Consequently, the comparison of the issues from all data sources together as shown in Table 5.13 gives a distinct image. The evidences from the two data generation instruments namely, interviews and document analysis have a common missing element. When the image that is portrayed is seen through the Theoretical Framework as the lens (see Chapter Three) then one is able to see what was missing in the formative assessment practices at Solusi University. What was missing is the blending of the Theoretical Framework.
The four common issues namely Performance, Assessment Guide, Assignments and Course Objectives, all speak with one voice. When these are compared to one another in reverse order it may be seen that the blending of the Theoretical Framework is missing. It begins with not having the learning objectives in place. One of the characteristics of a good assessment programme is that it should be an objective-based process, (Muzumara, 2012: 158). If the course objectives are not properly formulated then the quizzes, tests and assignments are negatively affected. The issue on “Assignments” comes about because of the imbalance and toned down levels of quizzes, tests and assignments. There were more quizzes than assignments and all these were based on lower-order levels of learning.
147
Table 5.13-Summary of The Major Issues and Outstanding Features from all Data Sources Together
Data Source
Major Issue Outstanding Features
Interviews -Performance
-Assessment Guide
-Assignments
-Course Objectives
-More quizzes than assignments -Content-based recall questions -Smaller classes preferred -Differing perspectives -No document
-Preferred over quizzes -Policy on plagiarism -Smaller classes preferred -Content-based recall questions Document Analysis -Performance -Assessment of learning -Assignments -Course Objectives -Grading -Assessment procedures
-Concept formation not given prominence
-Policy on plagiarism
-More quizzes than assignments
-Partially linked to professional standards
-Lower-order levels
Intrinsically the level at which the course objectives are pitched affects the quality of the quizzes, tests and assignments. The instructor’s choice of course learning goals and objectives is dependent on the instructor’s pedagogical knowledge and competency, (Hawk and Shah, 2014: 182). This in turn influences the choice of assessment method to use, in this case quizzes. Such a state of affairs is strongly associated with either a lack of or reluctance to apply the necessary pedagogical skills. These may easily be summarised in the form of an
148
“Assessment Guide.” Armstrong et al. (2015: 5) argue that the absence of an assessment guide deprives the lecturers and the students of a quality framework that defines and maintains academic standards. In such a situation assessment would then be perceived of in terms of a strong emphasis on the scores or marks that are awarded or acquired.
Thus “Performance” was the major issue in formative assessment at Solusi University. This was so because there was no “Assessment Guide” to inform on the criteria and standards to follow. Even though “Assignments” were preferred, more quizzes were being used so as to garner enough marks. These were then used to report on “Performance” or to check on one’s “Performance” as the measure of success. If “Performance” is the major theme then the whole assessment process is planned with that in mind. This is seen in the “Course Objectives” that were partially linked to professional standards. They were based on lower- order levels of learning which dwell more on rote learning for the sake of grading or “Performance.”
The issue of grading is provoked primarily by the demand to record the grades in the continuous assessment process. The students use these as a gauge to check their chances of completing a given course in a semester. The formative assessment process at Solusi University demands that students be given their grades at specified times. This according to Black (2013: 209) makes assessment to play only a marginal role in instruction because accountability is dominant. The net effect of this dominance is summarised in the word “Performance”.
Therefore, if “Performance” is the major theme in formative assessment I contend that such a process is clogged with hiccups. These are in effect impediments to Self-Regulated Learning. As is stated in Section 3.3, paragraph 1, Self-Regulated Learning is the bigger picture of the current study. A little more can be said about the stance taken by the Theoretical Framework in Chapter Three with regards to “Performance.” There is general consensus of most researched scholars that “Performance” poses certain challenges in formative assessment. Among these researchers are Black and William who have written many articles on formative assessment as testified by Bennet (2011: 12). In one of their articles Black and William, (2010: 82-83) bring forth the following issues about “Performance” as a problem poser in formative assessment, (I have infused my comments within each issue as it relates to the findings of the current study):
149 1. The First Issue is Effective Learning
The tests used by teachers encourage rote and superficial learning even when teachers say they want to develop understanding; many teachers seem unaware of the inconsistency.
Both data generation instruments, namely interviews and document analysis revealed that the range of questions in formative assessment was based on the lower-order levels of learning. They were mostly content-based recall questions supposedly intended to develop understanding. This compromises effective learning.
2. The Second Issue is Negative Impact
The giving of marks and the grading function are overemphasized, while the giving of useful advice and the learning function are underemphasized. Approaches are used in which pupils are compared with one another, the prime purpose of which seems to them to be competition rather than personal improvement; in consequence, assessment feedback teaches low-achieving pupils that they lack “ability,” causing them to come to believe that they are not able to learn.
The findings of the current study show that “Performance” was overemphasized more than raising the standards of learning. The various assessment instruments were thus not fully utilised as learning tools. This gives the wrong motivation for learning. The students are in competition with each other for higher marks more than for self- regulated learning. Some of them end up cheating in the quizzes because these are not written under strict examination conditions. These issues are raised in the responses to question 1b in the Lecturers’ Interview Guide.
3. The Third Issue is the Managerial Role of Assessments
Teachers’ feedback to pupils seems to serve social and managerial functions, often at the expense of the learning function. The collection of marks to fill in records is given higher priority than the analysis of pupils’ work to discern learning needs;
This was the case at Solusi University where summative assessment (assessment of learning) was given precedence over formative assessment (assessment for learning) thereby removing an interactive self-regulated learning environment. The Theoretical Framework resonates
150
with Constructivist Learning Theory which leads to Self-regulated learning. It recognises that the learners construct meaning out of an interactive learning environment that includes lecturers, peers and learning materials (see Section 3.8, paragraphs 1 and 2). Emphasising the managerial role of assessments only accommodates the third principle of the BEAR Assessment System instead of all the four of them (see Table 3.3).
5.5. SUMMARY
Finally, it is appropriate to recapitulate what has been covered in this chapter. It began with the presentation of data from the research findings. This was done according to the two data generation instruments namely, interviews and document analysis. The analysis of data was also done separately for the two data instruments. There were some dominant features which were observed so as to pave way for identifying the major issues to be discussed.
There were four conspicuous features in the data from the Focus Groups’ interviews and the interviews with the individual lecturers. They were being discussed in order to address the first research question in the current study on how the formative assessment process was being characterised by the lecturers and students at Solusi University. These features are:
1. The formative assessment process placed a strong emphasis on performance. 2. Course objectives and content were considered to be important.
3. There was a paradox on which document was used to guide assessment.
4. Assignments were preferred but for somewhat different reasons between the lecturers and students.
Data from the Course Outline Analysis Schedule and from the Quizzes, Tests and Assignments Analysis Schedule was also considered. This was being used to address the first part of the second research question on how these documents portrayed formative assessment. Data from the Course Outline Analysis Schedule yielded the following outstanding features:
1. There was a strong emphasis on performance.
2. Assignments were given preference in relation to the academic dishonesty policy. 3. The course objectives were partially linked to professional standards.
151
On the other hand, data from the Quizzes, Tests and Assignments Analysis Schedule brought out two dominant features which are;
1. There were more quizzes than assignments that were given.
2. The learning objectives that were formulated and the range of questions given covered the lower-order levels of learning.
At the end of the day four major issues which are common to all data sources were presented and discussed. The issues were used to address the second part of the second research question on how the findings from the interviews and document analysis compared with each other. These are:
1. Performance 2. Assessment Guide 3. Assignments 4. Course Objectives.
Using the Theoretical Framework as a lens, the interpretation of data from all the sources together brought forth one major theme around which all the other themes revolve. The major theme that is sticking out is “Performance.” This is the obsession to award or receive a mark or score in the formative assessment process by lecturers and students respectively. Such an approach to have all themes revolve around “Performance” posed some challenges to the formative assessment process. These were identified and discussed on the basis of the theories that underpin this study in order to show their negative effects. It becomes imperative at this stage to explore the major contributions of the Theoretical Framework to formative assessment.
152 CHAPTER SIX
USING THE SELF-REGULATED LEARNING APPROACH TO ENHANCE FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICES
6.1. INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of this study was partially to explore what the true worth or value of formative assessment was in the context of self-regulated learning. I specifically investigated the quality of formative assessment at Solusi University from the perspectives of both lecturers and students, and from studying key documents such as course outlines. I also sought to determine how formative assessment in the institution could be enhanced.
So far the findings of this report have shown how the quality of formative assessment is characterised by the lecturers and the students. The focus of this chapter is to discuss what I learn from the study regarding how formative assessment can be enhanced. But in order to do so I shall first summarise the research journey that I have travelled out of which came the key findings. It is from these findings that the major learnings will be gleaned. Subsequent to that in another section I will make the major recommendations on the basis of what I learn from this study and then the conclusions will be done in the last section.