what Dochy terms the new modes of assessment which 218 G Joughin have been the focus of attention in assessment literature for a least the past twenty years, has received far less attention Eisner’s work on connoisseurship (Eisner, 1998) and Sadler and Boud’s work described in this book are notable exceptions The challenge is to continue the work of conceptualizing and articulating assessment as judgement, drawing on both education and cognate disciplines to illuminate our understanding of the nature of professional judgement and how judgements are made in practice The use of criteria has come to be seen as central to judgement, to the extent that criterion-referenced assessment has become an established orthodoxy in the assessment literature and the policies, if not the practices, of many universities Indeed, both Suskie and Riordan and Loacker see criteria as central to learning Sadler has challenged us to reconsider the unthinking application of criteria as a basis of judgement, to review our understanding of quality and its representation, and to legitimate the role of holistic judgements Research Challenges Given the centrality of assessment to learning, possibly every aspect of assessment noted in this book could constitute a worthy object of research Three pivotal aspects of assessment and learning, widely acknowledged as such throughout the higher education literature, certainly demand further scrutiny Firstly, the role of assessment as a driver of student learning We cannot assume, from the empirical studies of the 1960s and 1970s, that assessment dominates students’ academic lives in the ways often supposed in much contemporary writing about assessment There are two reasons for this The first, noted in Chapter 3, is that the earlier research itself was equivocal: while assessment loomed large in the considerations of many students, this was far from a universal experience and contextual factors needed to be taken into account The second is the truism that times have changed, and the nature of students, universities, and teaching practices presumably have changed too There is a need to consider anew the role that assessment plays in students’ academic lives, including, perhaps, replicating (with appropriate variations) those seminal studies reviewed in Chapter Secondly, the role of assessment in influencing students’ approaches to learning Despite the 30 years that have elapsed since the pioneering work of Marton and Saăljoă (see Marton & Saăljo, ă 1997), there is no clear indication that forms of assessment per se can induce a deep approach to learning amongst students, nor we have detailed studies on the ways in which forms of assessment interact with what Ramsden (2003) describes as a student’s overall orientation to study or tendency to adopt a deep or surface approach to learning irrespective of context If assessment plays a major role in learning, and if deep approaches to learning are essential for high quality learning outcomes, more focused research into the relationship between assessment formats and approaches to learning is needed 12 Assessment, Learning and Judgement 219 Thirdly, the role of feedback in students’ experience of learning If feedback is indeed essential to learning, how we respond to the growing number of studies indicating inadequacies in the quantity, quality and timeliness of feedback and the difficulties, especially in semesterised courses, of incorporating assessment processes that ensure that feedback is actually used by students to improve their work and learning? Has the role of feedback in learning been exaggerated? Or is feedback less dependent on the overt actions of teachers than we have thought? Qualitative studies of students’ experience of feedback in relation to their learning may provide essential insights into this key aspect of learning through assessment Practice Challenges While the emphasis of this book has been on emerging understandings of assessment, the implications of these understandings for the practice of assessment are considerable While some of these implications have been noted by individual authors, many of them cluster around three sets of challenges: the redesign of assessment tasks; realigning the role of students in assessment; and the development of academics’ professional expertise as assessors of their students’ learning Re-designing Assessment Tasks Notwithstanding the considerable developments that have occurred in moving towards forms of assessment that support learning in all of the ways considered in this book, much assessment remains dominated by a measurement paradigm principally designed to determine a student’s achievement Essays, unseen examinations, and multiple-choice tests, for example, continue to be the staple forms of assessment in many disciplines and in many universities, and they continue to be the forms of assessment with which many academics are most familiar Where this is the case, the arguments presented in this book call for the re-design of assessment, with assessment tasks that incorporate certain requisite qualities and perform certain critical functions in relation to learning The following are some of the more important of these consequences:  Assessment tasks should incorporate the characteristics of practice, including the contextual and embodied nature of practice, requiring the engagement of the student as a whole person  Assessment tasks need to both develop and reflect students’ generic abilities – for example, to communicate effectively within their discipline, to work collaboratively, and to act in ways that are socially responsible – as well as developing discipline specific knowledge and skills 220 G Joughin  Assessment tasks should require responses that students need to create for themselves, and should be designed to avoid responses that can be simply found, whether on the Internet, in the work of past students, or in prescribed texts or readings  Assessment tasks should become the basis of learning rather than its result, not only in the sense of students’ responses informing ongoing teaching as proposed by Suskie in Chapter 8, but perhaps more importantly in Sadler’s sense of assessment as a process whereby students produce and appraise rather than study and learn (Sadler, Chapter 4) Reassigning Assessment Roles: Placing Students at the Centre of Assessment Central to the argument of this book is the role of students as active agents in the acts of judgement that are at the heart of assessment This requires recognising that assessment is appropriately a matter that engages students, not just teachers, in acts of appraisal or judgement, and therefore working with students whose conceptions of assessment tend to place all authority in the hands of teachers, in order to reshape their conceptions of assessment In short, this entails making assessment an object of learning, devoting time to help students understand the nature of assessment, learn about assessment and their role in it, especially in terms of self-monitoring, and learn about assessment in ways that parallel how they go about the substantive content of their discipline Professional Development These challenges to practice clearly call for more than a simple change in assessment methods They require a highly professional approach to assessment in a context where, as Ramsden has argued, ‘‘university teachers frequently assess as amateurs’’ (Ramsden, 2003, p 177) Developing such an approach places considerable demands on the ongoing formation of university teachers, though fortunately at a time when the professional development of academics as teachers is being given increasing attention in many countries This formation is undoubtedly a complex process, but it would seem to entail at least the following: providing access to existing expertise in assessment; providing time and appropriate contexts for professional development activities; motivating staff to engage in professional development through recognising and rewarding innovations in assessment; developing banks of exemplary practices; incorporating the expertise of practitioners outside the academy; and, perhaps critically, making assessment a focus of scholarly activity for academics grappling with its challenges 12 Assessment, Learning and Judgement 221 The Challenge of Change In Chapter 11 we posed the question, ‘‘What does it take to improve assessment across an institution?’’ Clearly, while more professional approaches to assessment by academics may be a sine qua non of such improvement, this is but one factor amongst many, as the arguments presented in that chapter make clear Reconceptualizing assessment as judgement and reconfiguring the relationship between assessment and learning occurs in the context of universities as complex adaptive systems comprising multifarious agents operating within and across different organisational levels, and with identities constituted both within and outside the university Making assessment a focus of conversation across the institution and locating this discussion in relation to the concerns of the various agents within the university, including course development committees, policy developers, examination committees, deans and heads of departments, staff and student associations, and those agents outside the university with vested interest in programs, including parents, professional organisations, and politicians, requires an exceptional level of informed and skilled leadership References Eisner, E (1985) The art of educational evaluation: A personal view London: Falmer Press Marton, F., & Saăljo, ă R (1997) Approaches to learning In F Marton, D Hounsell, & N Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd ed., pp 39–58) Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press Ramsden, P (2003) Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.) London: RoutledgeFalmer Author Index A Adelman, C., 73 Amrein, A L., 86 Anderson, L W., 70, 77 Anderson, V J., 46, 137 Angelo, T., 123 Angelo, T A., 134, 148, 149 Arenson, K W., 175 Askham, P., 88, 91, 92 Astin, A W., 134 Atherton, J., 117 Au, C., 118 B Baartman, L K J., 95, 106 Bagnato, S., 98 Bain, J., 88, 90 Bain, J D., 21, 22 Baker, E., 95 Ball, S J., 154, 160 Banta, T W., 139 Barr, R B., 134 Bastiaens, T J., 95, 106 Bates, I., 168 Bateson, D., 100 Baume, D., 69 Baxter Magolda, M., 124 Becker, H S., 17, 18 Beer, S., 194 Bekhradnia, B., 81 Bennet, Y., 98 Berliner, D C., 86 Biesta, G., 162, 163 Biggs, J B., 17 Biggs, J., 89, 91, 93, 135, 136 Birenbaum, M., 87, 88, 90, 94, 96 Biswas, R., 71 Black, P., 23, 35, 86, 92, 93, 153, 155, 156, 166 Bloom, B S., 77 Bloxham, S., 46, 172 Bollag, B., 175 Borich, G D., 145 Boud, D., 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 20, 29, 30, 35, 36, 88, 89, 106, 153, 195, 215, 217, 218 Boyer, E., 185 Braddock, R., 46 Branch, W T., 146 Brandon, J., 70 Bransford, J D., 186 Brennan, R L., 99 Bridges, P., 69, 72 Brown, A L., 121 Brown, E., 24 Brown, G., Brown, S., 88, 106, 195 Brumfield, C., 73 Bruner, J., 117 Bryan, C., 17, 195 Bull, J., Burke, E., 6, 46 Butler, D L., 92, 93 Butler, J., 15, 35 C Campbell, D T., 139 Carless, D., 2, 13 Carroll, J., 7, 8, 115, 125, 216 Cascallar, E., 86 Chanock, K., 24, 71 Checkland, P., 199, 200 Chelimsky, E., 208 Chen, M., 99 Chi, M T H., 46 Chickering, A W., 134 Clark, R., 24 Clegg, K., 17, 195 223 224 Coffey, M., 69 Collins, A., 89, 95, 100, 106 Cooperrider, D L., 207, 208 Costa, A., 146 Coulson, R L., 88 Cox, K., 195 Cronbach, L J., 95, 96, 99 Crooks, T., 88, 89, 90, 92, 93 Cross, K P., 148, 149 D Dalziel, J., 72 Dancer, D., 106 Davey, C., 87 David, M., 154 Davies, J., 154, 161, 163 Davies, M., 70 De Sousa, D J., 136 Deakin Crick, R., 87 DeMulder, E K., 86, 87 Derrick, J., 158 Dewey, J., 57, 117 Dierick, S., 88, 89, 95, 100, 106 Dochy, F., 7, 8, 10, 21, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 100, 104, 106, 134, 135, 136, 215, 217 Dooley, K., 204 Dreschel, B., 158 Drummond, M J., 157, 158 Dunbar, S., 95 Dunbar, S B., 134 Dunbar-Goddett, H., 19 Dunn, L., 46 E Eastcott, D., 106 Ecclestone, K., 9, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168, 216 Echauz, J R., 71 Eckel, P., 200, 203 Eisner, E., 77, 218 Eison, J., 65 Ekstrom, R B., 69 Ellen, N., 120 Elmholdt, C., 34, 37 Elton, L., 19, 22 Elton L R B., 90 Entwistle, N., 118, 135 Eoyang, G., 202 Eraut, M., 75, 76 Ericsson, K A., 46 Author Index Eurlings, A., 194 Evans, A W., 107 Ewell, P T., 134 F Falchikov, N., 30, 36, 85, 88, 153, 195 Fan, X., 99 Farmer, B., 106 Farr, M J., 46 Felton, J., 66 Feltovich, P J., 88 Firestone, W A., 87 Fowles, M., 100 Franklyn-Stokes, A., 129 Frederiksen, J R., 89, 95, 100, 106 Frederiksen, N., 88, 90 Freed, J E., 46, 134, 142 Freeman, R., 46 Fullan, M., 206 G Gagne, R M., 23 Gamson, Z., 134 Gardner, H., 178 Gardner, J., 153 Gawn, J., 158 Geer, B., 17, 18 Gibbons, M., 76 Gibbs, G., 2, 17, 18, 19, 23, 35, 88, 129, 195 Gielen, S., 21, 87, 88, 89, 100, 106, 108 Gijbels, D., 87, 88 Gijselaers, W., 106 Gladwell, M., 198 Glaser, R., 46, 62 Glasner, A., 195 Gleser, G C., 99 Glover, C., 24 Green, M., 200 Griffin, D., 211, 212 Gronlund, N E., 145 Gulliksen H., 86 H Haertel, E H., 95, 99, 100 Hager, P., 15, 35 Haggis, T., 22 Haladyna, T M., 145 Handa, N., 118 Hargreaves, E., 156 Harlen, W., 87 Author Index Hartley, P., 24 Haswell, R., 137 Haug, G., 80 Hawe, E., 69, 70 Hayes, N., 118 Heller, J I., 98 Henscheid, J M., 135 Heywood, J., 195 Higgins, R., 24 Hill, B., 200 Hopkins, D., 206, 207, 208 Hornby, W., 69 Hounsell, D., 23 Hounsell, J., 23 Howard, R M., 121 Huba, M E., 46, 134 Hughes, E C., 17, 18 Hyland, P., 24 I Imrie, B W., 195 Introna, L., 118 Ivanic, R., 24 J James, D., 162, 163 Janssens, S., 21, 87 Jenkins, A., 70 Jessup, G., 66, 155 Johnson, E G., 99 Jones, D P., 134 Joughin, G., 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 19, 22, 193, 211, 215 K Kallick, B., 146, 151 Kamvounias, P., 106 Kane, M., 95, 96 Karran, T., 80 Keeves, J P., 194 Kezar, A., 202 Kirschner, P A., 95, 106 Knight, P., 3, 7, 15, 39, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 194, 195, 196, 199 Kolb, D., 185 Koper, P T., 66 Kramer, K., 158 Krathwohl, D R., 77 Kubiszyn, T., 145 Kuh, G., 134 225 Kuh, G D., 134 Kuin, L., 118 Kvale, S., 34 L Lambert, K., 120 Langan, A M., 107 Laurillard, D., 19, 20, 22, 23, 90 Lave, J., 34, 206 Law, S., 19 Lens, W., 93 Leonard, M., 87 Levi, A J., 46 Levine, A., 175 Lewis, R., 46 Light, R., 134 Lindblad, J H., 137 Ling, R G., 202 Linn, R., 95, 99, 100, 106, 134 Litjens, J., 23 Liu, N-F., 2, 13 Livingston, S A., 140 Lloyd-Jones, R., 46 Loacker, G., 9, 175, 187, 216, 218 Logan, C R., 98 M Macdonald, R., 9, 10, 125, 193, 211 Macfarlane, R., 116 MacFarlane-Dick, D., 23, 35 MacGregor, J., 137 Macrae, S., 154, 160 Mager, R F., 69 Maguire, M., 154, 160 Mallon, W., 200 Malott, R W., 134 Marshall, B., 157, 158 Marshall, C., 147 Martens, R., 91, 92 Marton, F., 19, 21, 90, 218 Maslen, G., 119 Matthews, K M., 202 Mayford, C M., 98 Mayrowitz, D., 87 McCabe, D., 120 McCune, V., 23 McDermott, R., 206 McDowell, L., 22, 88, 91, 93, 107 McKeachie, W J., 134 McKenna, C., 107 McNair, S., 155 226 McTighe, J., 178 Meadows, D., 198 Meehl, P E., 46 Mentkowski, M., 134, 175, 187 Merry, S., 46, 106 Messick, S., 8, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 106, 134 Meyer, G., 20 Miller, A H., 195 Miller, C M L., 17, 18, 195 Milton, O., 65 Moerkerke G., 88, 91, 94, 106 Moon, J., 146 Moran, D J., 134 Morgan, C., 46 Muijtjens, A., 100 N Nanda, H., 99 Nash, J., 194 Neisworth J T., 98 Nevo, D., 89 Newstead, S E., 129 Nicol, D J., 23, 35 Nightingale, P., 19 Nijhuis, J., 106 Norton, L S., 106, 129 O O’Donovan, B., 117 O’Donovan, R., 46 O’Neil, M., 19 O’Reilly, M., 46 Oliver, M., 107 Orsmond, P., 46, 106 Ovando, M N., 136 Owen, H., 206 P Palmer, P J., 134 Paranjape, A., 146 Park, C., 122 Parlett, M., 17, 18, 195 Parry, S., 46 Pascarella, E T., 134 Patton, M Q., 147 Pecorari, D., 121 Pendlebury, M., Pepper, D., 70 Perry, W., 8, 123, 124, 186 Piaget, J., 117 Author Index Pike, G R., 139 Plugge, L., 194 Polanyi, M., 53, 56 Pollio, H R., 65 Pond, K., 107 Pope, N., 107 Power, C., 118 Powers, D., 100 Prenzel, M., 158, 161, 165 Price, M., 46, 117 Prosser, M., 72, 88, 90 R Rajaratnam, N., 99 Ramsden, P., 17, 22, 23, 218, 220 Reay, D., 154 Reiling, K., 46, 106 Rigsby, L C., 86, 87 Rimmershaw, R., 24 Riordan, T., 9, 175, 187, 216, 218 Robinson, V., 118 Rogers, G., 187 Romer, R., 134 Rossman, G B., 147 Roth, J., 187 Rothblatt, S., 73 Rowley, G L., 99 Rowntree, D., 14, 17 Royce Sadler, D., 45, 156 Rust, C., 19, 46, 117 S Saăljoă, R., 19, 21, 90, 218 Sadler, D R., 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 16, 23, 35, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59, 69, 72, 80, 81, 135, 141, 156 Sambell, K., 22, 88, 91, 104, 107 Saunders, M., 194 Schatzki, T R., 31 Schoer, L., 46 Schuh, J H., 134 Schwandt, T., 31, 32 Schwarz, P., 195 Scouller, K., 21, 88, 90 Scouller, K M., 90 Seel, R., 203, 204 Segers, R., 86, 87, 88, 93, 106, 107 Shavelson, R J., 88, 99 Shaw, P., 206, 211 Sheingold, K., 98 Shepard, L., 86, 100 Author Index Silvey, G., 21 Simpson, C., 2, 19, 23, 127 Skelton, A., 27 Sluijsmans, D., 93, 106 Smith, J., 46 Snyder, B R., 17, 18, 195 Snyder, W M., 206 Spiro, R J., 88 Stacey, R., 201, 203, 204, 206, 211, 212 Stanley, J C., 139 Starren, H., 89 Stavros, J M., 207, 208 Stevens, D D., 46 Stone, R., 194 Strachey, C., 194 Struyf, E., 93 Struyven, K., 21, 87 Suen, H K., 98 Suskie, L., 7, 8, 9, 46, 133, 134, 135, 138, 145, 216, 218, 220 Szabo, A., 120 T Tagg, J., 134 Tan, C M., 88, 90, 93 Tan, K H K., 72 Tang, K C C., 21 Tanggaard, L., 34, 37 Taylor, L., 120 Terenzini, P T., 134 Terry, P W., 20 Thomas, P., 21, 22, 88, 90 Thomson, K., 88 Tilley, A., 129 Tinto, V., 137 Topping, K., 88, 104 Torrance, H., 154, 157, 163, 167, 169, 171 Torrance, J., 194 Tosey, P., 203 Trigwell, K., 88 Trowler, P., 194, 196, 199 Twohey, M., 175 227 U Ui-Haq, R., 107 Underwood, J., 120 V Vachtsevanos, G J., 71 Van de Watering, G., 100 Van der Vleuten, C P M., 95, 106 Vandenberghe, R., 93 Vermunt, J D H M., 91 Villegas, A M., 69 Vygotsky, L., 117 W Wade, W., 107 Walvoord, B., 46, 70, 137 Ward, V., 202 Webb, N M., 99 Webster, F., 70, 71, 72 Wenger, E., 34, 206 West, A., 46, 172 White, M C., 202 Whitney, D., 207, 208 Whitt, E J., 134 Wiggins, G., 178 Wiliam, D., 23, 35, 86, 92, 153, 155, 156 Willard, A., 100 Winne, P H., 92 Woolf, H., 46, 69, 72 Y Yellowthunder, L., 202 Yorke, M., 7, 9, 65, 68, 74, 75, 80, 196, 197, 216 Z Zieky, M J., 140 Subject Index A Abilities, 7, 47, 105, 163, 175, 177, 180, 183, 216, 219 Ability-based curriculum, 9, 175, 179, 189 Ability-based Learning Outcomes: Teaching and Assessment at Alverno College, 187 Aesthetic engagement, 177, 183 Agents, 36, 41, 201–202, 210 Alverno College, 4, 9, 175, 181, 187, 189, 216 Amotivated learners, 158 Analysis, 9, 71, 73, 79, 95, 144, 145, 163, 167, 172, 177 Analytic, 6, 7, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 69, 160, 178, 183 Analytic rating scales, 51 Analytic rubrics, 51, 62 Appraising, 16, 45, 48, 54, 58 Appreciative inquiry, 207, 208, 211 Apprenticeship, 37–38 Approaches to learning, 13, 16, 19–22, 24, 158, 218 Assessment at Alverno College, 175, 187 Assessment-driven instruction, 90 Assessment Experience Questionnaire, 19 Assessment for learning, 34–37, 85, 91–93, 107, 155, 157, 209 Assessment of learning, 85, 155, 188 Assessment for practice, 38–40 Assessment Reform Group, 153, 156 Authentic assessment, 6, 8, 21, 33, 34, 40, 47, 54, 58, 61, 87, 91, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 127, 129, 161, 217 Authenticity, 8, 40, 100, 101, 108, 109 Authentic practice, 33 Autonomy, 153, 156, 158, 161, 168, 170, 173, 184, 207 B Backwash, 89, 91, 93 Bias, 90, 100, 105, 107 Bologna Declaration, 191 C Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, 185 CATWOE, 200 Change, 1, 4, 74, 204–210, 221 Cheating, 107, 121, 122–123 Citation practices, 121 Claims-making, 80–82 Classification, 67, 78 Classroom assessment, 35, 86 Clinical decision making, 46 Co-assessment, 85, 88 Co-construction of knowledge, 32 Code of Practice on Assessment, 198 Cognitive complexity, 8, 99, 100, 101, 108, 109 Cognitive development, 123, 124 Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, 16 Communication, 76, 104, 139, 142–143, 177, 204 Community of judgement, 30, 39 Community of practice, 30, 34, 38 Competency grades, 37, 102 Complex adaptive systems, 4, 10, 201, 204–205, 208, 221 Complexity theory, 201, 202, 204, 208, 211, 215 Conditions of learning, 23 Conference on College Composition and Communication, 147 Connoisseurship, 57, 77, 218 Consequential validity, 88, 91, 93, 101, 102, 107, 108, 109, 134 229 230 Subject Index Constructivist learning theories, 117 Construct validity, 95–97, 102, 104, 105 Content validity, 95, 98, 101, 144 Conversation, 10, 23, 179, 180, 189, 205–211, 221 Conversational framework, 23 Co-production of practice, 32 Course work, 155 Criteria, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 23, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 49–62, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 85–88, 95, 96, 97, 99–101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 119, 122, 128, 139, 141, 148, 155, 156, 159, 165, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 179–181, 184, 185, 216, 218 Criterion-based assessment, 46 Critical reasoning, 47 Critical thinking, 100, 117 Cue-conscious, 17 Cue-deaf, 17 Cue- seeking, 17 Curriculum, 7, 9, 17, 18, 66, 68, 72, 74, 85, 87, 133, 137, 138, 142, 149, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189, 191, 196, 197 Experiences of assessment, 4, 14, 23, 91 External examinations, 34, 155 External motives, 159 D Dearing Report, 74, 80 Deep approach, 16, 19, 21, 22, 218 Definition of assessment, 6, 13–16, 215, 217 Diagnostic assessment, 155 Directness, 8, 99, 100, 101, 104, 108 Disciplines as Frameworks for Student Learning: Teaching the Practice of the Disciplines, 187 Discrimination, 145, 146 G Generalisabilty, 77, 96, 97, 99, 102, 103, 105–106, 109 Generic abilities, 7, 216, 219 Ghost writers, 120 Global grading, 46 Global perspective, 177 Grade inflation, 69, 73–74 Grade point perspective, 18 Grades, 3, 65, 72–73, 74, 77, 78, 82, 125, 149, 159 Grading, 6, 7, 14, 35, 39, 42, 45–62, 65–82, 138, 139 Graduateness, 75, 81 E Edumetric, 85–109 Effective citizenship, 177 Emergence, 201, 203–204 Emotion, 13, 14, 24, 33, 39, 76 Enhancing Student Employability Co-ordination Team, 75 Evaluative expertise, 49, 58, 60 Examination, 2, 14, 17, 20, 29, 30, 34, 68, 72, 81, 90, 98, 118, 128, 129, 138, 139, 140, 144, 145, 155, 157, 219, 221 Expectations, 9, 29, 48, 69, 70, 71, 81, 104, 107, 125, 134, 136, 149, 150, 153, 154, 163, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 180, 185, 186, 197 F Fairness, 4, 5, 8, 94, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 108, 109, 141, 142, 143 Feedback, 2, 6, 10, 13, 14, 22–24, 34, 35, 36, 38, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 71, 85, 86, 89, 92, 93, 104, 106, 107, 108, 123, 127, 133, 136, 137, 141, 144, 155, 156, 157, 159, 161, 166, 169, 170, 179–181, 182, 195, 198, 202, 204, 208, 209, 210, 219 Feedback loop, 23, 202, 204 Feed-forward, 23, 24, 89 First International Conference on Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Assessment, 191 Formative assessment, 6, 9, 25, 35, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 107, 108, 127, 153–173, 217 Fuzzy set theory, 71 H Hard systems, 199–200 The Hidden Curriculum, 17, 18 Higher Education Academy, 75, 211 Higher Education Funding Council for England, 75 Higher Education Quality Council, 71, 75, 81 High stakes assessment, 4, 8, 86, 87 Holistic assessment, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 31, 40, 45–62, 69, 138, 157, 216, 218 Subject Index I Improving Formative Assessment, 157 Inference, 16, 56, 102, 103 Institutional impacts, 194–195 Integrity, 50, 62, 115, 116, 119, 121, 123, 124, 210 Internet Plagiarism Advisory Service, 115 Inter-rater reliability, 98, 99 Intrinsic motivation, 90, 158, 160, 165, 170 Introjected motivation, 159, 161, 168 J Judgement/judgment, 1, 3–4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13–25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 93, 96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 119, 215–221 L Latent criteria, 58 Learning culture, 9, 161–173, 187 Learning to learn, 6, 153 Learning-oriented assessment, 216, 217 Learning outcomes, 3, 7, 9, 29, 30, 35, 37, 66, 76, 125, 133, 137, 138, 147, 149, 150, 159, 172, 175, 176, 177, 180, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 197, 218 Learning styles, 135, 185 Learning that Lasts, 187 Loose-coupling, 200 M Making the Grade, 17, 18 Manifest criteria, 58 Marking, 14, 34, 46, 48, 68, 69, 70, 77, 107, 137, 169 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 18 Measurement, 3, 4, 5, 7, 15, 29, 35, 36, 48, 75, 77, 86, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 103, 139, 216, 217, 219 Measurement model, 15, 35 Memorising, 91, 107 Menu marking, 69 Metacognition, 49, 135, 146 Minimal marking method, 137 Misconduct, 122 Models, 15, 31, 32, 34, 35, 46, 194, 201, 211 Monitor, 45, 48, 49, 56, 127 Motivation, 8, 9, 49, 74, 86, 87, 90, 93, 104, 106, 107, 125, 153, 155, 158–161, 163, 165–166, 168–170, 171, 172, 173, 180 Multi-criterion judgements, 57 231 Multidisciplinary, 32, 96 Multiple choice, 2, 20, 21, 22, 90, 94, 134, 141, 144–146, 147, 150, 219 Multiple choice tests/Multiple-choice tests, 94, 134, 141, 144, 145, 147, 150, 219 N National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 74, 80 New modes of assessment, 5, 7, 8, 85–109, 215, 217 Norm-referenced (assessment), 7, 34, 41, 155 O Objectives, 3, 49, 69, 70, 134, 144, 146, 156, 200, 205 Objective test, 22 Open book examination, 22 Oral assessment, 22 Oral presentation, 133 Outcomes, 3, 4, 8, 14, 21, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 53, 60, 66, 68, 70, 78, 90, 96, 133, 136, 138, 153, 155, 156, 159, 169, 171, 188, 189, 190, 199, 203, 205, 209 P Patch writing, 121 Pedagogical validity, 134 Pedagogy, 45, 61, 68, 138, 149, 166 Peer appraisal, 50, 60 Peer-assessment, 46, 61 Peer review, 127 Perceptions of assessment, 14 Performance, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 23, 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 47, 49, 51, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 85, 87, 94, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 117, 138, 141, 147, 156, 158, 178, 179, 180, 181, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191 Performance assessment, 10, 97, 102, 109 Personal development planning, 80 Plagiarism, 5, 7, 8, 115–130, 198, 199, 215, 217 Portfolio, 21, 80, 81, 85, 88, 153, 181 Post-assessment effects, 89–91 Post-compulsory education, 154–160, 171, 206 Practice, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 22–24, 29–42, 46, 50, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 68, 73, 76, 79, 86, 87, 88, 92, 120, 122, 123, 126, 129, 133–150, 155, 156, 161, 163, 166, 170, 175–191, 193, 198, 199, 200, 206, 208, 215, 216, 218, 219–220 232 Pre-assessment effects, 89–91 Primary trait analysis, 46 Problem-solving, 76, 104, 180 Professional judgement, 1, 76, 77, 218 Professional practice, 32, 40 Purpose (of assessment), 3, 6, 14, 16, 137, 141 Q Quality assurance, 65, 133, 149, 197, 198, 204, 208 Quality Assurance Agency, 198, 208 Quasi-measurement, 1, 77, 216 R Referencing, 54, 59, 68–69, 80, 121, 123, 125, 126, 169 Reflection, 46, 80, 87, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 105, 106, 135, 142, 145, 147, 149, 175, 176, 189 Reflective writing, 134, 141, 146–149 Reflexivity, 36–37 Regulation, 23, 36, 37, 82 Relativistic students, 124 Reliability, 4, 5, 8, 34, 46, 65, 86, 94, 95, 97–99, 101, 103, 106, 108, 109, 145 Reproduction, 90, 94, 117, 118 Research, 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 35, 46, 52, 53, 71, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 96, 100, 107, 118, 124, 134, 135, 136, 139, 142, 145, 147, 153, 156, 157, 158, 176, 178, 181, 184, 186, 187, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 202, 206, 207, 210, 215, 218–219 Rubrics, 46, 51, 52, 54, 60, 62, 134, 137, 141–144, 147, 150 Rules, 45, 51, 53, 54, 57, 62, 72, 73, 76, 116, 122, 123, 124, 157, 201, 202, 203 S Scholarship, 15, 176, 184, 185, 186, 189, 215 Scholarship Reconsidered, 185 Scholarship of teaching, 185 Selection, 29, 34, 49, 54, 79, 94, 117, 155, 171 Self-assessment, 10, 15, 23, 106, 156, 163, 166, 170, 216 Self Assessment at Alverno College: Student, Program, and Institutional, 187 Self-monitoring, 48, 49, 60, 61, 62, 80, 220 Subject Index Self-regulation, 23, 36, 82 Situated action, 32 Social constructivism, 117 Social interaction, 108, 117, 177, 183, 206 Soft systems, 199–201 Standardised testing, 94, 216 Standards, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 34, 35, 39, 41, 51, 52, 55, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 109, 136, 140, 144, 145, 155, 189, 215, 216, 217 Standards-based (assessment), 34 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 4, 96 Student Assessment and Classification Working Group, 67 Substantial validity, 101 Summative assessment, 34, 36, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 89–91, 92, 93, 107, 154, 155 Summative testing, 86, 107 Surface approach, 19, 21, 22, 218 Sustainable learning, 9, 153–173 Systemic validity, 89 Systems approaches, 199, 208 T Teaching-learning-assessment cycle, 133, 134 Temporal reliability, 46 Test, 2, 20, 21, 22, 37, 38, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103, 106, 118, 140, 144, 145, 147, 150, 164, 178, 179, 180, 197, 201 Test bias, 90 Test blueprint, 144, 145 Test-driven instruction, 90 Transformation, 22, 122, 191, 200 Transmission, 156, 158 Transparency, 8, 51, 99, 100, 101, 104, 108, 109, 171, 172 U Understanding, 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 19, 23, 39, 48, 71, 80, 103, 117, 118, 122, 123, 125, 129, 135, 138, 141, 146, 153, 154–163, 165, 166, 167, 170, 177, 178, 179, 182, 187, 191, 193, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219 Unseen exam, 22, 219 Up to the Mark, 17 Subject Index V Validity, 4, 5, 8, 45, 51, 53, 54, 55, 65, 66, 72, 73, 78, 86, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95–97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 134, 144, 171 Valuing in decision-making, 177, 183 Vocational, 153–173 Vocational Qualifications, 66, 154, 155, 167 233 W Warranting, 77, 78, 79 Watchful anticipation, 203 Wellesley College, 18 Who Needs Harvard?, 175 Wicked competencies, 3, Work-based assessment, 74, 75, 76, 154 Write Now, 116, 121 Written assignment, 22, 24, 47, 198