Advertisement

Technologies and the Assessment of Higher Order Outcomes

A Snapshot of Academic Practice in Curriculum Alignment
  • Margot McNeillEmail author
  • Maree Gosper
  • John Hedberg
Chapter
  • 1.1k Downloads

Abstract

Alignment between the intended learning outcomes, the teaching and learning activities and the assessment tasks is one of the keys to student engagement, to involve students in a ‘web of consistency’ (Biggs, Teaching for quality learning at university.p 26 2007). While higher order learning such as evaluation, problem solving and creative thinking; espoused as fundamentals of university learning, appear in many graduate attribute statements, previous studies suggest that designing the curriculum to elicit and assess these higher order learning outcomes poses a challenge for academics (McNeill, Gosper and Hedberg, 2010. Emerging Web 2.0 technologies have been heralded as having potential to support this type of assessment, yet in order to take advantage of these affordances, academics need the skills to integrate them into the curriculum to support learning and assessment. This paper reports the results of a survey conducted in an Australian University to explore the types of learning outcomes academics target in their curricula and how technologies are used to assess these outcomes. The results suggest that while many academics intend higher order outcomes, they are less likely to design their teaching activities or assessment tasks accordingly. Amongst the implications of the study is the need to support unit convenors in designing their curriculum to take advantage of the potential for emerging tools to support assessment of higher order outcomes.

Keywords

Higher-order Results Higher-order Learning Outcomes Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) Assessment Tasks (ATs) Moderate Extent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3 rd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  4. Böttger, M., & Röll, M. (2004). Weblog Publishing as Support for Exploratory Learning on the World Wide Web. Paper presented at the Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA) 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Boulos, M. K., and, 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
  6. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bower, M., Hedberg, J., & Kuswara, A. (2009). Conceptualising Web 2.0 enabled learning designs. In Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Auckland, (pp. 1153–1162).Google Scholar
  8. Bradshaw, A. C., Bishop, J. L., Gens, L. S., Miller, S. L., & Rogers, M. A. (2002). The relationship of the World Wide Web to thinking skills. Educational Media International, 39, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, M. (2005). Tools for the mind. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 49–53.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Crisp, G. (2007). The e-assessment handbook. New York: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Gosper, M. (2011). A Framework for Matching Aims, Processes, Learner Expertise and Technologies. In Ifenthaler, D., Isaias, P., Spector, J.M., Kinshuk, Sampson, D. (Eds.) Multiple Perspectives on Problem Solving and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Gray, K., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., Clerehan, R., & Hamilton, M. (2010). Students as Web 2.0 authors: Implications for assessment design and conduct. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hewitt, J., & Peters, V. (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), Chesapeake, VA.Google Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Ma, A. W. (2009). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and Higher Order Thinking Skills: A Case Study of Textile Studies Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNeill, M., Gosper, M., & Hedberg, J. (2008). Engaging students with higher order learning (or not): insights into academic practice. A paper presented at the ATN Assessment Conference, November 2008.Google Scholar
  19. McNeill, M. (2010). Technologies to support the assessment of complex learning in capstone units: Two case studies. In Ifenthaler, D., Isaias, P., Spector, J.M., Kinshuk, Sampson, D. (Eds.) Multiple Perspectives on Problem Solving and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. McNeill, M., Gosper, M. & Hedberg, J. (2010a). Academic practice in aligning learning outcomes, assessment strategies and technologies: Joining the dots (or not). In M. B. Nunes & M. McPherson (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 129–138). Freiburg, Germany: IADIS.Google Scholar
  21. McNeill, M. Gosper, M. & Hedberg, J. (2010b). Technologies to transform assessment: a study of learning outcomes, assessment and technology use in an Australian university In C. Steel, M.J. Keppell & P. Gerbic, Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ASCILITE Sydney 2010. Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (2002). Identifying academics’ orientations to assessment practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 43, 173–201.Google Scholar
  24. Shephard, K. (2009). E is for exploration: Assessing hard-to-measure learning outcomes British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations