students perceptions about assessment in higher education

7/26/2019 Students Perceptions About Assessment in Higher Education

1/36

Students Perceptions about Assessment

Students Perceptions about Assessment in Higher

Education: a Review

Katrien Struyven

Filip Dochy

Steven Janssens

University of Leuven (K.U.Leuven),

Centre for Researc on !eacer and "i#er $ducation

Paper presented at te %oint &ortumbria' $ari S* Assessment and $vauation

Conference+ Learnin# communities and assessment cutures, University of &ortumbria at

&ecaste, Lon#irst Campus, -ednesday / 0 1riday 23 Au#ust 33.

Katrien Struyven, K.U.Leuven, Centre for Research on Teacher and Higher Education,

Vesaliusstraat 2, !!! Leuven, "elgiu#. Tele$hone% &2 '( 2 (! 2). *a+% &2 '( 2 (2

-. E#ail%Katrien.Struyven$ed./uleuven.ac.0e

4
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/36


Abstract

Learnin#, from a constructivist point of vie, is seen as a constructive act of te earner.

Aon# it te can#es in earnin# teory, severa instructiona innovations and aternative

assessment metods found teir ays into educationa practice. 5ut are tese innovations

as successfu as tey promise to be6 n tis revie, te caracteristics and impact of

assessment are e7amined from te students point of vie. Researc findin#s su##est tat

students perceptions about assessment, ave considerabe infuences on students

approaces to earnin#. 5ut aso vice versa, students approaces infuence te ays in

ic students perceive assessment. 1urtermore, it as found tat students od stron#

vies about different formats and metods of assessment. 1or e7ampe, itin

conventiona assessment, mutipe coice format e7ams are seen as favourabe assessment

metods in comparison to essay type 8uestions. 5ut en conventiona assessment and

aternative assessment metods are compared, students perceive aternative assessment as

bein# more 9fair tan te traditiona 9norma assessment metods.

Key 1ords% Students perceptions, (aternative and conventiona) assessment, student

earnin#, approaces to earnin#, i#er education.


3/36


Structure and purpose of this review

Learnin#, accordin# to te atest 9constructivist earnin# teories, is essentiay+ (4)

constructive, () cumuative, (2) sef0 re#uated, (:) #oa0 oriented, (;) situated, (e Corte, 4??ocy, Se#ers, 5ue, 4???). !ese

can#es in earnin# teory #o to#eter it innovations in instruction and evauation+ ne

instructiona metods are introduced in educationa practice, te atest tecnoo#ies and

media are used, and aternative modes of assessment are impemented (5irenbaum, 4??


4/36


bot incuded. 1irst, a specific code is #iven to eac artice, e.#. 4??


5/36


participantsF assessment tas@s ic are autentic, meanin#fu and en#a#in#F assessments

ic mirror reaistic conte7ts, in contrast it te artificia time constraints and imited

access to support avaiabe in conventiona e7amsF focus on bot te process and products

of earnin#F and moves aay from sin#e test0 scores toards a descriptive assessment

based on a ran#e of abiities and outcomes (Sambe, Ec>oe 5ron, 4??=).

n tis part of te revie, te iterature and researc on students perceptions about

assessment are revieed. !e reation beteen and impact of (perceived) caracteristics

about assessment on students approaces to earnin# and vice versa, are e7amined and

discussed. &e7t, students perceptions about different assessment formats and metods are

presented, incudin#+ open0 ended format versus mutipe coice format e7aminationsF

portfoio assessmentF sef0, peer and overa assessmentF simuationsF and finay, aso more

#enera perceptions of students about assessment are investi#ated.

ssess#ent and $$roaches to learning

Assessment is one of te definin# features of te students approaces to earnin#

(e.#. Earton SGDH, 4??=F $ntiste $ntiste, 4??4F Ramsden, 4??=). n tis part of

te revie, an attempt is made to #ain insi#t into te reations beteen (perceived)

assessment properties and students approaces to earnin# and studyin#.

Approaces to earnin#

-en students are as@ed for teir perceptions about earnin#, mainy tree

approaces to earnin# occur. Surface approaces to earnin# describe an intention to

compete te earnin# tas@ it itte persona en#a#ement, seein# te or@ as an

unecome e7terna imposition. !is intention is often associated it routine and

unrefective memoriIation and procedura probem sovin#, it restricted conceptua

;


6/36


understandin# bein# an inevitabe outcome ($ntiste Ramsden, 4?/2F !ri#e

Prosser, 4??4F $ntiste, EcCune, -a@er, 334). >eep approaces to earnin#, in

contrast, ead from an intention to understand, to active conceptua anaysis and, if carried

out torou#y, #eneray resut in a deep eve of understandin#. !is approac is reated

to i# 8uaity earnin# outcomes ($ntiste Ramsden, 4?/2F !ri#e Prosser, 4??4).

And finay, because of te pervasive evidence of te infuence of assessment on earnin#

and studyin# an additiona cate#ory as introduced, te strate#ic or acievin# approac to

earnin#, in ic te students intention as to acieve te i#est possibe #rades by

usin# e0or#anised and conscientious study metods and effective time0 mana#ement

($ntiste Ramsden, 4?/2F $ntiste, EcCune -a@er, 334).

Assessment in reation to students approaces and vice versa

!e researc on te reation beteen approaces to earnin# and assessment is

dominated by te Sedis Researc *roup of Earton and SGDH. !ese to researcers

(Earton SGDH, 4??=) conducted a series of studies in ic tey tried to infuence te

students approaces to earnin# toards a deep approac to earnin#. A prere8uisite for

attemptin# to infuence o peope act in earnin# situations, is to ave a cear #rasp of

precisey o different peope act. !e earner' reader, usin# a deep approac to earnin#,

en#a#es in a more active diao#ue it te te7t. Bne of te probems it a surface

approac is te ac@ of suc an active and refective attitude toards te te7t. As a

conse8uence, a fairy obvious idea as to attempt to induce a deep approac trou#

#ivin# peope some ints on o to #o about earnin# (Earton SGDH, 4??=).

n is first study, Earton (4?=


7/36


teir readin# (e.#. can you summarise te content of te oe section in one or to

sentences6). !is attempt to induce a deep approac, yieded interestin# but contra0

intuitive resuts. At one eve, it as obvious tat te approac ta@en as infuenced by te

treatment to ic te e7perimenta #roup as e7posed. "oever, tis infuence as not

toards a deep approac+ instead, it seemed to resut in a rater e7treme form of surface

earnin#. !e contro #roup, ic ad not been e7posed to any attempts at infuencin#

approac, performed si#nificanty better on bot te immediate and deayed retention

measurements.

-at appened as tat te participants invented a ay of anserin# te

interspersed 8uestions itout en#a#in# in te earnin#, caracteristic of a deep approac.

!e tas@ as transformed into a rater trivia and mecanica @ind of earnin#. -at

aoed te participants to transform te earnin# in tis ay, as obviousy te

predictabiity of te tas@. !ey @ne tat tey oud ave to anser 8uestions of tis

particuar @ind, and tis aoed tem to #o trou# te te7t in a ay ic oud ma@e it

possibe to compy it te demands itout actuay #oin# into detai about at is said.

!e outcome of tis study raises interestin# 8uestions about te conditions for can#in#

peopes approac to earnin#. !e demand structure of te earnin# situation a#ain proved

to be an effective means of controin# te ay in ic peope set about te earnin# tas@.

Actuay it turned out to be too effective. !e resut as in reaity te reverse of te

ori#ina intention en settin# up te e7periment (Earton SGDH, 4??=).

A second study (SGDH, 4?=;) fooed. !e factor varyin# beteen to #roups,

as te nature of te 8uestions tat te #roups ere as@ed after readin# eac of severa

capters from an education te7t0boo@. Bne set of 8uestions as desi#ned to re8uire a rater

precise recoection of at as said in te te7t. n te second #roup, te 8uestions ere

directed toards maDor ines of reasonin#. !e resuts so tat a cear maDority of te

=


8/36


participants reported tat tey attempted to adapt teir earnin# to te demands impicit in

te 8uestions #iven after eac successive capter. !e crucia idea of tis study as tat

peope oud respond to te demands tat tey ere e7posed to. n te #roup tat as

#iven 9factua 8uestions, tis coud be ceary seen. !ey reacted to te 8uestionin#

trou# adoptin# a surface approac. "oever, in te oter #roup, te reaction did not

simpy invove movin# toards a deep approac. Some did, oters did not. Bny about af

te #roup interpreted te demands in te ay intended. !e oter students 9tecnified teir

earnin#, a#ain concentratin# soey on perceived re8uirements. !ey coud summariIe, but

coud not demonstrate understandin# (Earton SGDH, 4??=).

5ot studies (Earton, 4?=


9/36


reationsip beteen process and outcome. !e dept of processin# as reated to te

8uaity of outcome in earnin# (Earton SGDH, 4??=).

!e students perceived assessment re8uirements seem to ave a stron# reation

it te approac to earnin# a student adopts en tac@in# an academic tas@ (SGDH,

4?=;F Earton SGDH, 4??=). Simiar findin#s emer#ed from te Lancaster investi#ation

(Ramsden, 4?/4) in reation to a oe series of academic tas@s and aso to students

#enera attitudes toards studyin#. Students often e7pained surface approaces or

ne#ative attitudes in terms of teir e7periences of e7cessive or@oads or inappropriate

forms of assessment. !e e7perience of earnin# is made ess satisfactory by assessment

metods ic are perceived to be inappropriate ones. "i# acievement in conventiona

terms may mas@ tis dissatisfaction and aso ide te fact tat students ave not understood

materia tey ave earned as competey as tey mi#t appear to ave done. nappropriate

assessment procedures encoura#e surface approaces, yet varyin# te assessment 8uestions

may not be enou# to evo@e fuy deep approaces (Ramsden, 4??=).

$ntiste and !ait (4??3) aso found evidence for te reation beteen students

approaces to earnin# and teir assessment preferences. !ey found tat students o

reported temseves as adoptin# surface approaces to earnin# preferred teacin# and

assessment procedures ic supported tat approac, ereas students reportin# deep

approaces preferred courses ic ere inteectuay caen#in# and assessment

procedures ic aoed tem to demonstrate teir understandin#. A direct conse8uence

of tis effect is tat te ratin#s ic students ma@e of teir ecturers i depend on te

e7tent to ic te ecturers stye fits at individua students prefer ($ntiste !ait,

4??;).

?


10/36


ssess#ent for#at and #ethods

>urin# te ast decade, an immense set of aternative assessment metods as

deveoped and impemented into educationa practice as a resut of ne discoveries and

can#in# teories in te fied of student earnin#. Students are supposed to be 9active,

refective, sef0 re#uatin# earners. Aternative assessment practices must stimuate tese

activities, but do tey6 Are tese ne assessment metods (e.#. sef, peer, portfoio and

overa assessment) different and' or better, tan te conventiona assessment metods suc

as mutipe coice tests and essay 8uestion e7aminations6 An attempt is made to anser

tese 8uestions from te students perspective.

Bpen0 ended format versus Eutipe0 coice format of e7amination

-en students perceptions and e7pectations about open0 ended formats are

compared to tose about mutipe coice formats of e7amination, some remar@abe resuts

occur. -itin tis section, te impact of students e7pectations and perceptions about tese

to formats on students approaces to earnin# is discussed and furtermore, students

preferences and attitudes toards bot formats are compared and contrasted.

>eep, surface or strate#ic approac to earnin#6+ >ifferent types of assessment

seem to encoura#e deep or surface approaces to earnin#. $ntiste and $ntiste (4??4)

found tat students are very stron#y infuenced by te form of assessment tey e7pect.

Eutipe coice formats, or an empasis on detaied factua ansers, pus students toards

a surface approac, ie open, essay0 type 8uestions encoura#e a deep approac

($ntiste $ntiste, 4??4).

Aso !omas and 5ain (4?/:) found tat te most infuentia feature of te earnin#

environment is te nature of te assessment procedures. !e resuts of teir study soed

ceary o a can#e from mutipe0 coice to essay0 type e7aminations ad sifted te

43


11/36


overa tendency of te students from a surface approac toards a deep approac.

"oever, $isenber# (4?//) stressed tat any component itin te earnin# environment

ic contradicted te direction of infuence of te oter components mi#t prevent te

intended effect from bein# acieved. !us, a cear impication for effective teacin# is tat

a aspects of a course must convey te same messa#e to students re#ardin# at i be

rearded trou# assi#nments and e7aminations ($ntiste !ait, 4??;).

As e ave seen, te strate#ic approac to earnin# is sensitive to te assessment

procedures used and' or e7pected. 5ecause teacers ave te fina say on suc indicators of

academic success as student #rades, it seems reasonabe tat students see@ information and

form opinions about 9at te teacer ants. 91i#urin# out te teacer enabes tem to

taior study strate#ies tat fit te tas@. 1or e7ampe, Ric@ards and 1riedman (4?=/) found

tat readin# notes ta@en by students e7pectin# an essay e7amination ere 8uaitativey, but

not 8uantitativey, different tan tose ta@en by students e7pectin# a mutipe0 coice test.

!e atter focused teir note0ta@in# efforts on facts and detais, ie tose e7pectin# essay

tests concentrated on information of i#er structura importance, suc as main ideas and

topic sentences (&oen and "aady, 4??3).

Students preferences, attitudes and perceptions+ Jeidner (4?/=) found tat

mutipe coice type e7ams are #eneray perceived more favouraby tan essay type items

aon# most dimensions of te inventory (i.e. perceived difficuty, an7iety, compe7ity,

success e7pectancy, feein# at ease), by bot boys and #irs. !e smaest differences

beteen te formats ere evidenced on te dimensions of tric@iness, perceived interest,

and perceived vaue. 1urtermore, it as found tat students perceive essay type e7ams to

be someat more appropriate tan mutipe coice e7ams for te purpose of refectin#

ones @noed#e in te subDect matter tested (Jeidner, 4?/=).

44


12/36


5irenbaum and 1edman (4??/) e7amined te reationsips beteen te students

earnin# patterns and teir attitudes toards open0 ended (B$) and mutipe coice (EC)

e7aminations, amon# students in i#er education. !e resuts revea to patterns of

reationsips beteen te earnin#0 reated variabes and te assessment attitudes. Students

it #ood earnin# s@is, o ave i# confidence in teir academic abiity, tend to

prefer te constructed response type of assessment over te mutipe coice type. And vice

versa, students it poor earnin# s@is, o tend to ave o confidence in teir

academic abiity, prefer te coice over te constructed0 response type of assessment. !e

oter pattern sos tat o test an7iety measures ere reated to positive attitudes

toards te B$ format. Students it i# test an7iety, ave more unfavourabe attitudes

toards te B$ format and a preference to te coice0 response type, probaby because it

puts ess demandin# re8uirements on teir information processin# capacity durin# te

testin# situation ere tat capacity is occupied by orries and test0 irreevant tou#ts

(e.#. "embree, 4?//). n addition, tis study aso indicated #ender differences, it maes

avin# more favourabe attitudes toards te coice response format tan femaes

(5irenbaum 1edman, 4??/). !ese #ender differences ere attributed to a personaity

dimension of ris@0 ta@in#, it femaes bein# more reuctant tan maes to #uess on EC

8uestions and bein# more i@ey to eave items ban@ (e.#. 5en0 Sa@ar Sinai, 4??4).

5irenbaum (4??=) aso evidenced tat differences in assessment preferences are to

a reativey ar#e e7tent reated to earnin# strate#ies and orientations. t may terefore be

ar#ued tat suc factors affectin# students assessment preferences, mi#t aso affect

performance on different assessment types and tus cause bias in te interpretation of te

assessment scores. !e impication of tis study is a need for adaptin# te assessment to

te e7aminees affective as e as co#nitive caracteristics in order to enance te vaidity

4


13/36


of is' er test score interpretation. !e 8uestion concernin# assessment preferences ou#t

to be+ o prefers at6, rater tan+ at is preferred by most6 (5irenbaum, 4??=).

!raub and EacRury (4??3) revieed te empirica researc on Eutipe coice

(EC) and 1ree response (1R) tests since 4?=3, and indicated severa tendencies. Bvera,

students report tat tey are infuenced by te e7pectation tat a test i be in EC or 1R

format. n particuar, students report more positive attitudes toards EC tests on #rounds

tat tese tests are easier to prepare, are easier to ta@e, and od fort ope for i#er

reative scores. As to eter te e7pectation tat a test i be in EC or 1R format

infuences earnin#, severa studies so si#nificant effects. n tese studies, te

performance of a EC test by students e7pectin# EC is not si#nificanty different from tat

of students tod to e7pect a 1R test, but students e7pectin# a 1R test performed on te 1R

test si#nificanty better tan students tod to e7pect a EC test. !us, studyin# for an

9e7pected 1R test seemed to ave prepared students e8uay e for a EC or a 1R test,

ereas studyin# for an 9e7pected EC test did not prepare students to ta@e a 1R test

(!raub EacRury, 4??3).

Portfoio Assessment

!e overa #oa of te preparation of a portfoio is for te earner to demonstrate

and provide evidence tat e or se as mastered a #iven set of earnin# obDectives.

Portfoios are more tan tic@ foders containin# student or@. !ey are personaiIed,

on#itudina representations of a students on efforts and acievements, in ic te

inte#ration of numerous facts to form broad and encompassin# concepts is activey

performed by te student instead of te instructor (Sater, 4??


14/36


outcomes suc as professionaism tat are difficut to assess usin# traditiona metods

(1riedman 5en0 >avid et a., 334).

Sater (4??


15/36


A critica comment is #iven by Cais (334) o ar#ues tat portfoio assessment

simpy needs to be seen in terms tat reco#niIe its on stren#ts and its differences from

oter metods, rater tan as a repacement of any oter assessment metods and

procedures.

Sef assessment

Brsmond and Eerry (4??=) impemented and evauated a metod of student sef0

assessment. A comparison beteen te tutor and te student sef0 assessed mar@ on te

poster assi#nments reveaed an overa disa#reement of /


16/36


amost identica to tat derived from staff mar@s. !e students in tis study, oever, faied

to ac@noed#ete potentia vaue of sef0 mar@in# in terms of feedbac@ and as a earnin#

opportunity, and e7pressed uncertainty over teir mar@s. Students perceived many more

disadvanta#es tan advanta#es in te sef0 mar@in# e7ercise. >isadvanta#es incuded+

findin# te process stressfu, feein# tat tey coud not trust teir on mar@in# and avin#

uncertainties on o to mar@, bein# to concerned about passin#' faiin# to earn from te

e7ercise, orryin# about bein# accused of ceatin# and ence avin# a tendency to under0

mar@, avin# te opportunity to 9ceat, findin# te process tedious, considerin# it time

consumin# and feein# tat te facuty ere 9offoadin# responsibiity. Advanta#es

incuded te feein# of some students tat it as usefu to @no ere tey ad #one

ron# and tat feedbac@ opportunity as usefu (Eires et a., 334).

!ese to studies reveaed interestin# but 8uite opposite resuts. !e different tas@

conditions coud serve as a pausibe e7panation. A first tas@ condition tat differs in bot

studies is te carity of te mar@in# criteria. n te second study, for eac 8uestion te

a#reed correct anser as presented, ie in te first study, ony #enera mar@in#

#uideines ere #iven. Anoter important tas@ condition tat differed, as te eve of

stress e7perienced in te situation. n te first study, te tas@ formed a part of te practica

or@ tat students ad to produce durin# aboratory time. !is is in stron# contrast to te

second study in ic te sef mar@in# tas@ concerned an e7amination, of ic te

evauative conse8uences are more severe. Students primary concern as eter tey

faied or passed te e7amination. !is stressfu pre0 occupation it passin# and faiin#, is

probaby te reason y students coud not ac@noed#e te potentia vaue of te sef0

mar@in# e7ercise for feedbac@ purposes or as a earnin# opportunity.

4


17/36


Peer assessment

Se#ers and >ocy (334) #atered 8uantitative and 8uaitative data from a researc

proDect ic focused on different 8uaity aspects of to ne assessment forms in

probem0 based earnin#+ peer assessment and te BverA test. n te peer assessment case

at Louvain, te pearson correation vaues indicated tat peer and tutor scores are

si#nificanty interreated. !e student sef0 scores are, to a minor e7tent, reated to peer and

tutor scores. !ese findin#s su##est tat students especiay e7perience difficuties in

assessin# temseves. Students perceptions revea tat, on one and, tey are positive

about sef0 and peer assessment as stimuatin# deep0 eve tin@in# and earnin#, critica

tin@in#, and structurin# te earnin# process in te tutoria #roup. Bn te oter and, te

students ave mi7ed feein#s about bein# capabe of assessin# eac oter in a fair ay.

Eost of tem do not fee comfortabe in doin# so (Se#ers >ocy, 334).

Bvera assessment

n te Eaastrict case of te Se#ers and >ocy (334) investi#ation, a ritten

e7amination, namey te BverA test, as used to assess te e7tent to ic students are

abe to define, anayse, and sove nove, autentic probems. t as found tat te mean

score on tis test as beteen 23 and 2


18/36


!est. !erefore, students perceptions of te earnin#0 assessment environment ere

investi#ated. !e students ne#ative anser to te statement te ay of or@in# in te

tutoria #roup fits te ay of 8uestionin# in te BverA !estM particuary struc@ te staff

as contradictory. Atou# empirica evidence of curricuum vaidity as found, students

did not perceive a matc beteen te processes in te tutoria #roup and te ay of

8uestionin# in te BverA !est. Students fet tat for te BverA !est, tey ad to do

more tan reproducin# @noed#e, tey ad to buid @noed#e. !e tutoria #roup as

perceived as not effectivey preparin# students for tis s@is. !oo many times, or@in# in

te tutoria #roups as perceived as runnin# from one probem to anoter, itout reay

discussin# te anaysis and te soution of te probem. Additionay, te students indicated

tat tey ad probems it te novety of te probems. >urin# te tutorias, ne

e7ampes, it si#t variations to te startin# probem are sedom discussed. !e students

su##ested more profound discussions in te tutoria #roups, and tat anaysin# probems

soud be done in a more fe7ibe ay. n one of te modues, a nove case as structuray

impemented and discussed in te tutoria #roups on te basis of a set of 8uestions simiar

to te Bvera test 8uestions. Students vaued tis procedure, and fet te need to do tis

e7ercise in fe7ibe probem anaysis, structuray in a modues (Se#ers >ocy, 334).

1rom bot cases, te Louvain and te Eaastrict case, it can be concuded tat

tere is a mismatc beteen te forma earnin# environment as panned by te teacers

and te actua earnin# environment as perceived by te students. Students perceptions of

te earnin#0 assessment environment, based on former earnin# e7periences and teir

recent e7periences, ave an important infuence on teir earnin# strate#ies and affect te

8uaity of teir earnin# outcomes. !erefore, tey are a vaid input for understandin# y

promises are not fufied. Eoreover, oo@in# for students perceptions of te earnin#0

4/


19/36


assessment environment seems to be a vaid metod to so teacers ays to improve te

earnin#0 assessment environment (Se#ers >ocy, 334).

Simuation

$destein, Reid, Usatine and -i@es (333) conducted a study to assess o

computer0 based case simuations (C5N) and standardiIed patient e7ams (SPN) compare

it eac oter and it traditiona measures of medica students performance. 5ot SPN

and C5N ao students to e7perience reaistic probems and demonstrate te abiity to

ma@e cinica Dud#ments itout te ris@ of arm to actua patients. t as found tat te

C5N and te SPN ad o to moderate statisticay si#nificant correations it eac oter

and it traditiona measures of performance. Students perceptions of te various types

varied based on te assessment. Students ran@in#s of reative merits of te e7aminations in

assessin# different pysician attributes evidenced tat performance e7aminations measure

different pysician competency domains. Students individuay and in sub#roups do not

perform te same on a tests, and tey e7press sensitivity to te need for different

purposes. A mutidimensiona approac to evauation is te most prudent ($destein et a.,

333).

*enera perceptions about assessment

A series of studies do not focus on students perceptions about a specific mode of

assessment but more #eneray investi#ate students perceptions about assessment. !e

study of >re (334) iustrates students #enera perceptions about te vaue and purpose

of assessment. -itin te conte7t of ne modes of assessment, te &ortumbria

Assessment studies are often referred to. n tese studies, different aspects of perceptions

of students about ne modes of assessment are eaborated upon+ te conse8uentia vaidity

4?


20/36


of aternative assessment and its (perceived) fairness, but aso te reations beteen

teacers messa#es and students meanin#s in assessment, and te idden curricuum are

investi#ated.

-at eps students earn and deveop in education+ >re (334) describes te

findin#s of a series of structured #roup sessions, ic eicited students vies on teir

earnin# outcomes, and at eped or indered teir deveopment. !e findin#s su##est

tat tere are tree areas (i.e. tree conte7tua factors) tat, to#eter, comprise te conte7t

in ic students earn, and ic ave a stron# infuence on o and if tey earn+ (4)

course or#aniIation, resources and faciities, () assessment, and (2) earnin# activities and

teacin#. Set itin tis conte7t is te student and is use of tat conte7t (i.e. four student0

centred factors), reatin# to (a) students sef0 mana#ement, (b) students motivation and

needs, (c) students understandin# and (d) students need for support.

-itin te conte7t of 9assessment, tese student0 centred factors occur as foos+

(a) students vaued sef mana#ement and, #eneray e7aminations ere seen as ess

supportive of its deveopment. >eadines ere not seen in temseves as unepfu. !ey

deveoped sef0 discipine, te abiity to or@ under pressure and increased determination,

but tey ere aso seen as indicatin# en to or@, rater tan en or@ as to be

competed. (b) Assessment, seen by te students as a poerfu motivator, as re#arded as a

maDor veice for earnin#. "oever, a eavy or@oad coud affect te dept at ic

tey studied and on some courses students tou#t it soud be essened so tat 9or@

doesnt Dust as over students. (c) n order to ep tem earn, students anted to @no

at as e7pected0 cear briefs and cear assessment criteria. (d) Students cosey in@ed

te provision of feedbac@ it support. $ffective feedbac@ as critica to 9buid sef

confidence, ep us evauate ourseves and students anted more of it. Students preferred

4+4 tutorias as a metod to provide effective feedbac@, but tey @ne tat staff pressures

3


21/36


made tis difficut. !ey disi@ed one0 ine comments and sa typed feedbac@ seets as

e7ceent (>re, 334).

5ut is it fair+ conse8uentia vaidity of aternative assessment+ Sambe, Ec>oe

and 5ron (4??=) conducted a 8uaitative study of students interpretations, perceptions

and beaviours en e7periencin# different forms of aternative assessment, in particuar

its conse8uentia vaidity (i.e. te effects of assessment on earnin# and teacin#). !ey

empoyed te case study metodoo#y (Sambe, Ec>oe 5ron, 4??=).

Effects of student $erce$tions of assess#ent on the $rocess of learning% 5roady

spea@in#, students often reacted very ne#ativey en tey discussed at tey re#arded

as 9norma or traditiona assessment. Eany students e7pressed te opinion tat norma

assessment metods ad a severey detrimenta effect on te earnin# process. $7ams ad

itte to do it te more caen#in# tas@ of tryin# to ma@e sense and understand teir

subDect. 5y contrast, en students considered ne forms of assessment, teir vies of te

educationa ort of assessment can#ed, often 8uite dramaticay. Aternative assessment

as perceived to enabe, rater tan poute, te 8uaity of earnin# acieved. Eany made

te point tat for aternative assessment tey ere cannein# teir efforts into tryin# to

understand, rater tan simpy memoriIe or routiney document, te materia bein#

studied. Oet, some students reco#niIed tat tere as a #ap beteen teir perceptions of

te type of earnin# bein# demanded and teir on action. Severa caimed tey simpy did

not ave te time to invest in tis eve of earnin# and some freey admitted tey did not

ave te persona motivation (Sambe, Ec>oe 5ron, 4??=).

3erce$tions of authenticity in assess#ent% Eany students perceived traditiona

assessment tas@s as arbitrary and irreevant. !is did not ma@e for effective earnin#,

because tey ony aimed to earn for te purposes of te particuar assessment point, it

no intention of maintainin# te @noed#e in any on#0 term ay. &orma assessment as

4


22/36


seen as sometin# tey ad to, a necessary evi tat aoed tem to accrue mar@s. !e

accompanyin# activities are described in terms of routine, du artificia beaviour.

!raditiona assessment is beieved to be inappropriate as a measure, because it appeared,

simpy to measure your memory, or in case of essay0 ritin# tas@s, to measure your abiity

to marsa ists of facts and detais. Aternative assessment as beieved to be fairer,

because by contrast, it appeared to measure 8uaities, s@is and competences ic oud

be vauabe in conte7ts oter tan te immediate conte7t of assessment. n some of te

cases, te novety of te assessment metod ay in te ecturers attempt to produce an

activity ic oud simuate a rea ife conte7t, so students oud ceary perceive te

reevance of teir academic or@ to broader situations outside academia. !is strate#y as

effective and te students i#y vaued tese more autentic ays of or@in#. Aternative

assessment enabed students to so te e7tent of teir earnin# and aoed tem to

articuate more effectivey precisey at tey ad di#ested trou#out te earnin#

pro#ram (Sambe, Ec>oe, 5ron, 4??=).

Student $erce$tions of the fairness of assess#ent% !e issue of fairness, from te

student perspective, is a fundamenta aspect of assessment ic is often overoo@ed or

oversimpified by te staff. !o students, te concept of fairness fre8uenty embraces more

tan simpy te possibiity of ceatin#+ it is an e7tremey compe7 and sopisticated

concept ic students use to articuate teir perceptions of an assessment mecanism, and

it reates cosey to our notions of vaidity. Students repeatedy e7pressed te vie tat

traditiona assessment is an inaccurate measure of earnin#. Eany made te point tat end0

point assessment or evauations, particuary e7aminations ic too@ pace ony on one

day, ere actuay consideraby don to uc@, rater tan accuratey assessin# present

performance. Bften students e7pressed concern tat it as too easy to eave out ar#e

portions of te course materia, en ritin# essays or ta@in# e7ams, and sti do e in


23/36


terms of mar@s. Eany students fet 8uite unabe to e7ercise any de#ree of contro itin

te conte7t of te assessment of teir on earnin#. &orma assessment as done to tem,

rater tan sometin# in ic tey coud pay an active roe. n some cases, students

beieved tat at e7ams actuay measured as te 8uaity of teir ecturers notes and

andouts. Bter reservations tat students ban@eted under te banner of 9unfairness,

incuded eter you ere fortunate enou# to ave a ot of practice in any particuar

assessment tecni8ue in comparison it your peers (Sambe, Ec>oe 5ron,

4??=). -en discussin# aternative assessment, many students beieved tat success more

fairy depended on consistent appication and ard or@, not a ast minute burst of effort or

seer uc@. Students use te concept of fairness to ta@ about eter, from teir viepoint,

te assessment metod in 8uestion reards, tat is, oo@s i@e it is #oin# to attac mar@s to,

te time and effort tey ave invested in at tey perceive to be meanin#fu earnin#.

Aternative assessment as fair because it as perceived as reardin# tose o

consistenty ma@e te effort to earn rater tan tose o rey on crammin# or a ast0

minute effort. n addition, students often caimed tat aternative assessment represents a

mar@ed improvement+ firsty in terms of te 8uaity of te feedbac@ students e7pected to

receive, and secondy, in terms of successfuy communicatin# staff e7pectations. Eany

fet tat openness and carity ere fundamenta re8uirements of a fair and vaid assessment

system. !ere ere some concerns about te reiabiity of sef and peer assessment, even

tou# students vaued te activity (Sambe, Ec>oe 5ron, 4??=).

t can be concuded tat students perceptions of poor earnin#, ac@ of contro,

arbitrary and irreevant tas@s in reation to traditiona assessment contrasted sarpy it

perceptions of i# 8uaity earnin#, active student participation, feedbac@ opportunities

and meanin#fu tas@s in reation to aternative assessment (Sambe, Ec>oe 5ron,

4??=).

2


24/36


!e idden curricuum+ messa#es and meanin#s in assessment+ Sambe and

Ec>oe (4??/) focus upon te simiarities and variations in students perspectives on

assessment. At surface eves, tere as a cear matc beteen statements made by staff

and te 9messa#es received by students. Severa temes emer#ed, indicatin# sifts in

students typifications of assessment. 1irst, students consistenty e7pressed vies tat te

ne assessment motivated tem to or@ in different ays. Second, tat te ne

assessment as based upon a fundamentay different reationsip beteen staff and

students, and tird, tat te ne assessment embodied a different vie of te nature of

earnin#. At deep eves of anaysis, it as found tat students ave teir individua

perspectives, a of ic come to#eter to produce many variants on a idden curricuum.

Students motivations and orientations to study infuence te ays in ic tey perceive

and act upon messa#es about assessment. Students vies of te nature of academic

earnin# infuence te @inds of meanin# tey find in assessment tas@s and eter tey

adopt an approac to earnin# i@ey to ead to understandin# or #o trou# te motions of

can#in# teir approac (Sambe Ec>oe, 4??/). Students typifications of

assessment, based on previous e7perience, especiay in reation to conventiona e7ams,

aso, stron#y infuence teir approac to different assessment metods. n an important

sense tis researc ma@es assessment probematica, because it su##ests tat students, as

individuas, activey construct teir on versions of te idden curricuum from teir

e7periences and typifications of assessment. !is means tat te outcomes of assessment

as 9ived by students are never entirey predictabe, and te 8uest for a 9perfect system of

assessment is, in one sense, doomed from te outset (Sambe Ec>oe, 4??/).

onclusion and discussion

:


25/36


Eetodoo#ica refections

!raditionay researc it re#ard to uman earnin#, as done from a first order

perspective. !is researc empasiIed te description of different aspects of reaity, reaity

per se. Researc on students perceptions turned te attention to te earner and certain

aspects of is ord. !is approac is not directed to te reaity as it is, but more to o

peope vie and e7perience reaity. t is caed a second0 order perspective. !e accent of

tis second0 order perspective is on understandin# and not on e7panation (an Rossum

Scen@, 4?/:). 5ot 8uaitative and 8uantitative researc ave been conducted to revea

tis second0 order perspective. !e maDority of te studies concernin# students perceptions

about assessment, is 8uantitative in nature. Eore tan af, 2 out of 2


26/36


(nQ 44) and from 24 to 433 persons (nQ ?). A reativey i# number of studies (nQ


27/36


perspective is ar#ey at variance it te unfavourabe and ne#ative profie of mutipe

coice e7ams often emer#in# from some of te anti0 test iterature (Jeidner, 4?/=).

"oever, itin te #roup of students some remar@abe differences are found. 1or

e7ampe, students it #ood earnin# s@is and students it o test an7iety rates, bot

seem to favour te essay type e7ams, ie students it poor earnin# s@is and o test

an7iety ave more unfavourabe feein#s toards tis assessment mode. t as aso found

tat tis essay type of e7amination #oes to#eter it deep(er) approaces to earnin# tan

mutipe coice formats. Some studies found #ender effects, it femaes bein# ess

favourabe toards mutipe coice formats tan to essay e7aminations (5irenbaum

1edman, 4??/).

-en students discuss aternative assessment, tese perceptions about conventiona

assessment formats, contradict stron#y it te students more favourabe perceptions

toards aternative metods. Learners, e7periencin# aternative assessment modes, tin@

positive about ne assessment strate#ies, suc as+ portfoio assessment, sef and peer

assessment, simuations. 1rom students point of vie, assessment as a positive effect on

teir earnin# and is 9fair en it+ (4) Reates to autentic tas@s, () Represents reasonabe

demands, (2) $ncoura#es students to appy @noed#e to reaistic conte7ts, (:) $mpasis

te need to deveop a ran#e of s@is, and (;) s perceived to ave on#0 term benefits

(Sambe, Ec>oe 5ron, 4??=). Atou# students ac@noed#e te advanta#es of

tese metods, some of te students comments put tis overa positive ima#e of

aternative assessment metods into perspective. >ifferent e7amination or tas@ conditions

can interfere. 1or e7ampe, 9reasonabe or@0 oad is a pre0condition of #ood studyin# and

earnin# (Cambers, 4??). Sometimes, a mismatc as found beteen te forma

curricuum as intended by te educator and te actua earnin# environment as perceived

by te students. 1urtermore, different assessment metods seem to assess various s@is

=


28/36


and competences. t is important to vaue eac assessment metod, itin te earnin#

environment for ic it is intended, and ta@in# its purposes and s@is to be assessed into

consideration.

!e iterature and researc on students perceptions about assessment is reativey

imited. 5esides te reationa and semi0 e7perimenta studies on students approaces to

earnin# and studyin# in reation to students e7pectations, preferences and attitudes

toards assessment ic is e @non, especiay te researc on students perceptions

about particuar modes of assessment is restricted. Eost resuts are consistent it te

overa tendencies and concusions. "oever, some inconsistencies and even contradictory

resuts are reveaed itin tis revie. 1urter researc can eucidate tese resuts and can

provide us it additiona information and evidence on particuar modes of assessment in

order to #ain more insi#t in te process of student earnin#.

!is revie as tried and opefuy succeeded to provide educators it an

important source of inspiration, namey students perceptions about assessment and its

infuences on student earnin#, ic can be an important #uide in teir refective searc to

improve teir teacin# and assessment practices, and as a conse8uence, to acieve a i#er

8uaity of earnin# and education.

/


29/36


!eferences

Asort, P., 5annister, P. (4??=). *uity in ose eyes6 University students

perceptions of ceatin# and pa#iarism in academic or@ and assessment. Studies in

Higher Education, 22(), 4/=032.

5en0 Sa@ar, *., Sinai, O. (4??4). *ender differences in mutipe0 coice tests+ te

roe of differentia #uessin# tendencies.4ournal of Educational 5easure#ent, 26, 202;.

5irenbaum, E. (4??3). !est an7iety components+ comparison of different measures.

n+iety research, , 4:?04;?.

5irenbaum, E. (4??ocy ($ds.), lternatives in assess#ent of achieve#ents,

learning $rocesses and $rior /no1ledge. Evaluation in education and hu#an services (pp.

20?). 5oston, EA+ Kuer Academic Pubisers.

5irenbaum, E. (4??=). Assessment preferences and teir reationsip to earnin#

strate#ies and orientations.Higher Education, , =40/:.

5irenbaum, E., 1edman, R. A. (4??/). Reationsips beteen earnin# patterns and

attitudes toards to assessment formats.Educational Research, -! (4), ?30?=.

5irenbaum, E., !atsuo@a, K. K., *utvirtI, O. (4??). $ffects of response format on

dia#nostic assessment of scoastic acievement.$$lied $sychological #easure#ent, '(

(:), 2;202. (334). Portfoio+ et veraa van de student in onti@@ein#'

Portfoio+ te story of a student in deveopment Unpubised dissertationT. Katoie@e

Universiteit Leuven, >epartment of $ducationa Sciences.

Cais, E. (334). Portfoios and assessment+ meetin# te caen#e. 5edical Teacher,

2 (;), :2=0::3.

?


30/36


Cambers, $. (4??). -or@0 oad and te 8uaity of student earnin#. Studies in Higher

Education, '(), 4:404;:.

>e Corte, $. (4??


31/36


$ntiste, &. %., !ait, ". (4??3). Approaces to earnin#, evauations of teacin#,

and preferences for contrastin# academic environments.Higher Education, '8, 4


32/36


teaching and studying in higher education second editionT (pp. 2/0;/). $dinbur#+

Scottis Academic Press.

%anssens, S., 5oes, -., -ante, >. (334). Portfoio+ een instrument voor toetsin# en

be#eeidin#' Portfoio+ an instrument for evauation and coacin#. n 1. >ocy, L. "eyen,

". an de Eosseaer ($ds.),ssess#ent in onder1i:s; ssess#ent in Education.Utrect,

&eterands+ L$EEA.

Kniveton, 5. ". (4??. "ounse,

&. $ntiste ($ds.), The e+$erience of learning. 7#$lications for teaching and studying in

higher educationsecond editionT (pp. 2?0;?). $dinbur#+ Scottis Academic Press.

Eeyer, >. K., !usin, L. 1. (4???). Pre0service teacers perceptions of portfoios+

process versus product.4ournal of Teacher Education, )! (), 424042?.

Eires, *. %., 1riedman 5en0 >avid, E., Preece, P. $., Smit, 5. (334). $ducationa

benefits of student sef0 mar@in# of sort0 anser 8uestions.5edical Teacher, 2(;), :


33/36


&oen, S. 5., "aadyna, !. (4??3). Persona and environmenta infuences on

students beiefs about effective study strate#ies. Conte#$orary Educational 3sychology,

') (), 44


34/36


Sarason, . *. (4?/:). Stress, an7iety and co#nitive interference + reactions to tests.

4ournal of 3ersonality and Social 3sychology, -((:), ??0?2/.

Scme@in, L. P., Spencer, K. %., Larenber#, L. %. (4??=). Students perceptions of te

ei#t facuty pace on #radin# criteria.3erce$tual and 5otor S/ills, 6-(2), 4:::04::ocy, 1. (334). &e assessment forms in Probem0 based Learnin#+

te vaue0 added of te students perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 2((2), 2=02:2.

Sater, !. 1. (4??


35/36


Joer, U., 5en0Caim, >. (4?//). nteraction beteen e7amination0type an7iety

state and academic acievement in coe#e science+ an action0 oriented researc. 4ournal of

Research in Science Teaching, 2( (4),


36/36


!abe 4+ $7tract of te overvie+ an e7ampe of a revieed document, discussin# to

empirica studies.

2001/02/EA MienSegers& FilipDochy

Newassessmentforms inproblembase!learning " the#al$e a!!e!of the st$!ents%perspecti#e

'$ant &'$al !atagathere!from aresearchpro(ect

which isfoc$se!on !ifferent)$alityaspects oftwo newassessmentforms inproblembase!learning

S1" writtene*amination+o#eralltest, an!st$!ents%perc%s onthis assmo!e

S2" peerassessmentan! i!em

S1" -.1" &-.2"3 ste#al)$est"100inter#iews"st$!ents

S2" 24St$!entsin twogro$ps

5oth ass formsha#eacceptable)$alities -he.A test6acceptablec$rric$larinstr$ctionalan! criterion#ali!ity 7eermar8s correlate

well with t$toran! final e*amscoresSt$!entspercei#e gapbetweent$torial gro$psan!assessment

S1" 9ighMo!eratean! lowachie#ers

S2" twogro$ps

S1" .#eralltest two-opicchec8lists+-.1-.2,thin8 alo$!protocolsan! st$!ente#al )$estan! semistr$ct$re!inter#iews+6 gro$p!isc$ssions,

S2" 7eer ass+t$tor self peeran! totalscores, & peerass )$est

S1"st$!ents%res$lts:c$rric$larinstr$ctional& criterion#ali!ity an!st$!ents%perc%s of .Atest an!relation tolearning

S2" ;es$lts& st$!ents%perc%s abo$tpeer & selfassessment

S1"'$ant &'$alitati#eanalysis

S2"'$antitati#eanalysis

S1" MeansSD

students perceptions about assessment in higher education

Documents