Diverse Models and Challenges:
Assessment for Learning in
Online Settings
SAS Center for Educational and Instructional
Technology Research (CEITR)
Presented By: Mansureh Kebritchi, Ph.D. & Kate Andrews, Ph.D.
Context
 Online education changes all components
of teaching and learning including
assessment.
 Many empirical studies were conducted in
examining effective assessment
techniques.
Problem
Lack of literature reviews to provide an
integrative report on effective assessment
techniques and existing challenges in
assessment of learners
Problem
Often online educators have to go through
daunting task of sifting the increasingly
expanding literature to identify these
strategies and issues.
Purpose
Presents the results of a critical literature
review on models, best practices, and
challenges of assessment of learners in
higher education online courses.
Method
Cooper’s (1988) procedure was used:
 Formulate the problem
 Collect data
 Evaluate the appropriateness of the data
 Analyze and interpret relevant data and
 Organize and present the results
Method
Empirical studies and literature reviews
conducted for online courses between 2004 and
2014
The keywords: “Online assessment”,
“Assessment models”, “Assessment Techniques”
Searching sources:
oOnline journals
oAcademic search engines and databases
(EBSCO HOST, ERIC, Google Scholar)
oRelated conference websites
Method: Data Analysis
and Evaluation
26 articles were found:




12 focused on issues related to assessment models
8 discussed assessment techniques
4 focused on assessment challenges
The remaining articles that did not discuss specific
issues in the above three aspects were excluded from
this review
Findings: Models
Using mix of various assessment models:
 Dynamic assessment
 Formative assessment
 Summative assessment
 Diagnostic assessment
Findings: Dynamic Assessment
Recommended Model
Has four components:
 Individual differences
 Assessing the very processes of systematic
thinking, learning, and problem solving not the
product
 Assessing learning potential, educability, and
the zone of proximal development
 Mediation
(Haywood, 2012)
Findings: Dynamic Assessment
Individual Differences
 Identify each individual’s unique qualities, strengths,
weaknesses
 Discover individually useful methods for maximizing
individuals’ learning effectiveness.
Findings: Dynamic Assessment
Assessing the Process
“an important way to learn about the characteristics of
events that are not directly observable is to change those
events and then to observe the effects of the changes”.
(Haywood, 2012, p.220)
 Direct observation of learning
 Comparison of effectiveness of help or instruction
 Use of transfer paradigm
Findings: Dynamic Assessment
Assessing Educability
What is versus what could be
 Learners with larger zone of proximal development (ZPD)
will do much better in school
 Cognitive development as a dynamic phenomenon
(Vygotsky, 1934,1986)
 Need for assistance to be provided for learners in the
assessment of their ZPD
Findings: Dynamic Assessment
Mediation
A very special kind of interaction between a learner/performer
and a more cognitively competent person (e.g., mentee and
mentor)
Goals:
 To discover obstacles to effective performance,
 To neutralize those obstacles whenever possible,
 To assess the effects of “obstacle removal” on subsequent
performance on the same or similar tasks.
Findings: Dynamic Assessment
Practical Framework:
 Assess
 Feedback
 Intervention
 Review
(Lauchlan, 2013)
Findings: Techniques
Techniques including:





Use of proctored tests
Maintain continuous communication with learners
Maintain dynamic interaction
Modify traditional tools for online assessment
Use of alternative assessments such as: authentic,
performance, portfolio assessment
(Gaytan, 2005)
Findings: Challenges
 Cultural diversity
o attitudes toward and approaches to learning
o failure to have developed a strong cultural
identity; often associated with transculturality
 Knowledge gap
o Inadequate store of information
 Ineffective motivation components
o Emphasis on task-extrinsic sources of
satisfaction and consequent failure to have
developed a task-intrinsic motivational
orientation (Haywood,2012)
Conclusion
 This literature review identified assessment
models, techniques, and challenges in
online settings

Online educators and instructional designs,
may consider the identified issues to
improve assessment of online courses
References
- Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ829749&site=ehost-live
- Clark, I. (2012) Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 24(2), 205-249.
- Crossouard, B., & Pryor, J. (2012). How theory matters: Formative assessment theory and
practices and their different relations to education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(3),
251-263.
- Dodge, J. (2013). What are formative assessments and why should we use them? Tips for
using formative assessments to help you differentiate instruction and improve student
achievement. Scholastic Inc. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/whatare-formative-assessments-and-why-should-we-use-them
References
- Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., Falik, L. H., & Rand, Y. (2004).The dynamic assessment of cognitive
modifiability. Jerusalem: International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential. DOI:
10.1177/0734282906290365
- Fullan, M. & Donnelly, K. (2013). Alive in the swamp, assessing digital innovations in education. Retrieved
from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/13_Alive_in_the_Swamp.pdf
- Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B.C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American
Journal of Distance Education, 21 (3), doi: 10.1080/08923640701341653
- Griffith, D. & Mellor, M. (2014). Making accountability meaningful. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy-priorities/vol20/num02/Making-AccountabilityMeaningful.aspx
- Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
- Haywood, H. C. (2012). Dynamic assessment: A history of fundamental ideas. Journal of Cognitive
Education and Psychology,11(3), 217-229.
References
- Herold, B. (2014). Testing digital tools to improve formative assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/25personalized.h33.html
- Lai., E.R. & Viering, M. (2012). Assessing 21st century skills: integrating research findings . Retrieved from
http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/wp-content/uploads/Assessing_21st_Century_Skills_NCME.pdf
- Morrissette, J. (2011). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory from the point of view of teachers. McGill
Journal of Education, 46(2), 247-265.
- Niemivirta, M. (2006). Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulation in Learning within a Predictive Design: Incorporating
Systematic Elements of Change. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 255–259. Retrieved from 10.1007/s10648006-9020-5
- Offerdahl, E. G., & Tomanek, D. (2011). Changes in instructors’ assessment thinking related to experimentation with
new strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 781-795.
- Price, M., Carroll, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2011). If I was going there I wouldn’t start from here: A critical commentary
on current assessment practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 479-492.
References
- Randall, L., & Zundel, P. (2012). Students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of assessment feedback
as a learning tool in an introductory problem-solving course. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1-17.
- Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
- Stecher, B. & Hamilton, L.(2014). How to assess 21st century competencies 12 key
lessons. Retrieved
fromhttp://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2014/02/how_to_assess_21st_century_compe
tencies_skills_12_key_lessons.html
- Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.
- Wolsey, T. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International
Journal on ELearning, 7(2), 311–329.
Thank you! Any Questions?
Contact Information:
Mansureh Kebritchi: Mansureh.kebritchi@phoenix.edu
Kate Andrews: Kateandrewss@email.phoenix.edu
SAS Center for Educational and Instructional Technology Research (CEITR)
EducationalTechnology@Phoenix.edu