More ranting about Koohang, Riley, Smith, & Schreurs

Learning assessment elements are integral to the learner-centered model for designing e-learning assignments/activities.

Erwin (1991) defines assessment as “…the systematic basis for making
inferences about the learning and development of students. More specifically, assessment is the process of defining, selecting, designing, collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and using information to increase students' learning and development.”

 I'm not very comfortable with the way KRSS handle assessment either. Assessment is an area fraught with politics, as primarily assessment is the exercise of power. No-one really likes to deal with that, because it feels a little unpleasant to be a wielder of power, so plenty of protective rationalisations are undertaken to avoid dealing with the power issue. That doesn't stop it hanging around.

Where to start?

If knowledge is what the student constructs, which by definition it is for us (in the context of this article, which claims to be constructivist), we can't really compare the student's knowledge with some other knowledge, say, the teachers', without violating the principle that the student is constructing, rather than reproducing, knowledge. See point 8 from Murphy's 1997 list below. The whole question of making a clear distinction between constructing & reproducing knowledge isn't vaguely close to being answered, IMO, but assuming that it might be, if the knowledge that the student has to construct has to map closely to the knowledge that some other party has constructed to be deemed "well-formed" (which I don't think you can avoid with summative assessment; formative assessment is perhaps a different matter) then that is reproduction-by-construction. If other non-constructive methods of reproduction are available, how is it the teacher's right to direct the student which method to use, in a learner-centred paradigm?

That's a problem beyond KRSS, but they seem curiously unaware of it. In fact, what's even more curious is their choice of Erwin to elucidate their view on assessment. Erwin's words strongly suggest that assessment is used by teachers (I'm assuming a bipartite situation, student-teacher/assessor, rather than the tripartite student-teacher-assessor, which of course, can exist and is significantly more complex) to control students ("making inferences", "using information"). Again this discordance student-centred rhetoric & teacher-centred assessment.

Superficially it might look like self-assessment on the part of the student addresses these concerns. Leaving aside the grave political problems with self-assessment (which political party is likely to implement self-assessment for language skills any time soon?), in a truly student-centred model, whatever has been constructed will be a perfect representation of what could have been constructed, given that student. Comparisons with other knowledges remain invalid for as long as our goal is construction rather than reproduction.


This is getting a little bit out of hand & taking up too much of my time so I'm about to close it down with a bullet point commentary on the Murphy summary below:

Murphy (1997) presented an excellent summary of characteristics of constructivism learning theory
based on a comprehensive review of literature. These characteristics are as follows:
1. Multiple perspectives and representations of concepts and content are presented and encouraged.
 These "concepts" are somehow independent of the knowledge construction process?
2. Goals and objectives are derived by the student or in negotiation with the teacher or system.
Negotiable assessment?
3. Teachers serve in the role of guides, monitors, coaches, tutors and facilitators.
4. Activities, opportunities, tools and environments are provided to encourage metacognition,
self-analysis -regulation, -reflection & -awareness.
5. The student plays a central role in mediating and controlling learning.
Is there some paradigm where the student is forced to learn? As opposed to forced to attend class?
6. Learning situations, environments, skills, content and tasks are relevant, realistic, authentic
and represent the natural complexities of the 'real world'. Why put real world in inverted commas? And if it has to be qualified withou discusion, what use is it? IF there is a real world, isn't constucting knowledge a bit fraught with risk?
7. Primary sources of data are used in order to ensure authenticity and real-world complexity.
What the hell is authenticity? Is this data theory dependent?

8. Knowledge construction and not reproduction is emphasized.

9. This construction takes place in individual contexts and through social negotiation, collaboration
and experience.
10. The learner's previous knowledge constructions, beliefs and attitudes are considered in
the knowledge construction process.
11. Problem-solving, higher-order thinking skills and deep understanding are emphasized.
12. Errors provide the opportunity for insight into students’ previous knowledge constructions.
Define "error" in the context of constructed knowledge.
13. Exploration is a favoured approach in order to encourage students to seek knowledge independently and to manage the pursuit of their goals.
14. Learners are provided with the opportunity for apprenticeship learning in which there is
an increasing complexity of tasks, skills and knowledge acquisition.
15. Knowledge complexity is reflected in an emphasis on conceptual interrelatedness and interdisciplinary learning.
16. Collaborative and cooperative learning are favoured in order to expose the learner to alternative
viewpoints.
17. Scaffolding is facilitated to help students perform just beyond the limits of their ability.
No-one performs beyond their level of ability.
18. Assessment is authentic and interwoven with teaching.” (Murphy 1997)
There's that bloody "authentic" word again.