Online Assessment

Online learning is changing rapidly.  Students and instructors now have around the clock access to coursework and assessments via multiple types of devices, such as traditional desktop computer and laptop web browsers, smartphones, tablets, and learning management systems (LMS).  Student work can be stored online in cloud computing formats such as Edmodo and Google Docs, which allows for simultaneous online collaboration or collaboration at different times.  Both of these allow for quick-response instructor feedback.  Other advantages include the instructor being able to assess every student’s understanding, while in the traditional classroom the teacher may only be able to assess a single student’s response during class (Robles & Braathen, 2002).  In addition, students are able to use text-based blogs video blogs, and online portfolios to demonstrate learning.

With all of these advantages, online assessment comes with many challenges.  Robles and Braathen (2002) assert that, in both the traditional and online environments, “assessment instruments should be designed to provide students with immediate feedback and help them to understand and apply what they have learned” (p. 40).  Timely responses and constructive feedback to student submissions is a challenge for instructors.  Robles and Braathen (2002) also warn against relying solely on tests for assessing learners and against assessing students on content not included in the course.  Rocco (2007) notes that instructors often default to using quizzes and tests for evaluation due to lack of time, yet he notes there is a shift toward use of more authentic, learner-centered assessment, such as products, rubrics, and portfolios.

Online assessments should follow the same guidelines as traditional classroom assessments, such as those advocated by Rabinowitz (as cited in Robles & Braathen, 2002, p. 41), which include using variety, employing performance-based assessments, and having assessments that can be collected after submission.  When teaching in the brick and mortar classroom, I found differentiation was a key to student success.  I used a variety of learning activities, along with a variety of assessment methods.  Students learn in different ways, and they demonstrate their learning best in differing ways.  Tests and quizzes, projects, labs, self-assessment, and group activities provided a rich tapestry for evaluating student learning.  In the online environment, student assessment takes many different forms.  I found it interesting that Liang and Tsai (2010) reported student self-assessment was less accurate when compared to the expert evaluations, yet peer assessments aligned more with the expert evaluations.  In my experience, administrators often discourage peer assessment in favor of self-assessment, due, in part, to parental complaints in the past.

In my opinion, students need a variety of ways to learn and a variety of ways to demonstrate their learning.  They need to be able to reflect on content through discussion boards and blogs.  They also need to be able to create products that reflect their learning, such as written papers and videos.  However, teachers find it a challenge finding sufficient time to adequately assess these evaluation methods.  Rocco (2007) advocates the use of various types of rubrics to simplify the assessment process.  I find creation of good rubrics to be a challenge, yet, once they are complete, they make the evaluation process more streamlined.

In general, good assessment takes longer to develop and to evaluate.  However, the results provide a clearer picture of student learning, whether individual or collaborative in nature.

References

Liang, J. &Tsai, C. (2010) Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course, The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 242-247, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.004.

Rocco, S. (2007), Online assessment and evaluation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 113, 75–86. doi: 10.1002/ace.249

Robles, M., & Braathen, S. (2002). Online assessment techniques. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 44(1), 39-49.  Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048

            /login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=507795215&site=ehost-live&scope=site