Using Dialogue as an
Assessment Tool
Conference Paper July 2010
To explore how dialogue can be used:
 To assess knowledge
 To assess practice
 To evidence reflection on practice
 To assess professional learning
5 universities across UK
 November 2009 – December 2010

Aims
Introduction to the Project
Discussion of theory and support for
Dialogue as an Assessment tool
3. Methodology
4. Emerging issues
1.
2.
◦
5.
training assessors, issues of judgement,
evidence of reflection, evidencing scholarship,
process questions, managing and facilitating
dialogue
Conclusions: Questions and Answers
Structure of Presentation








Using dialogue to assess students, staff
Using dialogue to assess professional learning:
competence, using standards
Transcription of recorded dialogue; sharing and
reflection on process; interviews with assessment
protagonists (assessors, students)
Analysis of transcripts for evidence of reflection,
learning, evidence around practice, professional
achievement
Review of process, challenges, benefits through
interviews
Analysis of how dialogue constructed; themes;
evidence to inform judgement
Recommendations to others for practice
Investigation of dialogue as tool for assessment
The Project
Critical discussions
 APEL /APL processes
 Reflective dialogues
 Professional
conversations
 Dialogue with
evidence
 Group assessment
 Presentations
 Narrative, storytelling

Examples of use





Sharing, exchange
Between peers
Participatory
Open-endedness
Unknowns

Talk between 2 or more people in which
thoughts feelings and ideas are expressed,
questions are asked and answered, or
information exchanged
Dialogue defined









Trust
Empathy
Honesty
Sincerity
Openness
Learning
Self awareness
Growth
Mutual
responsibility









Listen
Challenge
Interrogation
Inquiry
Exploration
Reflection and
critique
Shared knowledge
Process
Multiple levels of
communication
Characteristic Elements
Group a
Group b
Group c
Conversation with a
purpose
It has to involve moving
forward
Learning should emerge for
all
Care should be given to the
different purposes of
dialogue
There is an inherent power
differential in assessment
due to the differing roles
Assessment involves:
quality of dialogue,
evidence of understanding
The key to defining
assessment is about
looking at what dialogic
assessment is not
Process versus
product, exposing of
the process
Assessment for
learning
A shared purpose
Genuine questions to
seek unknown
answers
Formative for the
participant
(backwards and
forwards)
Power relationship is
two-way
Consideration of influence
of assessment criteria /
Learning outcomes
Appreciative Inquiry versus
negative marking
Dialogue is about learning
evolving
Assessment is about
summative element
Dialogue involves complex
interaction; compare with
monologue
Mutuality, turn-taking
Different expectations can
be an issue
Notion of process is critical
Emphasis is on growth
Would students know when
dialogue is in process?
Defining dialogue
Written
 Static, superficial, write
to order,
 Writing reflectively
 Emergence of values
 Word limit
 Limited opportunity to
probe, question,
explore
 Evidence all present
 Easier to grade?
A Comparison
Dialogue
 Multi-layered
 Flexible
 Easier to reflect
 Engagement easier to
show and explore
 Opportunity to probe,
question
 Depth of learning
 Avoids plagiarism
 Natural when talking
about self and practice
 May need back-up
evidence










Mentor – mentee process (Brockbank & McGill)
Criterion led professional conversation (Bowen
Clewley)
Appreciative Dialogue (Ghaye)
Assessment process (O’Donovan et al)
Self and Peer assessment (Yorke & Knight; Bryan &
Clegg)
Socialisation, literacy (Lea & Goodfellow);
individual construction of professional knowledge
(Shulman, Eraut, Boud);
Work-based, informal learning (Boud);
Values-led, professional and reflective (SEDA/UK PSF,
Moon, Larrivee);
Organisational learning and change models (Pedlar,
Burgoyne, Easterby-smith, Kotler)
Model of UCLan dialogue
Preliminary analysis:








Construction of dialogue, facilitation
When is a dialogue a dialogue?
Appreciative aspects
Evidence to support judgement
Evidence of rigour
Level of Reflection
Evidence of scholarly practice
Value for individual
Interesting Outcomes:






Assessment of informal professional
learning
Creation of a learning space
Re-profiling idea of HE professional
Re-configuring teaching and learning
A career development and CPD tool
Means of organisational change
Seeking case studies
Conclusions















Brockbank A & McGill I 2007 Facilitating Reflective Learning in HE SRHE/OUP
2nd Ed.
Bowen Clewley L ‘Assessing against competency standards in the workplace’ in
207-227 in Arguelles & Gonczi (2000)
Easterby Smith
Eraut M 1997 Professional Learning and Competence
Ghaye T & Lillyman S 2006 Learning Journals and Critical Incidents RP for HE
Professionals 2nd Ed Quay Books London
O’Donovan B, Price M and Rust C (2004) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing
Students understanding of assessment standards and criteria’ in Teaching in
HE Vol 9, No 3, July 2004
Knight P & Yorke M (2003) Assessment Learning and Employability SRHE/OUP
Boud D and Falchikov N Eds Rethinking assessment in HE 2007 Routledge
Bryan C & Clegg K 2006 Innovative Assessment in HE Routledge
Goodfellow R & Lea MR (2007) Challenging E-learning in the University: a
literacies perspective SRHE / OUP
Larrivee, Barbara(2008)'Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of
reflective practice', Reflective Practice,9:3,341 — 360
Moon J (2004) A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory &
Practice Routledge Falmer
Pedler M (1996), Action Learning for Managers, The Learning Company Project
Pedler M, Burgoyne J, Boydell 1997 The Learning Company McGraw Hill,
Berkshire
Shulman LS ‘Knowledge and Teaching’ pp61-77 in Leach J, Moon B (eds)
(1999) Learners and Pedagogy Sage/ Paul Chapman pubs
References: