Professor Bob Fox, PVC (Education) Portfolio

Assessment Driving the Learning,

Technology Supporting the Process

Technology Supporting the Process:

Assessment Driving the Learning

• Technology supporting learning, evidencing student work

• Pedagogy model focuses on students improving their

work based on feedback received on set weekly tasks,

leading to development of a capstone task that builds on

the culmination of weekly tasks.

• Technology also enables evidencing improvements

student make to their work, based on ongoing feedback

they receive from teachers and fellow students.

15:10 to 15.50

Assessment Driving Learning

Technology Supporting the Process - 1

• 28 years teaching teachers in Hong Kong & Australia

eg MSc[ITE/LIM], MEd[HE], MPhil[HE] @ Curtin, HKU, UNSW

• Weekly tasks drive learning - students evidence work in a Portfolio, later years an ePortfolio

• Tasks completed mostly out of class - based on weekly topics

• Students submit work to ePortfolios - open to all classmates

• Open class access to ePortfolios – students review/comment on each other’s work & learning from each other – a required activity - leading to the overall mark

• Teacher also comments on student weekly work

Assessment Driving Learning

Technology Supporting the Process - 2

• Students - use feedback to evidence ongoing improvements

• Final assignment - builds on learnings & placed in ePortfolio

• Technologies have evolved & pedagogy model refined: focus on student improvement based on regular feedback, leading to final assignment that builds on the active student engagement from first to final week using the A.I.R. principle - Activity, Interactivity, Reflectivity (Fox & Radloff, 1999)

• Technology evidences student work & improvements to work & tracks on ongoing feedback

• Refined learning design model with technology (Churchill, King & Fox, 2013) used to enrich student experiences & ensure A.I.R.across the entire course

Trinidad & Fox, 2007, p. 387

2000s-2007 sample Rich Assessment Tasks

(Salter, Thomson, Fox & Lam, 2013, p.816)

Online Environment 2007 - 2013

(Fox, 2015)

Online Environment 2014 - 2015

http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php

Students help refine categories

Peer Reviews

Structure of Observed Learning OutcomesSOLO

• Method to categorise students’ responses to open-ended questions

• Focus on qualitative differences between students’ responses

5 Levels1. Missing the point2. Single point3. Multiple unrelated points4. Logically related answer5. Unanticipated extension

Biggs (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. (2nd ed.). Buckingham. Open University Press. Adapted examples by CUHK

Quantitative phase Qualitative phase

Missing the point Single point Multiple

unrelated points

Logically related

answer

Unanticipated

extension

A SOLO task

What causes the traffic problem in Sydney?

Missing the point

Student avoids the question, repeats the question or fails to make a genuine attempt to tackle the question.

The traffic is always bad.

The traffic problem is caused by cars.

Single point

An answer based on only one relevant aspect, conclusion is limited and likely to be dogmatic

We have a traffic problem in Sydney because there are too many cars.

Multiple unrelated points

There are too many cars in Sydney and there are not enough roads in Sydney and the Government does not control the traffic well. There is always a traffic jam.

Logically related answertoo many cars

limited road space

poor traffic management

poor city planning

overused roads required regular maintenance which further reduces usable road space.

poor traffic management/ city planning leads to ineffective road use.

Unanticipated extensionDiscuss all the causes of the traffic problem

and their interrelations.

Point out that like many other social problems, the key issue is proper management of limited resources.

Suggest research should be conducted to identify the key problem area.

Compare the situation with that of Melbourne.

Course Learning Outcomes (Intended)& Learning Needs

Resources&

Content

Activities SupportEvaluating Formative Learning

Assessment

Measuring Actual Learning Outcomes

Strategic Intent &Graduate Capabilities

Program Learning Outcomes

Courses &

Course components that make up the Program

Integrated Curriculum Framework

Integrated Curriculum FrameworkProgram & Course Learning Outcomes & Course

Assessments/Tasks

(Extracted from a Course Outline)

Session Outline 2013

1. Strategic Intent establishes university-wide aspirations for all programs, and broadly defines what students may expect to experience when undertaking a program.

2. Graduate Capabilities - generic measurable outcomes; knowledge, skills, attributes and practices that students are required to develop and evidence during and on completion of their studies.

3. Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) prescribe measurable knowledge, skills, attributes and practices that students need to demonstrate in completing a program.

4. Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) prescribe the knowledge, skills, attributes and practices that students need to demonstrate in completing a specific course or series of courses. CLOs articulate with PLOs.

5. Learning needs identifies individual learner traits and personalised learning opportunities, to enable students to monitor, pursue and maximise their own learning attainment, through tracking their progress in achieving the learning outcomes set, including an evidence-based record of achievement.

6. Course Components: resources, student-led activities, support, evaluation and feedback.

7. Assessments measure learning outcomes/capabilities.8. Measuring Actual Learning Outcomes evaluates extent that students can

demonstrate achieving Graduate Capabilities, PLOs/CLOs. Assessments designed to ensure progress in all learning outcomes are measured and verified.

Integrated Curriculum Design

Course Learning Outcomes (Intended)& Learning Needs

Resources&

Content

Activities SupportEvaluating Formative Learning

Assessment

Measuring Actual Learning Outcomes

Strategic Intent &Graduate Capabilities

Program Learning Outcomes

Courses &

Course components that make up the Program

Integrated Curriculum Framework

Course Learning Outcomes (Intended)& Learning Needs

Resources Activities Support Evaluation

Assessment

Measuring Actual Learning Outcomes

Strategic Intent &Graduate Capabilities

Program Learning Outcomes

Integrated Curriculum Framework

• Resources - e.g., crafted content, enabling students to learn with, not just learn from resources

• Activities - engage with resources - work on tasks e.g., experiments/problem solving towards achieving learning outcomes

• Support – e.g., peer, tutor and technology support to help solve emerging difficulties

• Evaluation – structured information to guide and enable student’ self-progress and as a tool for understanding what else is needed to ensure learning outcomes are being achieved

+ Range of summative assessment activitieshttps://sites.google.com/site/hkumoodle/home (Churchill, King, & Fox, 2013)

Integrated Curriculum DesignCourse Level

Summary

• Technologies evolve & pedagogical model are refined, led by research and practice. The focus remains on student improvement based on regular, ongoing feedback, building on active student engagement from first to final week

• Embedding a well trialed integrated curriculum framework

References• Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. London: OU Press.

• Churchill, D., King, M, & Fox, B. (2013). Learning design for science education in the 21st century. Journal of the Institute for Educational Research 45 (2), 404-421.

• Fox, R., & Radloff, A. (1999). Unstuffing the curriculum to make room for lifelong learning skills. In E. Dunne (Ed.), The Learning Society: International Perspectives on core skills in higher education. (pp. 130-139). London: Kogan Page.

• Fox, R. (2015). The rise of open and blended learning. In K.C. Li, & K.S. Yuen (Eds.), Studies and Practices for Advancement in Open and Distance Education(pp. 93-103). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.

• Salter, D., Thomson, D.L., Fox, R., & Lam, J. (2013). Use and evaluation of a technology-rich experimental collaborative classroom, Higher Education Research and Development 32 (5), 805-819.

• Trinidad, S., & Fox, R. (2007). But did they learn? In S. Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Assessment: Deriving an appropriate model (pp. 382-391). The Netherlands: Springer.

Honorary Professor Bob Fox

Thank you