Assessments

4.0 Introduction

Traditionally, assessments are viewed as separate from teaching and learning. That is, to check if students did acquire the intended knowledge and skills. Such an approach is evident in Biggs' (1996, 2003, 2012) concept of constructive alignment, where assessments are viewed as distinct from teaching and learning. Summarising the concept of constructive alignment, Biggs (2003) explains that an aligned system is one where the desired learning outcomes (both in terms of topic content and level of understanding) are formulated and communicated, and then a conducive environment is set to entrap students to engage in the activities that lead to the achievement of the intended learning outcomes. The author then suggests assessments as the final part of the system that enables us to check if students did attain the intended learning outcomes in terms of acceptable grades. Even though I do subscribe to the concept of constructive alignment, I, however, have a problem with the conception of assessments, which is what I elucidate on this subpage. I offer my understanding of what is/are assessment(s), connecting it to my onto-epistemological views and more importantly, how I conduct assessments.

By nature, metaphysics is contemporarily in the business of explaining the fundamental structure of reality that grounds everything else (Mikkola, 2015). Biesta (2015) sees metaphysics (educational philosophy) as a discussion of the question of how education works, and Baker (2012) says it represents a multi-dimensional map of a domain of learning. To me, the educational philosophy is the manifestation of the purposes of education. Such purposes include preserving values, beliefs, customs, rituals, and knowledge, and also providing for change (Bass, 1997) and the development of individuals, their identity, agency and ability to participate in society. Such a view is corroborated by Biesta (2012), who argues that education is a teleological practice framed and constituted by purposes that fall into three broad categories. That is, "the domain of qualification, the domain of socialisation and the domain of subjectification" (p.584).

In the qualification domain, an assessment takes a summative view espoused by Biggs (2003) - checking if knowledge and skills and, to a certain extent also, values and dispositions of a field (in my case, marketing) are acquired. The domain of socialisation is underpinned by sociocultural theory as set out by Lave (1988), which focuses on inclusivity - allowing all to thrive and be respected. Then, subjectification refers to how education contributes to the formation of certain ‘qualities' of the person as an individual is a better illustration of the humanist approach to education. For the domains of socialisation and subjectification, my assessment practice seeks to allow students to open up the marketing discipline, and enable them to participate in the discourses thereof without stripping them of their social capital. Thus, I design my assessments to allow students to dialogue and exert their 'being' in the discipline. Doing so preserves their dignity (humanises them ) compared to assessments alienates from marketing discourses. In the next section, I illustrate how I practicalise my assessments.

4.2 Assessment and Learning

In my introduction above, I problematised the separation of assessments from teaching and learning. Such an approach takes a summative view of assessment, also known as the "assessment of learning", where the purpose is to check if the intended learning outcomes were indeed acquired. However, it is my conception that even though we cannot do away with the summative use of assessment (at least now), we have to place much emphasis on assessment as/for learning, thus view it as part of teaching and learning activities than separate. My view is supported in the literature; for example, Mohammed et al. (2012) assert that assessment can no longer be isolated from the learning process; it has become a tool for learning. Boud (1995) called for a holistic view of assessment. For Dixon, Hawe and Parr (2011), assessment for learning integrates teaching, learning and assessment into a system that "is student-centred, facilitative and interactive" (p. 366). Thus, below I demonstrate how I employ various assessment tasks not only for summative purposes but also to promote learning.

I employ various educational technologies to enhance my teaching and learning activities (including assessment) in a bid to develop 21st-century graduates. Moreover, educational technology enables me to do assessments synchronously, that is, in real-time - as students work on tasks and/or asynchronously. For instance, I use group assignments on Google Docs where group members are expected to learn and/or be able to work in a diverse team located in different geographic places. Using various features of Google Docs, other critical cross-field outcomes such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, digital literacies and organisation are also inculcated. I use rubrics to direct students' learning through assessments and provide the quality expectations of each criterion of the given task. As avered by Reddy and Andrade (2010), the "quality definitions provide a detailed explanation of what a student must do to demonstrate a skill, proficiency or criterion to attain a particular level of achievement" (p. 435).

Even though I am against the competitive approach to assessments, I still do give students individual work where they can demonstrate their individual learning achievements (in terms of intended learning outcomes) and learning needs. This is important to understand who are "Susans" and "Roberts" (Biggs, 2012), the 'free riders' in group work and for devising individualised learning and assessment tasks. For individual work, they do individual assignments, Fligrid reflections (join using Google), Quizziz tasks and Edpuzzle video quizzes. The educational tools bring a lot of affordances that gamify assessments, inculcate digital literacy (and confidence) and, more importantly, entrap students into deep learning approaches. Besides the traditionally given feedback on scripts, I also use generalised feedback in class, where I note the common mistakes or issues/patterns from the students' work (watch this class recording). This is my other way of dealing with large numbers, which often makes it challenging to have one-to-one feedback. I also use screencasts to assess and give feedback and allow peer assessments where students assess each other. I must confess that I often had difficulties with the latter as students tend to be biased. To address this problem, peer assessments are now guided by rubrics. Finally, and for compliance, I conduct written examinations for summative purposes.