Quality in online delivery: what does it mean for assessment in e-learning environments?

While a great deal has been written on the advantages and benefits of online teaching, and research continues to proliferate, many practitioners are seeking guidelines that can be applied to the design of assessment in online environments. The last decade has seen the convergence of traditional distance education with on-campus modes of delivery and work-based training signalling new models of flexible delivery. In addition, demand driven education accentuates the learner’s role and needs while the teacher has become a manager, mediator and motivator of student learning. Issues raised by national and international bodies and quality assurance agencies now seem to be addressing the same questions. How can a teaching and learning process that differs so markedly from what has been practiced for hundreds of years maintain and support quality? Who will be the guardians of quality and the innovators of learning and assessment design? This paper addresses current definitions of quality in online assessment and examines emerging expectations of what constitutes appropriate online assessment. A case study is presented of a Web-based assessment framework that is both interactive and product-oriented and involves learners in making contributions to course resources through learning activities. It is proposed that an interactiveparticipatory model of assessment utilises the communicative features of technology while affording a motivating and authentic assessment experience.

[1]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. , 1998 .

[2]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Computer-Based Learning Environments and Problem Solving , 1992 .

[3]  Maria T Northcote,et al.  The struggle for balance in the use of quantitative and qualitative online assessment tasks , 2000 .

[4]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  An Architecture for Collaborative Knowledge Building , 1992 .

[5]  James R. Layton,et al.  No Significant Difference Phenomenon , 1999, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[6]  K. R. McKinnon,et al.  Benchmarking: a manual for Australian universities , 2000 .

[7]  J. Schacter.  The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has To Say. , 1999 .

[8]  Ron Oliver,et al.  Maximising the language and learning link in computer learning environments , 1998, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[9]  A. Sfard.  On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One , 1998 .

[10]  H. Gardner,et al.  Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences , 1983 .

[11]  Betty Collis,et al.  Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations , 2001 .

[12]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  “Thick” authenticity: new media and authentic learning , 1999 .

[13]  P. Ramsden.  Learning to Teach in Higher Education , 1991 .

[14]  M. Yazdani,et al.  Computer-supported cooperative learning in a Virtual University , 1999, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[15]  Roy Rada,et al.  Manifestations of Quality Learning in Computer-Mediated University Courses , 1999, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[16]  J. Micael Spector.  Designing Technology Enhanced Learning Environments , 2000 .

[17]  Zane L. Berge,et al.  Design Guidelines for Web-Based Courses , 2000 .

[18]  Alastair G. Smith,et al.  Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web‐based Education , 2002 .

[19]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Alternative Assessment Approaches for Online Learning Environments in Higher Education , 2000 .

[20]  Cezary Orlowski,et al.  Evaluation of Information Technology Projects , 2002, Cybern. Syst..

[21]  M. Birenbaum,et al.  Reflective Active Learning in a Graduate Course on Assessment , 1999 .