INTRODUCING ASSESSMENT-BASED LEARNING TO A COMMERCE
TOPIC
David Forsaith
School of Commerce
Flinders University, Adelaide
SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
RESEARCH PAPER SERIES: 01-1
ISSN: 1441-3906
Abstract
The response of a class of undergraduate students studying a commerce topic to the introduction of
assessment-based learning methods was investigated through short open-ended questionnaires
administered in lecture classes. The assessment dispensed with the previous heavy reliance on a final
examination, replacing it with a series of continuous non-exam assessments. The surveys sought
feedback on student perceptions of how assessment methods influenced their study methods, the
understanding they gained, and their attitude to the topic. Overall, the comments were very positive
which, combined with a higher average mark, suggest that the change in assessment methods was
successful in achieving its objectives of facilitating enhanced student learning.
Introduction
Traditional assessment methods in tertiary education, especially in business related
courses, rely heavily on examinations conducted at the end of the course.
Increasingly, the value of this form of assessment as an aid to student learning is
being questioned. This paper reports on the effects on student learning, as perceived
by students themselves, of non-examination based through-the-semester methods of
assessment introduced into an undergraduate course on investments.
Traditional tertiary education assessment
Tertiary teachers have generally not been trained as educators. Until recently, most of
them developed their assessment procedures “on the job” (Murray-Harvey et al, 1996,
p25). Ramsden (1992, p183) argues that “teachers in higher education frequently
assess as amateurs when the task demands grave professionalism”, and refers to
academics’ “ignorance about how to do the job properly”. This picture has been
changing as programs to prepare university teachers for their tasks are increasingly
being implemented, particularly in Australasia and Europe, although they affect new
teachers more than existing teachers (Gibbs, 1998).
Academics often see assessment as the last task in a linear sequence of teaching duties
to perform (Ramsden, 1992). They perceive assessment as “very separate from the
teaching and learning process, something to think about once the curriculum has been
devised and plans for delivery finalised” (Brown, 1999, p3). Consequently, they focus
mainly on setting exam questions that reflect what they have taught and are of an
appropriate degree of difficulty (Ramsden, 1992).
Assessment is generally regarded as an institutional requirement. Universities require
academics to grade students at the end of topics and courses. More broadly, there is a
social expectation that graduates receive a statement of qualification, and assessment
is a necessary part of that process. “Employers may want accounts of what the student
can do and the student …will also want such a summative verdict” on their university
studies (Brown and Knight, 1994, p13).
The end-of-semester examination is generally seen by academics as the most
expedient way to discharge their assessor obligations to their universities, while the
universities have generally accepted it as a sufficiently rigorous process for the
awarding of qualifications to their students.
Assessment based learning
Education theory and research suggests a much broader and more central role for
assessment. In this role, assessment is seen as driving the student learning process.
For students “assessment always defined the actual curriculum” (Ramsden, 1992,
p187). Gibbs (1999, p41) sees assessment as “the most powerful lever teachers have
to influence the way students respond to courses and behave as learners”. Students use
assessment as a basis for deciding where and when to direct their learning effort and
how much effort to make (Brown and Knight, 1994). This suggests students are
extrinsicly motivated in the way they study. They seek qualifications and progression
more than being motivated by the subject matter (Entwistle, 1998).
Students are heavily influenced by the hidden curriculum. They look for assessment
clues and use these to drive their study effort. Very little out-of-class student learning
activity is unrelated to assessment (Gibbs, 1999).
Empirical research over the last quarter of a century has distinguished between
surface and deep approaches to learning (Marton and Saljo, 1976; Entwistle and
Ramsden, 1983; Biggs, 1989; Entwistle, 1998). The surface approach is an “intention
to cope with the task in a minimalist fashion” (Entwistle, 1998, p84) and is generally
characterised by rote learning, not integrating the constituent parts of a course and not
reflecting on the subject material. In contrast, the deep learning approach seeks
understanding of the subject material and being able to relate it to previous knowledge
and experience. In the words of Marton and Saljo (1984, p46), the deep approach “is
the best, indeed the only, way to understand learning materials” (their emphasis).
While students may have a general disposition to either the surface or deep learning
approach, they have the capacity to use either approach and will be influenced in their
choice in a particular situation by environmental factors, including degree of difficulty
of the task, interest in the material, assessment structure and time constraints (Wilson,
1981; Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Ramsden, 1992; Entwistle, 1998). This offers
tertiary teachers the opportunity to influence students' learning approaches through,
inter alia, the assessment structure.
Assessment dominated by an end-of-semester examination leads students to distribute
their learning efforts unequally over the semester (Gibbs, 1999). Their study is
heavily oriented towards intense effort near the end of the semester as the
examination draws near. Moreover, that study effort tends to be substantially directed
at short-term memorisation rather than deeper understanding (Tan, 1992). This
surface approach to study tends to be necessitated by the extreme pressures on
students immediately prior to examinations as well as questions often asked in
examinations, which require recall as the main skill necessary to pass. (This latter
issue is a criticism of the questions that are set rather than examination as a form of
assessment per se.)
Distributing the assessment throughout the semester is likely to encourage more
continuous learning effort by students. This has many advantages. Learning “is an
evolutionary process… not a revolutionary process” (Pine and Horne, 1969, p109)
and so distributing it over the whole semester is more likely to enhance the learning
process.
However, frequent testing per se does not necessarily improve student learning if the
nature of the assessment reinforces the rote learning approach of students, or if
students do not use feedback from assessments to remedy weaknesses in their
understanding because it is no longer seen as assessable (Tan, 1992). Therefore,
assessment should be designed to further the learning objectives of the curriculum.
“Assessment needs to be incremental” so that students have the opportunity to use the
assessments as a guide for improving their learning and understanding (Brown, 1999,
p11).
The use of several assessments over the semester provides the opportunity to
introduce variety into the assessment rather than relying solely on formal, summative
examinations. This enables a wider range of desired skills to be assessed as
examinations are not the most efficient means of assessing all skills (Crooks, 1988a).
Critical thinking, for example, may be better assessed in a research essay. A research
essay also is likely to encourage deeper learning than an examination requires. Using
a variety of assessment formats also caters for differences in the relative strengths and
weaknesses in the student population (Brown and Knight, 1994).
Deeper learning is more likely where assessments facilitate research effort by the
student. The satisfaction the student gains from discovery provides intrinsic
motivation that can lead to greater understanding. Even where this assessment is
summative, the process should make it less threatening to students and so encourage
higher order learning (Fransson, 1977; Tan, 1992).
Assessment driven learning creates the opportunity for greater formative assessment
to be introduced to the curriculum. An end-of-semester examination is entirely
summative in nature. Students only receive a grade. All assessment that contributes
directly to a final grade is also summative by definition, but where it is not
examination assessment and/or is undertaken during the semester, it provides the
opportunity to introduce formative elements. These formative elements include advice
or assistance given to students prior to submission, comments on early drafts and
comments on the final submission, provided they are timely and of substance. Ideally,
the formative element enables students to gain a clear view of their learning goals and
for them to more closely approach achievement of those goals (Sadler, 1983).
The literature is divided on the virtues of combining formative and summative
elements into the same assessment (Murray-Harvey et al, 1996). Tan (1992) and
Newble and Cannon (1989) argue for separating these elements while Crooks (1988b)
and Sadler (1983,1989) support combining these elements in assessment. A
persuasive argument for the latter view is the importance of summative assessment in
driving the student learning effort. According to Brown (1999, p6), they are not
opposites but “ends of the same continuum”.
Changes introduced to the Investments course assessment structure
The Investments course at Flinders University had been presented in the traditional
format of tertiary education since its inception. The end-of-semester examination was
the principal means of assessment contributing around 70-80% to students’ final
grades. While the teaching had always been enthusiastic and well intentioned,
assessment had generally been seen as following the learning process rather than
being part of, or even driving, the learning process.
In 1999 a decision was made to move to a through-the-semester assessment regime
with the main intention of achieving a more consistent learning effort from students
over the course of the semester. It was also intended to encourage and facilitate
deeper student learning. This assessment structure was very different from previous
years in the Investments subject. It was also very different from the assessment, which
the students (who were generally in their final semester of a three-year degree) were
familiar with from other subjects in their degree studies. The increase in the number
of assessments that this entailed also provided the opportunity for additional variety in
assessments that were set. While this was a major change to the assessment structure,
it is regarded as one step in an on-going process which will see all aspects of the
assessments closely examined to improve the contribution they can make to the
learning process of students.
The revised assessment structure comprised a research essay (10% of total
assessment), an investments game played over approximately two-thirds of the
semester (20%), three problem assignments (20%, 15% and 15% respectively) and
student participation in tutorial discussion throughout the semester (20%).
The due dates of the assessments were distributed as evenly as possible over the
semester with no examination as part of the assessment structure. There was no
flexibility in the assessment to allow students to opt for certain forms of assessment
and avoid others. If this were introduced an end-of-semester examination could be
necessary as a quality control (Freeman, 1997).
The tutorial participation assessment was essentially formative in nature to encourage
preparation, attendance and discussion in the classes. Incorrect answers were not
penalised in the assessment as learning from mistakes was considered to be an
important part of the learning process.
The investments game was also largely formative. Students were encouraged to
discuss their weekly trading activities in class and there were ample opportunities for
students to seek assistance and obtain feedback before they had to submit the
assignment for final assessment. Student effort was a major contributor to their mark
in this assignment.
The other assessments were essentially summative assessments, although feedback
obtained from the earlier assessments was designed to assist students in preparing
later assignments.
Most assessments, therefore, included both summative and formative elements. The
summative element was present in all assessments, with the formative element more
important in some assessments than in others.
The survey instrument
In order to assess the impact of the new assessment structure on student learning, the
class was surveyed by written questionnaires at the beginning and end of the semester.
The surveys were anonymous in order to encourage a high response rate. However
this did not allow the responses of individual students at the beginning and end of the
semester to be matched. The surveys were administered in the first and last lectures of
the semester and the response rates of those present was close to 100%.
The first survey was administered before students were informed of the assessment
structure for the subject. Students were asked their preferred form of assessment,
choosing between exams only, a mix of exams and other assessment and no exams.
They were also asked their reasons for their preference and how the structure of the
assessment mix would affect their learning in the topic. Students were then asked
about their study habits. This questionnaire is reproduced in appendix A (some
additional questions at the end of the survey that were not related to assessment are
not reproduced).
The survey conducted at the end of the semester was open-ended. Students were
asked how the set of assessment methods used influenced or affected the way they
studied, the understanding they gained and their attitude to the topic. This
questionnaire is reproduced in appendix B.
From a class with just over 100 students enrolled, 88 surveys were completed in the
first lecture and 57 in the final lecture. (Attendance is generally high for the first
lecture where students find out about the course and its requirements and because
there are few competing pressures on students’ time. By the last lecture, students are
under greater pressure to complete final assignments in most of their subjects and this
adversely affects attendance.) The student population was overwhelmingly fulltime
students under the age of 25. The class was approximately evenly comprised of males
and females in both surveys. Australian students comprised 59% of respondents to the
first survey but only 46% in the second survey indicating that foreign students were
more consistent in their attendance at lectures.
Results
Beginning-of-semester survey
Almost 60% of respondents to the initial survey preferred a combination of
examination and assignments, while one-third preferred no examination. Less than
5% preferred the examination only option. In their previous studies, students had
generally encountered assessment structures comprising examinations and one or two
assignments, with the examination typically comprising at least two-thirds of the final
grade in most topics. Many respondents in the first survey argued for greater
weighting to be given to assignments.
Students were asked to explain their preference and many did. Those wanting
assignments included in the assessment gave a range of reasons including excessive
pressure of examinations, incentive to study during the semester, and deeper learning
throughout the semester. Two of the respondents arguing for no examinations gave
subject specific reasons along the lines that investments is “a practical subject”
closely related to current issues and should be based on research assignments.
The main reason advanced by students for including examinations in the assessment
was to ensure assessment covered the whole topic. The concern of some students that
assignments do not adequately cover the subject content was consistent with their
previous academic experience where typically only one or two assignments were set
covering limited areas of content and counting for a minor part of the overall
assessment grade for the subject.
Interestingly, many comments from students supported the arguments that assessment
drives student learning effort and that examinations are low level assessors that do not
adequately test students’ understanding.
“I find that I would learn more with just assignments as it would make me
review work during the semester instead of leaving it until the end when I tend
to learn what I think will make me pass rather than all topics.”
“Exam is about memorising, not understanding.”
One informed foreign student, in arguing for assessment based on assignments only,
noted that this was:
“a modern approach to study … lots of universities tend to follow this style …
a better understanding of the subject will be achieved.”
There were 89 responses to the question on study habits with 29 indicating that most
study is done just before exams, 21 suggesting that most work during the semester is
on assignments and 39 pointing to a consistent learning effort applied to all content
throughout the semester. Three respondents chose both the first two options and there
were two non-respondents to this question.
End-of-semester survey
Overall, the comments of students in the end-of-semester survey were very positive
towards their experience in the topic.
 Approaches to learning
The most frequent comments about the effect of the assessment on the way students
studied were that they were more consistent in their study efforts during the semester
(21 included this comment) and that the amount of study they did increased (16
comments).
“It assisted me a great deal in my studying. By doing an assignment on nearly
every topic, it enabled me to understand the topic presented a lot better than
just the lecture by itself, since for the assignments further research was
required.”
Only one student reported a reduced study effort.
 Impact on student understanding
About half of the students commented that the assessment methods improved the
knowledge and/or understanding that they gained from the topic, while only seven
responses suggested that it made no difference.
“I feel that I have a good understanding of this topic due to all the work I have
put in…having a good understanding of the topic content has resulted in me
having a positive attitude towards this topic.”
Those respondents who used the word “knowledge” and those who used the word
“understanding” were approximately evenly divided. Whether they had the same
perceptions of the difference in meaning as used by authors such as Brown et al
(1997) or Entwistle (1998) is arguable. These authors regard the former as surface
learning and only the latter as deep learning. Whatever the case, students perceived
that the assessment methods had increased their learning.
When asked what they liked about the assessment methods, half of the respondents
commented on the absence of examinations. Other frequent responses were greater
understanding gained (7 responses) and more consistent workload (6 responses).
Most of the suggestions on improving the assessment procedures were comments on
matters of detail. Six students suggested that the structure of assessment be
fundamentally changed by reintroducing examinations into the assessment.
Academic performance of students
Student grades in the topic in 1999 were, on average, a little higher than in previous
years. This result is consistent with the positive feedback from the end-of-semester
survey, and is suggestive of the success of assessment methods on student learning.
However, other explanatory factors cannot be ruled out. The absence of examinations,
with their associated pressure and inevitable surprises, may have been a factor.
Moreover, the scope for weaker students to “free-ride” on the efforts of stronger
students increases with certain non-examination forms of assessment. This may also
have contributed to the higher average result, despite the efforts of teaching staff to be
vigilant for such behaviour.
Impact on teacher workload
The more intensive assessment introduced certainly increased the marking load of the
teaching staff, although this was not accurately measured. With additional resources
unlikely to be available, this presents challenges for the staff in coming years to
reduce their time input without adversely affecting the achievement of the objectives
of the change in assessment structure. The use of alternative assessment methods will
be explored.
Conclusion
The assessment changes introduced to the Investments topic represented a major
break from the previous assessment structure in two ways: assessment was spread
evenly throughout the semester and there was no examination.
These changes appear to have had strongly positive effects on students’ learning
approaches, their perceptions of their understanding and on their overall attitude to the
topic. They have also resulted in an overall improvement in student grades. The
changes were strongly endorsed by the student group with criticism largely being
confined to matters of detail. All of this suggests that the changes have succeeded in
improving student learning in the topic.
Many improvements can still be made to the assessment structure. Curriculum
development is an on-going process and the assessments in this topic will be
progressively refined and developed in the years ahead. The results to date endorse
the importance of assessment in driving student learning and the challenge ahead is to
enhance that process with further improvements in assessment design.
In the immediate future, the design of assessments will be modified to achieve a
closer nexus between the assessment content and learning objectives and to enable
greater and more timely feedback to students. A wider range of assessment methods
will be utilised, with more emphasis on group presentations in class with some peer
assessment being introduced. This added variety is desirable for the intrinsic learning
merits of these assessment methods and to relieve some of the additional assessment
workload that this continuous assessment has brought upon the teaching staff.
Appendix A
SURVEY OF LEARNING ACTIVITY AND ASSESSMENT ISSUES
Please answer the following questions. Tick or circle the appropriate responses where
applicable. All responses are anonymous.
SECTION A: CLASSIFICATION DATA
1
Respondent’s enrolment status
full-time / part-time
2
Respondent’s age
less than 25 / 25 or over
3
Respondent’s gender
female / male
4
Respondent’s nationality
Australian / foreign
SECTION B: ASSESSMENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
5
What form of assessment would you prefer?




100% weighting on exam
weighting for assignments and exam
no exam, 100% weighting on assignments
other (please specify)
6
Please give reasons for your answer to the previous question.
7
How does the structure of the assessment affect your learning in a topic?
SECTION C: LEARNING ACTIVITIES
8
Which responses best describe your study habits?



Most of my study is done just before the exams
During the semester, I work mainly on assignments
I try to learn all of the content in the topic throughout the semester
Appendix B
SURVEY OF LEARNING ACTIVITY AND ASSESSMENT ISSUES
Please answer the following questions. All answers are anonymous.
SECTION A: CLASSIFICATION DATA
1
Respondent’s enrolment status
full-time / part-time
2
Respondent’s age
less than 25 / 25 or over
3
Respondent’s gender
female / male
4
Respondent’s nationality
Australian / foreign
SECTION B: ASSESSMENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
The assessment methods in this topic centred on multiple assignments rather than
being based primarily on an end-of-semester exam.
5
Compared with your previous experiences of topics assessed mainly through
examination, how did the set of assessment methods used in this topic influence
and affect;
(i)
the way in which you studied this topic?
(ii)
the understanding you gained from this topic?
(iii)
your attitude to this topic?
6
What did you like about this set of assessment methods?
7
What changes should be made to the assessment procedures, and why?
8
Are there any other comments you would like to make about this topic?
Bibliography
Biggs, J. B. (1989), “Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary education”, Higher
Education Research and Development 8, 7-25
Brown, G., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M. (1997), Assessing Student Learning in Higher
Education, Routledge, London.
Brown, S. (1999), “Institutional Strategies for Assessment”, chapter 1 in S. Brown
and A. Glasner (eds) (1999), Assessment Matters in Higher Education, Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham,
UK
Brown, S. and Knight, P. (1994), Assessing Learners in Higher Education, Kogan
Page, London.
Crooks, T. (1988a) Assessing Student Performance. HERDSA, Sydney.
Crooks, T.J. (1988b) “The Impact of Classroom Practices on Students”, Review of
Educational Research 58, 438-481.
Entwistle, N. (1998), “Improving Teaching through Research on Student Learning”,
chapter 4 in J. J. F. Forest (ed), University Teaching: International Perspectives,
Garland Publishing, New York
Entwistle, N. J. and Ramsden, P. (1983), Understanding Student Learning, Croom
Helm, London.
Fransson, A. (1977), “On qualitative differences in learning: IV – Effects of intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome”, British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 42, 244-257.
Freeman, M. (1997), “Flexibility and Assessment: A Combination Sure to Motivate
Student Learning”, in R. Ballantyne, J.Bain and J. Packer (eds) (1997),
Reflecting on University Teaching: Academics’ Stories, AGPS, Canberra.
Gibbs, G. (1998), “The Preparation of University Teachers: A Cross-National
Approach”, chapter 9 in J. J. F. Forest (ed), University Teaching: International
Perspectives, Garland Publishing, New York
Gibbs, G. (1999), “Using Assessment Strategically to Change the Way Students
Learn”, chapter 4 in S. Brown and A. Glasner (eds) (1999), Assessment Matters
in Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press, Buckingham, UK
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1976), “On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and
process”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1984), “Approaches to Learning” in F. Marton, D. Hounsell
and N. Entwistle (eds) The Experience of Learning, Scottish Academic Press,
Edinburgh.
Murray-Harvey, R., Silins, H and Orrell, J. (1996), Assessment for Learning: A Guide
for Academics, School of Education, Flinders University, Adelaide.
Newble, D. and Cannon. R. (1989), A Handbook for Teachers in Universities and
Colleges, Kogan Page, London.
Pine G J and Horne P J (1969) “Principles and Conditions for Learning in Adult
Education”, Adult Leadership, Oct 1969, 108-133.
Ramsden, P. (1992), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, New York.
Sadler, D R. (1983) “Evaluation and the Improvement of Academic Learning”,
Journal of Higher Education, 54, 60-79.
Sadler, DR (1989), “Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems”,
Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
Tan, C M. (1992), “An Evaluation of Continuous Assessment in the Teaching of
Physiology”, Higher Education, 23, 255-272.
Wilson, J.D. (1981), Student Learning in Higher Education, Croom Helm, London.