Thorns of Assessment

What do you think and feel when you hear the word 'assessment'? Few would claim feeling pure joy, but how many would rather put off thinking about it if they possibly could? Why is assessment often seen as a 'necessary evil' in formal education? Perhaps looking at some of the thorny issues related to assessment might shed some light on how to utilize this essential process to make it become a more interesting and rewarding experience for both the teacher and the taught. We briefly looked at the grading aspect of assessment previously (ITL, 1998), and in this edition we explore some of the other aspects.

Most university courses have both continuous assessments and end-of-semester examinations to determine the final grades. One of the responsibilities of a unit or course co-ordinator is determining the number and type of assessments appropriate for the aims and objectives of the unit/course. Whilst varied assignments for formative and summative purposes is sound educational practice, a balance has to be struck between providing sufficient opportunities for students to both develop and indicate their abilities, and not overloading student or staff with work. Dividing the marking of assignments and tests among tutors and/or lecturers reduces an individual's marking load and may allow more prompt feedback to students, but different approaches to marking (the hard markers vs the easy markers) may result in unfair grades. Even when a single person marks all assignments for a unit, subjectivity may play a role. Do moderation and criterion-referencing provide solutions to the problems, or do they evoke even more intriguing puzzles?

Peer assessment may be seen as a cost-effective means to provide feedback. Freeman and Lewis (1988, p.128) point out some of the difficulties associated with this strategy, such as student reluctance to judge peers, and they provide suggestions for implementing it successfully. Given that the lecturer is ultimately responsible for marking, can peer marks be included in the grade? If so, what percentage is appropriate and how will it be endorsed?

Assessment can be seen as a 'human encounter' in which the teacher tries to find out about student abilities (Rowntree, 1987, p.4). Among the thorns in this concept are determining which abilities to assess and how to do it. For instance, should the ability to actively participate in the learning experience be evaluated and graded, and if so how can they be done effectively? What about the ability to speak and write fluently? Since UWA is moving towards making courses more inclusive of students from different backgrounds, is assessment of participation or language ability culturally inclusive? Is mastery of the discipline-specific knowledge and skills sufficient for awarding a degree or should generic abilities e.g. critical thinking be considered?

According to Rowntree (1987) much of the literature on assessment addresses the 'how' question and not the 'why' question. This might be a reflection of academia's primary concern. If academics answer the 'why' question first, answering the 'what', the 'when' and the 'how' questions may become less stressful.

• Freeman, R. and Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and Implementing Assessment. London: Kogan Page.
• ITL - Issues of Teaching and Learning (1998, April). 4(3), 1-4.
• Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing Students: How shall we know them? London: Kogan Page.