This blog post addresses three areas of assessments and learning behaviour. The first area describes the importance of assessments and their contribution to learning. The second area deals with the interplay of formative and summative assessments to guide learning, and the final area addresses a research-backed technology tool called bywyd that can enhance the learning experience of students and the teaching experience of teachers.
Why Assessment?
We know that assessment guides learning processes and learning behaviour[1] and that assessment can act as the “bridge between teaching and learning”[2]. We also know that if assessments are used carelessly, they can hinder or prevent higher-order thinking skills.[3] The more thoughtfully we design assessments and integrate them consistently into teaching and learning, the more likely that we can nudge and can foster learning towards higher cognitive levels.
Assessments are not only used to foster learning, they are also used to prevent forgetting, which is another essential element in education. This dual functionality of assessments is consistent with “constructive alignment”[4] which argues that learning objectives, teaching and learning methods, assessments, and the learning environment must all be in alignment to support learning. To take constructive alignment to the next level, we postulate a process called “constructive entanglement” which argues that learning and assessments should not only be aligned but rather should be considered as an integrated process in which assessment is intrinsically and homogenously woven into the learning process. A technology tool like bywyd can be used to implement “constructive entanglement” in the classroom.
Formative and Summative Assessment Drives Learning
Approximately 70% of students are not intrinsically motivated and are rather passive about learning.[5] They generally approach assessments from a need-to-know basis; that is, they tend to attain only what is required to pass an exam or test. Thus, they start learning only when they really need to, and they “cram”[6] if they are to be examined summatively. But summative assessments are not altogether pointless despite their sometimes, bad reputation; they also fulfil important functions. For instance, summative assessments gives learners clues as to which subject areas they can develop their greatest potential. They help learners determine if they have met the requirements to achieve certain educational standards or attained the required competencies to fill important positions. Summative assessments can also guide others without domain knowledge to estimate and assess the qualification of an expert. If you were to put your hand on your heart, would you not care about a surgeon’s degree if s/he were to operate on you right there?
Formative assessments on the other hand, can be an extremely useful tool for improving learning, minimizing forgetting and for changing students’ behaviour. By continuous assessment and interaction, students are stimulated to continuously learn, especially if the frequency of interactions is timed wisely. Using the benefits of the spacing effect[7] by continuously increasing the time interval of repetition adapted to the learning objectives, assessment can improve the long-term retention over the need to restudy material, known as the testing effect[8]. Formative assessment is way more than executing quizzes or evaluating assignments. It can even enhance the learner's intrinsic motivation[9], if it is fairly applied.
bywyd: A Tool to Make Use of the Full Potential of Assessment
Both formative and summative assessments have merit. Constructive entanglement means that formative and summative assessment can be combined and integrated into everyday teaching and learning in a fluent and scientifically proven way.
bywyd[10] is a tool that is designed to be integrated seamlessly and minimally invasively into students’ learning. With a click, the tool allows the teacher to share materials, software or other learning technologies so that they are displayed to the students on their screens without additional installation required. While the students for example solve tasks with the software alone or in groups, the teacher can track their progress online and provide general or individual feedback when needed. In case students have difficulties following the lesson, they can give a sign or mark passages which they do not understand.
If lessons are to be held without digital support, bywyd can be used for a knowledge check in between. For example, small comprehension checks can be implemented to review to what extent students have understood the material. Tests that are like ConcepTests introduced by Eric Mazur[11], or self-tests[12], provide information about the state of knowledge of the students.
Through individualisation, pupils are optimally supported and challenged during their learning experience and they receive a lot of feedback about their learning progress. Under- or over-challenging is minimised with the implementation of bywyd. The rather complex information about individual learning and progress which is processed in the background is presented for lecturers and students in an intuitive and easily understandable way. This ‘translation’ into directly implementable actions aims to promote potential, identify gaps in knowledge, foster repetition and learning, and reduce forgetting as best as possible.
When it comes to the use of summative assessment methods to evaluate the success of the formative approach at the end of a learning period, bywyd offers a highly secure yet flexible solution, that prevents cheating.[13] Students who utilize bywyd in class for formative assessments during the semester become familiar with the tool until their summative assessments. Such familiarity reduces the typical anxiety and fear that students feel during final exams. According to “constructive alignment” and “constructive entanglement”, software which is used in the classroom can also be used securely in examinations. Lecturers and students only need their own devices to conduct a secure online exam with bywyd. Except electricity, no infrastructure is required at the school so that every room can be used for the examination without preparation.
Win-For-All[14]
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that “there is no perfect test, since there is always noise in the measurement and students should not become victim of that.“[15] Thus, to benefit from the manifold advantages of assessment, examinations have to be fair. The more test information we gather of students “the more reliable high-stakes decisions will be.”[16]
By analysing various assessments of students, bywyd contributes to the reliability of the examination and consequently to the grading. Hence, there is win for all stakeholders. For students, they achieve fair grades and benefit the more from the extended feedback. They also increasingly trust the results they receive enabling them to develop their full potential and improve the quality of their lifes. For lecturers, they are spared the work of correcting examinations (e.g. by not having to decipher handwriting or by automated evaluation of standardised question types) and they receive the required support to help their students. For the rest of society such as potential patients or beneficiaries of public infrastructure, they are able to receive hints whether a person is capable of performing their professional function in a qualified manner. This results in potential savings in public health or criminal justice costs.[17]
To sum up
Assessments have a significant impact on learning. Even summative results can be used formatively to improve learning. However, with conscious selection and deliberate use of formative and summative assessments, we have tremendous potential to keep learning on track and enhance learning that is just waiting to be unleashed with new technologies.[18]
References
[1] Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998), Assessment and Classroom Learning, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Carfax, Oxfordshire, 5:1, 7-74; Müller, F. (2012), Prüfen an Universitäten. Wie Prüfungen das Lernen steuern. In: Universität in Zeiten von Bologna. Zur Theorie und Praxis von Lehr- und Lernkulturen. Ed.: Kossek, B., Zwiauer, C., Vienna University Press, 121–132.
[2] Wiliam, D. (2013), Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Voices from the Middle, 21:2, 15-20.
[3] Newble, D. & Jaeger, K. (1983), The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Medical Education 17, 165-171.
[4] Biggs, J.B. (1999), Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.
[5] Biggs, J.B. (1999), What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Development, 18:1, 57-75.
[6] Kornell, N. (2009), Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297–1317.
[7] Kornmeier, J., Sosic-Vasic, Z. & Joos, E. (2022): Spacing learning units affects both learning and forgetting. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 26.
[8] Schwieren, J., Barenberg, J. & Dutke, S. (2017), The Testing Effect in the Psychology Classroom: A Meta-Analytic Perspective. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16:2, 179-196; Roediger, H.L. & Karpicke, J.D. (2006), Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science, 17:3, 249-255.
[9] van der Vleuten, C. (1996), The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Advances in Health Sciences Education 1:1, 41-67.
[11] https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/conctest.html
[12] Rodriguez, F. et al. (2021), Do spacing and self-testing predict learning outcomes? Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 22(1), 77–91.
[13] Frankl. G. et al (2019), Pathways to Successful Online Testing: eExams with the “Secure Exam Environment” (SEE). In: Computer Supported Education. CSEDU 2018. Eds.: McLaren, B., (et al.), 1022, Springer, 231-250; Frankl. G. et al (2018), The “Secure Exam Environment” for Online Testing at the Universität Klagenfurt / Austria, In: Tomorrow’s Learning: Involving Everyone – Learning with and about technologies and computing. Eds.: Tatnall, A., Webb, M.E., Springer.
[14] Frankl, G. (2012), Common Benefits and Goal Cooperativeness as Driving Forces for Knowledge Management. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Knowledge Management. ECKM 2012, Ed.: Cegarra, J. G., Academic Publishing International Limited, 341-349.
[15] Cecilio-Fernandes, D., Cohen-Schotanus, J. & Tio, R. A. (2018), Assessment programs to enhance learning. Physical Therapy Reviews, 23:1, 17-20.
[16] Van der Vleuten, C. et al. (2012), A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Medical Teacher, 34:3, 205–214.
[17] Wiliam, D. & Thompson, M. (2007), Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In: The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning, Eds.: Dwyer, C. A., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[18] Frankl, G. (2020), Digitalisierung macht Schule. Wie das soziale Gefüge Schule digital gestärkt werden kann, um neue Herausforderungen zu meistern. Erziehung & Unterricht, 1-2.
Please log in or sign up to comment.