assessment

**4. Online Assessment**

Online assessment, particularly assessed discussion, is examined here. While it can facilitate dialogue, improve the immediacy of feedback, and support self-evaluative and self-regulated learning (HEFCE, 2010), good practice is still emerging. Online assessment is highlighted here because of the creative integration of blended and traditional forms and the use of group-based online assessment.

Guidelines highlight good practice in assessment of online discussion. Nicol (2009) presents twelve principles of good assessment and feedback while, in relation to online learning, HEFCE (2010) provides guidelines and Palloff and Pratt (2008) suggest seven rules of best practice. Elliot (2010) completed a review of rubrics for online discussion and synthesised his findings into four principles. The table below summarises the key elements extrapolated from these guidelines and used as the basis for this review. //**Agency.**// It is unclear whether learners can input into assessment policy and practice, but there are three different types of assessement task with which they can engage. The lecturer is aware of the need for learner agency, and says that more assessed activities were introduced, 'which actually gave better control to students over the manner in which they studied'. The assessed discussion activities also offer choice as students can select their own cases on which to focus.
 * Agency || Do learners have input into assessment design and practice? Choice of assessment types and topics? ||
 * Alignment || Does assessment activity align with learning outcomes and encourage effort on appropriate activities? ||
 * Clarity || Is it clear what students are expected to do? Is it apparent what high quality entails? Do detailed grading rubrics exist? ||
 * Dialogue || Does assessment encourage peer interaction, collaboration and the provision of feedback to others? ||
 * Feedback || Is feedback timely and high-quality? Are there opportunities for learners to act on feedback? ||
 * Originality || Does assessment encourage originality and minimise cheating? Do tasks utilise the unique characteristics of of the medium? ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Reflection || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Is self-evaluation and self-assessment facilitated? Are learners encouraged to critically self-reflect? ||

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">//**Alignment.**// Constructive alignment in the course design is apparent in that the sample discussion activities clearly link to elements in the lecture and tutorials schedule, and non-assessed teaching activities.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">//**Clarity.**// Requirements for the assessed tasks were clear, but there were no rubrics for assessment of online discussion, which could make it difficult for learners to gauge 'high quality' and to know what was expected. The assessment criteria are expressed as 'relevance and quality and in accordance with the Law marking conventions', which is vague.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">//**Dialogue.**// The assessed discussion is a collaborative assignment, so there are opportunities to work with others and provide peer feedback (both face-to-face and online), however, because of the group nature of the task there are also possibilities for non-engagement by individual group members.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">//**Feedback.**// For the online discussion, the deadline is to too late to make use of feedback provided, however essay feedback is available earlier so students have an opportunity to receive formal feedback earlier in the course. Students also benefit from formative online tutor dialogue and peer feedback throughout.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">//**Originality.**// The assessed online discussion is group-based and involves the selection of unique cases, so encourages originality. However the group element (and the small percentage contribution to overall mark) might mean that group members chose not to participate. While there is a general statement available on plagiarism, there is no explicit guidance provided.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">//**Reflection.**// There is limited evidence of self-evaluation or self-reflection in the assessed work for this module. The essay requires 'critical evaluation' but not in a self-reflective sense, and the online collaborative tasks do not explicitly require reflection (although this may be apparent in some of the postings). However, self-reflection is not an intended learning outcomeof this module so might be less relevant here.