INFORMATIVE ASSESSMENT GUIDE

The second issue that emerged from the findings was that there was no document specifically designed to guide formative assessment practice. With such a scenario both the lecturers and the students are likely to operate with a blurred image of formative assessment. For Solusi University this situation may be compounded by the absence of a teaching and learning centre for lecturers. Padro (2010:3) argues that the centres of teaching and learning (CoTLs) promote quality teaching by encouraging and providing capacity for academic staff to improve their instructional skills. As such an informative assessment guide may be a good starting point in terms of guiding the formative assessment process.

The findings of the current study indicate that the lack of an assessment guide posed challenges to both the lecturers and the students. These come especially due to insufficient information in terms of how to plan for and administer the various methods of assessing students. The logical consequence of this could be the following as pointed out by Black (2013: 209) followed by my comments on each:

Firstly, there would be confusion about the relationship between the formative and the summative tasks. When the roles of formative and summative assessment are not clear summative assessment goals will tend to feature much in formative assessment tasks. Summative assessment is intended to judge student performance at the end of a learning period. Formative assessment on the other hand is intended to monitor learning during the process of the learning experience.

In the case of Solusi University there ought to be a clear and distinct understanding of the dual use of formative assessment namely, (1) the marks and scores from the quizzes, tests and assignments should be used for the summative purpose of contributing to the final semester’s grade; (2) the same marks ought to be used as evidence that informs teaching and improves learning, (Wylie et.al. 2012:27). When this happens it would also imply that the students are not just “test experts” but active learners in the formative assessment process.

In the Theoretical Framework the BEAR assessment system addresses this confusion regarding formative and summative assessments. The second principle in the BEAR

162

assessment system suggests that assessment must be in step with instruction. These two must also accomplish the same aims of learning, (see Chapter Three, Table 3.3). In the case of Solusi University, the assessment tasks were seemingly used solely to grade students without being used as part of the instructional process.

Secondly, there would be a misunderstanding of the criteria for the quality of any assessment. When there is such a misunderstanding the value of formative assessment is diminished. The findings of this study revealed that the course objectives as well as the range of questions addressed the lower-order levels of learning categories of objectives in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives. The Theoretical Framework (see Chapter Three, Sections 3.3-3.5), contains suggestions on the criteria that may be used for judging the quality of formative assessment. This includes incorporating planning strategies that include well formulated objectives and matching instruction (Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives, The BEAR assessment system). These must be planned in such a way that students are active participants who can self-regulate the learning process in the form of instruction, assessment and most importantly, feedback (The BEAR assessment system, Self-Regulated learning).

Feedback evokes self-judgment on the part of the students thus fulfilling the self-reflection phase of self-regulated learning. It also raises the important attributes of deep learning which are premised on the constructivist learning theory (see Chapter Three, Table 3.7).

Thirdly, there would be a mistrust of teachers—justified in part by the profession’s poor grasp of assessment principles. The evidence from the findings revealed a poor grasp of assessment principles in the way formative assessment was planned and implemented. This point authenticates the need for an assessment guide to unpack some of the principles of assessment. It may serve as a reminder to some of the lecturers while to others it may even be a training module on the principles of assessment. The Theoretical Framework may be used as a template with which to prepare such a guide. In addition to that more information having to do with pedagogy and instruction may need to be included. When such is the case then the self-regulated learning approach will be adopted without any mistrust by the concerned parties.

I consider an informative assessment guide as a credible source of information in terms of theory and practice. Student involvement would be one of the areas to be addressed. In another characteristic of formative assessment, Wylie et al. (2012: 27) argue that students

163

should be engaged in the assessment process and, to the extent possible, in planning their own next steps for learning. In the case of Solusi University, the students were mere recipients of quizzes and tests without any meaningful dialogue for instructional purposes.

In this characteristic by Wylie et al. (2012: 27) the role of students in the formative assessment process is given due consideration in line with the blended nature of the theoretical framework as will be outlined based on three components as follows:

The first component is Student Self-Assessment- This assumes that students have a variety of self-evaluation techniques. These are indications that the lecturer must have involved the students as from the planning stage. As such they are aware of the learning outcomes and the success criteria for the given course/module. Student self-assessment is in effect student self- regulation which is accommodated in the Self-Regulated Learning Model (see Chapter Three, Table 3.2).

The second component is Student Peer Assessment- The insinuations by students in the current study showed that this element was not given much priority in the formative assessment process. It presupposes that the learners are active participants in their learning (constructivism), who feel a positive regard for the program material (deep learning approach) and therefore can control, monitor, and regulate their cognition (self-regulated learning); (see Chapter Three, Table 3.7). Another example is in reference to the BEAR Assessment System (see Chapter Three, Table 3.3), whereby formative assessment enables context and content dependent knowledge construction. It also supports collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation.

The third component is Follow Through- Students can only follow if they have been given the direction to go. This is in the form of intended learning outcomes (Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives). It is done within the context of self-regulated learning (Self-Regulated Learning Model). Then assessment and instruction are designed along the same goals (Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives, The BEAR Assessment System). Thus this component insists that students are part of conversations about their own learning. Once this is so then self-regulated learning is taking place.

In the findings of the research such information was not readily available at Solusi University. There was no proper documentation of teaching strategies and guidelines and all

164

the participants did not disclose any such evidence. The logical consequence of this would be inferior approaches to formative assessment in which self-regulated learning suffers.