An instrumental response to the instrumental student: Assessment for learning

Askham, Phil

doi:10.1016/s0191-491x(97)86212-8

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A plausible explanation may be found in the conflicting nature of the student-activating teaching methods and the conventional closed-book multiple-choice test that followed instruction; the case of an unsuccessful constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996). Due to the incompatibility of instructional and assessment methods (Askham, 1997;Biggs, 1996;Shepard, 2000), one might expect that if students are to evaluate their course experiences, such as goals and standards, generic skills, independence, workload, and good teaching, that ambiguity and conflicting thoughts on ''the course'' (which is considered an entity in the CEQ) are assured and will display insignificant effects and low effect sizes as a consequence. Inversely, the instruction-by-assessment settings that best align learning, instruction and assessment (Biggs, 1996) demonstrate beautifully the positive effects of students' experiences with the course on their appraisal of the teaching in that course.…”

Section: Course Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Explaining students' appraisal of lectures and student-activating teaching: perceived context and student characteristics

Struyven

Dochy

Janssens

2012

Interactive Learning Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During lectures, some students are continuously focused and attentive, whereas others tend to be bored, jittery, or inattentive. The same might happen when students are given student-activating assignments. Some students simply love one type of instruction, whereas others tend to resent it. Moreover, it is not the context itself, but the context as it is perceived by the student that affects learning. This study sets out to discover how students view instruction, based on their experiences with a particular setting, and aims to investigate the effects of ''context-by-student'' characteristics, such as students' course experiences, and the effects of ''student-by-context'' features, such as approaches to learning. The research has a quasi-experimental design and compares a lecture-based setting with student-activating teaching methods (i.e. self-discovery learning by means of authentic tasks with the help of a scaffolding approach); followed by one of four assessment methods: a multiple-choice test, a case-based examination, a peer assessment or a portfolio assessment. Data (N ¼ 579) were collected by means of validated questionnaires, comprising the ASSIST and LSQ instruments and the course experience questionnaire. Results demonstrate that students' appraisal of the assessment method, their course experiences and the teaching methods that are dominant in the setting contribute positively to students' appraisal of instruction. Interestingly, this conclusion applies to both the lecture-based and the student-activating groups and to both conventional assessment methods and new modes of assessment. Moreover, deep approaches to learning, monitoring studying and/or organized studying, as well as preferences for courses that support understanding, positively affect students' appraisal of student-activating teaching methods. In short, both student-by-context and context-by-student features prove to be strong predictors of students' appraisal of instruction and, as a consequence, student learning.

show abstract

Section: Course Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Explaining students' appraisal of lectures and student-activating teaching: perceived context and student characteristics

Struyven

Dochy

Janssens

2012

Interactive Learning Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite a database of over 700 citations, including recent working papers, there are only three papers listed that have a specific interest in assessment practice. Askham (1997) who examines two-way feedback in a portfolio of assessment but from the point of view of general education; Bilen et al (2005) whose main focus is on the programme design of Penn State's engineering entrepreneurship programme where the secondary focus is assessment practice; and, Reid and Petocz (2004) who examine different assessment techniques designed for assessing creativity [2]. While recognising the limitations of both the SLR and the NCGE's bibliographical database it does seem that there is a paucity of work specifically addressing assessment practice in enterprise education published in entrepreneurship journals.…”

Section: Assessment Practice In Education 71mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment practice in enterprise education

Pittaway

Hannon²,

Gibb

et al. 2009

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &Amp; Research

126

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This paper aims to introduce current debates on assessment practice in higher education and to explore educational research on assessment. Design/methodology/approach-The paper progresses by exploring a number of outcomes and highlights their role in helping one to understand the potential reasons for engaging in enterprise education. The paper then applies this outcomes framework to assessment practice. It does so by reporting a series of focus groups undertaken at the International Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) Conference in 2005. Findings-The focus groups engaged over 40 entrepreneurship and small business academics in a brainstorming exercise, which explored forms of assessment that could be used to meet particular outcomes in enterprise education. These results are presented according to different potential entrepreneurial outcomes. Originality/value-The concluding part of the paper categorises these practices to develop and present the views of the participants and it provides a detailed analysis of assessment practice in enterprise education.

show abstract

“…While they are likely making a valid point the evidence on which they are able to draw to justify the argument is inherently limited as there is little existing research on what entrepreneurship educators actually “do” when engaging in assessment. For example, few studies appear to address assessment practice to a significant degree (MacFarlane and Tomlinson, 1993; Askham, 1997; Reid and Petocz, 2004; Bilen et al , 2005; Pittaway et al , 2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). It seems that while researchers can debate assessment in entrepreneurship education based on a disciplinary or pedagogic point of view, this debate may have little value unless researchers become more aware about the actual practices used.…”

Section: Unpicking Assessment Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment: examining practice in entrepreneurship education

Pittaway

Edwards

2012

Education + Training

242

263

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop knowledge about the nature of student assessment practice in entrepreneurship education.Design/methodology/approachThis paper introduces general assessment practice issues and highlights key considerations. It explains prior research on assessment practice in entrepreneurship education and argues that there is too little empirical research on the subject. Finally, it outlines a typology of entrepreneurship education that highlights variation between different: forms; learning outcomes; subjects; and, possible methods of assessment practice. The methodology for the study gathers data from course outlines (syllabi) and explains how these were collected and analysed.FindingsThe results show that educational practice in entrepreneurship education continues to be dominated by the “About” form and highlight that there are different cultures of assessment practice in the UK and the USA. The paper finds compelling evidence that different forms are using assessment in different ways.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper identifies that there have been few studies exploring assessment practice in entrepreneurship education and argues that further research is required in this area. It also highlights a need for a focus on assessment practice in disciplines beyond the business school. The work demonstrates that further research could explore other stakeholders in the assessment process and seek to understand how these external assessors affect student learning.Practical implicationsIn conclusion, the paper highlights that assessment generally needs to become more innovative, more reflective in nature and include more stakeholders in the process.Originality/valueUnderstanding is enhanced because the paper explores what entrepreneurship educators actually “do” when they assess entrepreneurship education and, therefore, the research moves beyond prescriptive accounts and provides a detailed understanding of actual practice.

show abstract

An instrumental response to the instrumental student: Assessment for learning

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

Explaining students' appraisal of lectures and student-activating teaching: perceived context and student characteristics

Explaining students' appraisal of lectures and student-activating teaching: perceived context and student characteristics

Assessment practice in enterprise education

Assessment: examining practice in entrepreneurship education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About