Abstract
Assessment is perhaps the area, like no other, where the utility of information technology in education is tested. The possibilities for assessing using these technologies are expanding rapidly. In particular, new technologies afford possibilities for focusing assessment on learning as an ongoing developmental process, rather than on performance. Building on notions of assessment grounded in measurement theory, there are prospects for assessing students continuously while they learn in a developmental way through the use of data and analytics. The resulting picture of student development will then allow for a more holistic and systemic approach to assessment in the years ahead. While it is often problematic to make predictions about the future, in this chapter, I will attempt to draw on current developments to provide suggestions about where the intersections of assessment and information technologies are likely headed. That future is likely to entail more continuous, personalized forms of assessment that focus heavily on helping students to make better judgments about their own learning and development.
References
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2001). Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
Amin, T. G., & Levrini, O. (2017). Converging perspectives on conceptual change: Mapping an emerging paradigm in the learning sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.
Arguel, A., Lockyer, L., Lipp, O., Lodge, J. M., & Kennedy, G. (2017). Inside out: Ways of detecting learners confusion for successful e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(4), 526–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116674732. (pre-press version).
Bakr, M. M., Massey, W., & Alexander, H. (2013). Evaluation of Simodont® Haptic 3D virtual reality dental training simulator. International Journal of Dental Clinics, 5(4), 1–6.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615612.
Blikstein, P., Worsley, M., Piech, C., Sahami, M., Cooper, S., & Koller, D. (2014). Programming pluralism: Using learning analytics to detect patterns in the learning of computer programming. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 561–599.
Buckingham Shum, S., SÁndor, Á., Goldsmith, R., Wang, X., Bass, R., & McWilliams, M. (2016). Reflecting on reflective writing analytics: Assessment challenges and iterative evaluation of a prototype tool. In 6th international learning analytics & knowledge conference. New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883955.
Caramazza, A., & Mahon, B. Z. (2003). The organization of conceptual knowledge: The evidence from category-specific semantic deficits. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 354–361.
Clement, J. (1982). Students preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.
D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003.
Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G., & Bennett, S. (2014). The impact of students’ exploration strategies on discovery learning using computer-based simulations. Educational Media International, 51(4), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.977009.
Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166.
De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 631–642. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0386-3.
Gartner Inc. (2015). Research methodologies: Hype cycles. Stamford: Gartner. Retrieved on 10 Oct 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp.
Graesser, A., Chipman, P., Haynes, B., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 612–618.
Hays, R. T., Jacobs, J. W., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1992). Flight simulator training effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Military Psychology, 4(2), 63–74.
Horvath, J. C., & Lodge, J. M. (2017). A framework for organizing and translating science of learning research. In J. C. Horvath, J. M. Lodge, & J. A. C. Hattie (Eds.), From the laboratory to the classroom: Translating learning sciences for teachers. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1166963.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144.
Kim, Y. J., Almond, R. G., & Shute, V. J. (2016). Applying evidence-centered design for the development of game- based assessments in physics playground. International Journal of Testing, 16(2), 142–163.
Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theories and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lodge, J. M., & Corrin, L. (2017). What data and analytics can and do say about effective learning. Nature npj Science of Learning, 2(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0006-5.
Lodge, J. M., & Horvath, J. C. (2017). Science of learning and digital learning environments. In J. C. Horvath, J. M. Lodge, & J. A. C. Hattie (Eds.), From the laboratory to the classroom: Translating learning sciences for teachers. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lodge, J. M., & Kennedy, G. E. (2015). Prior knowledge, confidence and understanding in interactive tutorials and simulations. In T. Reiners, B. R. Von Konsky, D. Gibson, V. Chang, L. Irving, & K. Clarke (Eds.), Globally connected, digitally enabled (pp. 178–188). Proceedings ascilite 2015 in Perth. ASCILITE, Tugun, Qld.
Lodge, J. M., Kennedy, G., & Hattie, J. A. C. (2018). Understanding, assessing and enhancing student evaluative judgement in digital environments. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4–18.
Meyer, R. H. (1997). Value added indicators of school performance: A primer. Economics of Education Review, 16, 283–301.
Milligan, S., & Griffin, P. (2016). Understanding learning and learning design in MOOCs: A measurement-based interpretation. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.32.5.
Nitko, A. (1995). Curriculum-based continuous assessment: A framework for concepts, procedures and policy. Assessment in Education, 2(3), 321–337.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook of emotions in education. New York: Routledge.
Pieterse, V. (2013). Automated assessment of programming assignments. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 28(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/1559755.1559763.
Piromchai, P., Ioannou, I., Wijewickrema, S., Kasemsiri, P., Lodge, J. M., Kennedy, G., & O'Leary, S. (2017). The effects of anatomical variation on trainee performance in a virtual reality temporal bone surgery simulator – A pilot study. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 131(S1), S29–S35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215116009233.
Putnam, A. L., Nestojko, J. F., & Roediger, H. L. (2017). Improving student learning: Two strategies to make it stick. In J. C. Horvath, J. M. Lodge, & J. A. C. Hattie (Eds.), From the laboratory to the classroom: Translating learning sciences for teachers. Abingdon: Routledge.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.
Roediger, H. L., & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequence of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1155–1159.
Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York: Routledge.
Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer Games and Instruction, 55(2), 503–524.
Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Formative and stealth assessment. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.
Shute, V. J., & Ventura, M. (2013). Measuring and supporting learning in games: Stealth assessment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000.
van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
Webb, M., Gibson, D. C., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2013). Challenges for information technology supporting educational assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12033.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.
Woolf, B. P. (2009). Building intelligent interactive tutors. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Lodge, J.M. (2018). A Futures Perspective on Information Technology and Assessment. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Lai, KW. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education . Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_43-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_43-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53803-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53803-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education