You are here:

Best Practices in e-Assessment
ARTICLE

, , University of Maryland Eastern Shore, United States

JITE-Research Volume 5, Number 1, ISSN 1539-3585 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Full Text

Abstract

According to Martell and Calderon (2005), assessment is an ongoing process that involves planning, discussion, consensus building, reflection, measuring, analyzing, and improving based on the data and artifacts gathered about a learning objective. Assessment encompasses a range of activities including testing, performances, project ratings, and observations (Orlich, Harder, Callahan & Gibson, 2004). Impacting education from early childhood through graduate studies, the assessment movement is based on standards and outcomes, measuring results, and holding educational institutions accountable for student learning. Oversight bodies and accrediting agencies are beginning to require the establishment of learner-centered outcomes that reflect the well-rounded knowledge, competencies, and abilities preferred in today’s students; the alignment of curriculum to reflect the desired progression and cognitive development of learners; the collection of data that demonstrates the satisfaction of learning objectives; and the use of assessment information to inform decision making (Buzzetto-More, 2006). The use of information technologies and e-learning strategies can provide an efficient and effective means of assessing teaching and learning effectiveness by supporting traditional, authentic, and alternative assessment protocols (Bennett, 2002). According to Vendlinski and Stevens (2002) technology offers new measures for assessing learning that will yield rich sources of data and expand the ways in which educators understand both learning mastery, and teaching effectiveness. The use of information technologies and e-learning to augment the assessment process may include: pre and post testing, diagnostic analysis, student tracking, rubric use, the support and delivery of authentic assessment through project based learning, artifact collection, and data aggregation and analysis. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the origins, evolution, and key concepts of assessment as well as illustrate some of the ways in which technology and e-Learning serve as the most promising mechanisms for satisfying assessment goals and objectives. This work is based on an exhaustive review of literature, the analysis of a number of critically acclaimed assessment programs, as well as the authors’ own work in the development and use of e-Learning in the design, and implementation of an assessment program at a mid-sized institution of higher education located in the rural Eastern Shore of Maryland in the United States. The program being profiled includes computerized longitudinal testing, online diagnostic testing, competitive networked simulations, rubrics, student discussion transcripts, taped presentations, and electronic portfolios.

Citation

Buzzetto-More, N.A. & Alade, A.J. (2006). Best Practices in e-Assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 5(1), 251-269. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved December 14, 2019 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. American Association for Higher Education. (2001). Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices for students, faculty and institutions. Retrieved 2/28/06 from http://aahe.ital.utexas.edu/electronicportfolios/index.html
  2. Audette, B. (2005). Beyond curriculum alignment: How one high school is using student assessment data to drive curriculum and instruction decision making. Retrieved 1/15/06 from: http://www.nesinc.com/PDFs/2005_07Audette.pdf
  3. Baratz-Snowden, J.C. (1993). Opportunity to learn: Implications for professional development. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 311-323.
  4. Barett, H. (2004). Differentiating electronic portfolios and online assessment management systems. Proceedings of the SITE Conference. Retrieved 2/15/06 from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/SITE2004paper.pdf
  5. Bennett, R.E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1 (1). Available at http://www.jtla.org
  6. Berge, Z.L. (2002). Active, interactive and reflective eLearning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 (2), 181-190)
  7. Bhatti, A., Tubaisahat, A., & El-Qawasmeh, E. (2005). Using technology-mediated learning environment to overcome social and cultural limitations in higher education. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 2, 67-76. Available at http://2005papers.iisit.org/I06f77Bhat.pdf
  8. Bruce, C. (2003). Seven faces of information literacy. Retrieved 6/12/06 from: http://crm.hct.ac.ae/events/archive/2003/speakers/bruce.pdf
  9. Buzzetto-More, N. (2006, March). The e-Learning and business education paradigm: Enhancing education, assessment, and accountability. Proceedings of the Maryland Business Education Association Conference. Ocean City, MD.
  10. Buzzetto-More, N., & Guy, R. (2006). Incorporating the hybrid learning model into minority education at a historically black university. Journal of Information Technology in Education, 5, 153-164. Available at http://jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p153-164Buzzetto130.pdf
  11. Chun, M. (2002). Looking where the light is better: A review of the literature on assessing higher education quality. Peer Review. Winter/ Spring. Buzzetto-More & Alade
  12. Cooper, T. (1999). Portfolio assessment: A guide for lecturers, teachers, and course designers. Perth: Praxis Education.
  13. Dhir, K. (2005). Content access, and the use of data for student learning: The case of Berry College. In K. Martell & T. Calderon, Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 167-183). Tallahassee, Florida: Association for Institutional Research.
  14. Dietal, R.J., Herman, J.L., & Knuth, R.A. (1991). What does research say about assessment? North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved 3/27/06 from: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/4assess.htm
  15. Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1 (2), 10-13
  16. Dodge, B., & Pickette, N. (2001). Rubrics for Web lessons. Retrieved 2/12/06 from http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/rubrics/weblessons.htm
  17. Drago, W. (2004, July 23). Study: Virtual courses producing measurable gains in high-level learning. Ascribe. Retrieved 2/12/06 from http://www.ascribe.org/cgibin/spew4th.pl?ascribeid=20040723.102807 & Time=10%2050%
  18. Ewell, P. & Steen, L.A. (2006). The four A’s: Accountability, accreditation, assessment, and articulation. The Mathematical Association of America. Retrieved 3/13/06 from http://www.maa.org/features/fouras.html
  19. Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2004, May). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Retrieved 2/12/06 from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/CogPres_Final.pdf
  20. Granland R., Bergland, E., & Eriksson, H. (2000). Designing Web-based simulations for Learning. Future Generation Computer Systems, 17, 171-185.
  21. Gay, W. (2005). (Almost) painless assessment: Using intake processes for assessment purposes. In K. Martell & T. Calderon, Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 24-46). Tallahassee, Florida: Association for Institutional Research.
  22. Haken, M. (2006, January). Closing the loop-learning from assessment. Presentation made at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore Assessment Workshop. Princess Anne: MD.
  23. Hamilton, D. & Shoen, E. (2005). Same song, second verse: Evaluation and improvement of an established assessment program. In K. Martell & T. Calderon, Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 138-153). Tallahassee, Florida: Association for
  24. Hersh, R. (2004, June). Assessment and accountability: Unveiling value added assessment in higher education. A Presentation to the AAHE National Assessment Conference. June 15, 2004. Denver: Colorado
  25. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2005). About us: History. Retrieved 3/13/06 from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/aboutus/history.htm
  26. Kellough, R.D. & Kellough, N.G. (1999). Secondary school teaching: A guide to methods and resources; planning for competence. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Prentice Hall.
  27. Kruger, D.W., & Heisser, M.L. (1987). Student outcomes assessment: What institutions stand to gain. In D.F. Halpern (Ed.), Student outcomes assessment: What institutions stand to gain. New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 45-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  28. Linn, R. (2002) Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 4-16).
  29. Love, T. & Cooper, T. (2004). Designing online information systems for portfolio-based assessment: Design criteria and heuristics. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 65-81. Available at http://jite.org/documents/Vol3/v3p065-081-127.pdf
  30. Lunce, L. (2004, October). Computer simulations in distance education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 1 (10)
  31. Martell, K., & Calderon, T. (2005). Assessment of student learning in business schools: What it is, where we are, and where we need to go next. In K. Martell & T. Calderon, Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-22). Tallahassee, Florida:
  32. National Center for Postsecondary Education. (2001) Student assessment in higher education: A comparative study of seven institutions. University of Michigan.
  33. Orlich, Harder, Callahan & Gibson. (2004) Teaching strategies: A guide to better instruction. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
  34. Old Dominion University. (2006). The history of assessment at Old Dominion University. Retrieved 3/13/06 from http://www.odu.edu/webroot/orgs/ao/assessment.nsf/pages/history_page
  35. Page. D.(2006). 25 tools, technologies, and best practices. T.H.E. Journal, 33 (8). Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/18042
  36. Petrides, L. (2006). Data use and school reform. T.H.E. Journal, 33 (8). Retrieved 3/13/06 from http://thejournal.com/articles/18041
  37. Petkov, D. And Petkova, O. (2006). Development of scoring rubrics for IS projects as an assessment tool. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology Education. 3, 499-510). Available at http://informingscience.org/proceedings/InSITE2006/IISITPetk214.pdf
  38. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  39. Pearson, D., Vyas, S., Sensale, LM, & Kim, Y. (2001). Making our way through the assessment and accountability maze: Where do we go now? The Clearing House, 74 (4), 175-191.
  40. Popper, E. (2005). Learning goals: The foundation of curriculum development and assessment. In K. Martell & T. Calderon, Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-23). Tallahassee, Florida: Association for Institutional Research.
  41. Ridgway, J., McCusker, S., & Pead, D. (2004). Literature Review of e-Assessment. Bristol, UK: Nesta Future Lab.
  42. Schneider, C.G. (2002). Can value added assessment raise the level of student accomplishment? Peer Review, Winter/Spring 2002. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-sp02/prsp02feature1.cfm
  43. Buzzetto-More & AladeUrciuoli, B. (2005). The language of higher education assessment: Legislative concerns in a global context. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12 (1), 183-204.
  44. Vendlinski, T., & Stevens, R. (2002). Assessing student problem-solving skills with complex computer based tasks. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1 (3). Available at http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol1/3]
  45. Walcott, S. (2005) Assessment of critical thinking. In K. Martell & T. Calderon, Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices each step of the way (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 130-155). Tallahassee, Florida: Association for Institutional Research.
  46. Walvoord, B.E., & Anderson, V.J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  47. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 2(2).
  48. Wright, B. (2004, October 1). An assessment planning primer: Getting started at your own institution. Presentation Made at the 13th Annual Northeast Regional Teaching Workshop.
  49. Wu, D, & Hiltz, R. (2004, April). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8 (2), 139-152.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links

Also Read

Related Collections