Advertisement

Technologies to Support the Assessment of Complex Learning in Capstone Units: Two Case Studies

  • Margot McNeillEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Capstone or final year units in a program of study ideally provide an opportunity for students to integrate the knowledge and learning experiences from their whole degree program. These units have the potential to scaffold students to synthesise their discipline knowledge with intellectual skills to equip them for dealing with complex situations in the next phases of their careers, whether their transition is to the workplace or further study. While these intentions may be clear, the task of designing the learning and assessment activities can be challenging for academics; firstly in managing an already crowded curriculum and secondly in devising assessment strategies that adequately reflect students’ achievements in complex domains. This chapter examines two case studies from an Australian research-intensive university which use a range of technologies to support and assess complex learning in different domains. Characteristics of capstone units are first explored. The case studies are then explained, in terms of the learning outcomes addressed, scaffolding during the unit and the assessment strategies used. A framework for describing the affordances of a range of technologies in supporting and assessing complex learning in capstones or other units is presented.

Keywords

Educational technologies Assessment Complex learning Capstone units 

References

  1. Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airsasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. AQF, C. (2009). Strengthening the AQF: A proposal. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.aqf.edu.au/pdf/Strengthening%20the%20AQF%20Consultation%20Paper.pdf
  3. Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 53–75.Google Scholar
  4. Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S., & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and embedding graduate attributes: bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21(1), 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd Ed). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  8. Boulos, M. K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41).Google Scholar
  9. Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (Eds.). (2006). Innovative assessment in higher education. Abington: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, M. (2006). Tools for the mind. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 48–53.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.Google Scholar
  12. Byrnes, R., & Ellis, A. (2006). The prevalence and characteristics of online assessment in Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 104–125.Google Scholar
  13. Churchill, D. (2007). Blogs, other Web 2.0 technologies and possibilities for educational applications. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on Informatics, Educational Technology and New Media, Sombor, Serbia, March/April, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Clarkson, B., & Brook, C. (2007). Achieving synergies through generic skills: A strength of online communities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 248–268.Google Scholar
  15. Collier, P. (2000). The effects of completing a capstone course on student identity. Sociology of Education, 73(4), 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Creswell, J., & Piano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Crisp, G. (2007). The e-assessment handbook. New York: Continuum International.Google Scholar
  18. Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Gardiner, J. (1999). The senior year experience (Vol. March/April 1999). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Hewitt, J., & Peters, V. (2006, June 2006). Using wikis to support knowledge building in a graduate education course. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA) 2006 Chesapeake, VA.Google Scholar
  22. Humphrey Brown, A., & Benson, B. (2005). Making sense of the capstone process: reflection from the front line. Education, 125(4), 674–692.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H., & Campbell, J. P. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. (Eds.). (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Khalifa, M., & Kwok, R. C.-W. (1999). Remote learning technologies: Effectiveness of hypertext and GSS. Decision Support Systems, 26(3), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeill, M., Gosper, M., & Hedberg, J. (2008). Engaging students with higher order learning (or not): insights into academic practice. Paper presented at the ATN Assessment Conference, Adelaide, South Australia. November, 2008Google Scholar
  27. Nicol, D. J., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment in terms of the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Ed.), Innovative assessment in higher education. London: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  28. Northcote, M. (2003). Online assessment in higher education: The influence of pedagogy on the construction of students’ epistemologies. Issues In Educational Research, 13. pp. 66–84Google Scholar
  29. Philips, R., & Lowe, K. (2003). Issues associated with the equivalence of traditional and online assessment. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of ACSILITE: Interact, Integrate, Impact, Adelaide, South Australia, December, 2003Google Scholar
  30. Race, P. (2001). The lecturer’s toolkit: A practical guide to learning, teaching and assessment. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  31. Race, P. (2006). The Lecturer’s Toolkit (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (pp. 22–35). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  33. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (2002). Identifying academics’ orientations to assessment practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 43, 173–201.Google Scholar
  34. Shephard, K. (2009). E is for exploration: Assessing hard-to-measure learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stephenson, J., & Yorke, M. (Eds.). (1998). Capability and quality in higher education. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  36. van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding Journal Instructional Science, 32(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams, D. (1999). Transitions: managing personal and organisational change. ACDM Newsletter.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, J. (2006). The place of the closed book, invigilated final examination in a knowledge economy. Educational Media International, 43(2), 107–119.Google Scholar
  40. Zemsky, R., & Massey, W. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44), B6–B8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations