Distribución de los costes durante la transición

As has been stated in the preceding section, part of my intention in this study was to explore what the true worth or value of formative assessment is in the context of self-regulated learning. This arose from the questions and observations that I had concerning assessment practices at Solusi University. In order to navigate through the process, it became necessary to do a literature review of the fundamental concepts related to assessment. More especially did it become absolutely essential to understand the characteristics as well as the relation between summative and formative assessment.

Summative assessment was identified as assessment of learning while formative assessment was named as assessment for learning. Formative assessment was noted for its ability to empower students as self-regulated learners. The three synonymous terms, that is to say metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning took centre stage in the literature

153

review. I argued that self-regulation which leads to self-regulated learning is the main goal of assessment. The dominant role played by feedback in formative assessment for self-regulated learning was given much attention. Feedback was shown to be a two-way process of engagement where students are included as part of the learning and assessment that take place.

Furthermore, in order to cater for the presentation of a correct view of formative assessment practices at Solusi University, it was crucial to develop a theoretical framework premised on constructivist learning theory. Since self-regulated learning is constructivist in nature the theories that underpin this study were intended to reflect self-regulated learners who actively participate in their learning through social interaction. Three conceptual theories namely Self- Regulated Learning, the Bear Assessment System and Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives were selected for this purpose. Self-regulated learning formed the nucleus of this study because the other two theories served as stepping stones towards a self-regulated learning environment.

The blended nature of the theoretical framework enabled both teaching (the instructional process) and assessment (quizzes, tests and assignments) to be viewed from a different perspective. With respect to this four research instruments namely the Course Outline Analysis Schedule, the Lecturer’s Interview Guide, the Focus Group Interview Guide for Students and the Quizzes, Tests and Assignments Analysis Schedule were designed. The Qualitative Research approach was adopted based on the questions that were being raised in this study.

The two-fold research question reads: 1). What is the true worth or value of formative assessment in the context of self-regulated learning? This has the following two sub- questions: a). How do lecturers and students in the various Departments characterise the quality of formative assessment practices? b). What do course outlines and related documents suggest regarding the quality of formative assessment and how does such evidence compare with staff and students’ perspectives? 2). How can the self-regulated learning approach add value to formative assessment practices in this university?

Therefore, the Case Study research design was found suitable for purposes of generating data from a specific formative assessment environment namely Solusi University. Two sets of

154

interviews were conducted with a focus group for students and each one of the lecturers who taught the four selected courses respectively. Two data generation instruments namely the Focus Group Interview Guide for Students and the Lecturer’s Interview Guide were used in the interviews. The resultant data was used to deal with the first part of the first research question regarding how lecturers and students characterised the quality of formative assessment.

The Focus Group Interview Guide for Students contained three sub-sections which were similar to the first three sub-sections in the Lecturer’s Interview Guide. These are The Role of Assessment, Range of Assessment Methods and Frequency and Timing. The sub-section on the role of assessment in learning dealt with such issues as a description of the formative assessment approach, noting its advantages and disadvantages, the role of students and how this contributed to their learning. The responses from both the students and the lecturers indicated that the role of formative assessment in learning is to apprise the students of their performance (getting a good mark or grade). In addition to that the two groups of participants noted the course objectives as a very important section in the Course Outline.

The second sub-section on the Range of Assessment Methods probed the participants on the formative assessment methods which were being used, the preferences and justification for doing so. The key issue that emerged in the focus groups was that assignments were the preferred method. The justification for this was that assignments allowed them to collaborate, research and get more marks. Although the lecturers indicated that assignments were the preferred method of assessment, more quizzes were given to the students than assignments. This was confirmed in the third sub-section on the frequency and timing of the various forms of formative assessment. The justification for this was that these were easy to mark thus revealing an obsession for marks or scores more that metacognitive self-regulated learning.

The Lecturers’ Interview Guide had a fourth sub-section which dealt with the relevance and effectiveness of formative assessment. This was mainly seen in the number of quizzes and tests given. These kept students occupied with academic work whilst they got rewarded with marks or grades. There was no indication of how assessment processes allowed for feedback geared at conjuring deep learning strategies in the students.

155

There were four conspicuous features in the data from the Focus Groups’ interviews and the interviews with the individual lecturers. These features are:

1. The formative assessment process placed a strong emphasis on performance. 2. Course objectives and content were considered to be important.

3. There was a paradox on which document was being used to guide assessment. 4. Assignments were preferred but for somewhat different reasons between the

lecturers and students.

The Course Outline Analysis Schedule and the Quizzes, Tests and Assignments Analysis Schedule yielded data to partially address the second part of the first research question. This intended to find out how the quality of formative assessment was being portrayed in the Course Outlines as well as in the quizzes, tests and assignments. The Course Outline Analysis Schedule was divided into three sections. These covered the purpose of a Course Outline as a contract, as a record of course work and a learning tool respectively.

It emerged from the analysis that the Course Outline was not effectively utilised as a learning tool. There was no due planning for self-regulated learning strategies such as specific study strategies, self-management skills and self-directed learning. The section on the Course Outline as a record of course work showed that the course objectives were partially linked to professional standards with an extensive description of assessment procedures. There was no inclusion of policies on revision and make ups in the section of the Course Outline as a contract. Instead grading and attendance policies were extensively included with no clear and accurate course calendar. Therefore, the data from Course Outlines was indicative of a low implementation of the self-regulated learning approach.

The data from the Course Outline Analysis Schedule yielded the following outstanding features:

1. There was a strong emphasis on performance. 2. Assignments were given preference.

3. The course objectives were partially linked to professional standards. 4. The Course Outline was not effectively utilised as a learning tool.

In the Quizzes, Tests and Assignments Analysis Schedule there was also evidence of less emphasis on the self-regulated learning approach. The ranges of questions in the quizzes, tests and assignments covered more lower-order levels of learning than higher-order levels of

156

learning. In addition to that the analysis revealed that there were more quizzes than assignments that were given to students.

Hence data from the Quizzes, Tests and Assignments Analysis Schedule brought out two dominant features which are:

1. There were more quizzes than assignments that were given.

2. The learning objectives that were formulated and the range of questions given covered the lower-order levels of learning.

There was some overlap and similarity in terms of emphasis in the issues that emerged from the analysis of data from the interviews as well as the documents being used for the formative assessment process at Solusi University. These were merged to become four major issues as follows:

1. Performance- the evidences from the interviews as well as the document analysis indicated that the formative assessment process placed a strong emphasis on students’ academic performance.

2. Assessment Guide- the evidences from the interviews as well as the document analysis suggested that there is no proper document that is being used to guide assessment practice in the university.

3. Assignments- the students and lecturers equally indicated preference for assignments as the best method of assessing students but for different reasons. 4. Course Objectives-these were considered to be the most important part of any

course. Nevertheless, the evidences from the interviews as well as the document analysis indicated that these were not properly formulated.

These were discussed in order to address the second element in the second part of the first research question. This sought to explore how the evidence from the course outlines and related documents compared with staff and students’ perspectives. It emerged from the discussion that “Performance” is the major theme in the formative assessment process at Solusi University. This is the overemphasis that is placed on the giving of marks and grading of students by lecturers. The implications of such a scenario were identified and discussed in order to show the shortfalls that emanate in the formative assessment process. These included encouraging rote and superficial learning, undermining the giving of useful advice and the learning function as well as failure to analyse students’ work to discern learning needs. There

157

are some major lessons that may be drawn from the findings which eventually substantiate the need for self-regulated learning approach to formative assessment practices.