Optimismo tecnológico

One of the issues that emerged from the findings is “Performance,” whereby the formative assessment process over- emphasised on the attainment of grades more than the actual learning function. Lecturers opted for easier methods of formative assessment such as quizzes so as to quickly award marks or scores to students. The students were also comfortable with assessment methods which allowed them to get the maximum marks or scores needed. Nevertheless, not much emphasis was placed on the use of formative assessment to enhance self-regulated learning.

The self-regulated learning approach is not limited to marks and scores. Cassidy (2011: 1990) cites Zimmerman (2001) to posit that self-regulated learning is considered to be separate from mental ability or academic performance skill. Thus, I coined the term “Enhanced Performance” from the assumption that the marks or scores from formative assessment lead to self-regulated learning. This presupposes that the students are motivated to do their best not just to reproduce knowledge so as to gain the marks or scores as was seen from the findings of this study. An over-emphasis on marks or scores may lure them to settle for mediocrity in order to satisfy grade requirements. Instead the formative assessment process at Solusi University should be premised on deep learning approaches which motivate the students to construct knowledge as they give their best performance.

159

If the self-regulated learning approach is to take centre-stage, formative assessment ought to be strategically designed for this. The findings of the research showed a yawning gap between the objectives in the Course Outlines and the assessments that were given. The objectives that were formulated did not fully inform the quizzes, tests and assignments that were given. This negates a relevant process as attested to by the third principle in the BEAR Assessment System, “Management by Teachers.” It shows that information from the assessment tasks must be couched in terms that are directly related to the instructional goals (see Table 3.3). This characterises a formative assessment process in which opportunities are designed to collect quality evidence that informs teaching and improves learning, Wylie et al. (2012:27). The ‘Evidence’ is in the form of both instructional and assessment goals which should bridge the gap between instruction and assessment. If the evidence is properly utilised, it should be used to inform teaching and improve learning.

In addition to this the findings of this study show that performance was measured against poorly designed objectives which were based on lower-order levels of learning. Ideally the evidence to be collected should be of a quality that is pegged on credible standards and criteria (Armstrong et al., 2015: 1). In view of this the quality of the evidence should be determined by the instructional goals which will have been designed according to both lower- order and higher-order levels of learning (see the hierarchy of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives in Table 3.5). It is also assumed that the three phases of the Self- Regulated Learning Theory which are cyclic in nature would be taking place (Table 3.2). The students will either have been or are being prepared for a variety of learning tasks, not just quizzes. In this case there is on-going dialogue between the lecturer and the students. They are monitoring their learning and also doing introspection. In every case the evidence should be useful for the lecturer in terms of assessment design and teaching strategy. It is also useful to the students in terms of assessment for learning and self-regulated learning.

The over-emphasis on performance in the findings may also be an indicator that the marks or scores do not have any other use than the rank ordering of students for the purposes of grading, (Wilson and Scalise, 2006). Nevertheless, enhanced performance can result if formative assessment is deliberately structured to give quality evidence that informs teaching and improves learning. For this to be realised the following steps as proposed by Wylie et al. (2012: 27) could be adopted in resonance with the theoretical framework as explained in my comments:

160

The first step is formative assessment at the launch of learning. This is the information gathering and preparation stage and it corresponds to the forethought phase of the Self- Regulated Learning Model (Table 3.2). Since it proposes formal and informal pre- assessments it accommodates this phase by way of motivational beliefs and task analysis processes which take place before actual learning or problem solving. It also conforms to the first principle of the BEAR Assessment System which is “A Developmental Perspective.” This acknowledges that as learning situations vary, their goals and philosophical underpinnings take different forms (Table 3.3). It facilitates the formulation of criteria or goals for learning and not just assessment for grading purposes.

The second step is formative assessment while guiding students through learning experiences. Lecturers are able to align formative assessments with learning expectations so as to inform their teaching and assessment. This is in line with the second principle of the BEAR Assessment System to argue for “A Match between Instruction and Assessment,” (see Section 3.5). Just as instruction may be individualised, it proposes for the same to be done with formative assessments to meet the needs of students. This is a self-regulated learning approach which is constructivist in nature.

The third step is formative assessment while checking for understanding. This allows for concept formation to occur instead of rote learning. A variety of assessment methods may be used to include the summative use of formative assessment are proposed. The variety of assessment strategies is a reflection of the cyclic nature of the Self-Regulated Learning Model. In this case the three factors namely forethought, performance and self-reflection are covered, (see Table 3.2).

The fourth step is assessment quality. This calls for assessments to be appropriate for the intended purpose. Assessment quality is closely tied to course objectives. Such is the whole perspective of the Theoretical Framework. Then there is the notion that lecturers should develop and evaluate assessments collaboratively. This requires that a working framework is in place to guide assessment practice. Ultimately formative assessment quality would be comparable across departments.

Performance should ideally refer to improved student success if formative assessment evidence is used to adapt teaching and learning to meet student needs. It should be a given

161

that there is on-going dialogue between the lecturer and the students throughout the whole learning experience.