A Reflection on Constructively Aligned Remote Assessment for Quality Learning beyond COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of University of Namibia ()
1. Introduction
Assessment and evaluation of student learning is a critical aspect in higher education. This observation is supported by Boud (1995: p. 35) who states that “students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”. This paper demonstrates that quality teaching and learning at the university require constructive alignment of the curriculum where learning outcomes are reflected in both the teaching activities and in the assessment tasks (Biggs & Tang, 2007). The teaching approaches must be responsive to the needs of the diverse student body that lecturers serve and likewise the assessment activities. According to the University of Namibia (UNAM) (2013a), assessment is the act of collecting evidence on students’ performance to determine how well students have achieved the intended learning outcomes. In other words, assessment should be aligned with the learning outcomes. That is the quality assurance unit of UNAM expects that the things that were valued enough to be stated as course outcomes should be assessed (Knight, 2001). Theoretically, the purpose of assessment is to provide useful information about students’ performance and ways of improving their learning (Ashwin et al., 2015) the latter does not often occur in practice. Under the disguise of limited time and a large number of students many of the academics return students’ assessed work indicating the score obtained but without providing constructive feedback. Thus, there is a need for a shift of perception amongst the academics from the view that feedback is merely a score that is used as information to reinforce student learning. Furthermore, Ashwin et al. (2015) caution that it is challenging for academics to think clearly about the purpose of assessment and to ensure that it has the effects it needs to have within the context of the module.
UNAM promotes the quality of assessment activities and processes through the implementation of its assessment policy. For example, the examination papers as well as a sample of examination answer scripts for second- and fourth-year modules in a four-year degree academic programme are externally moderated while the first year and third year modules are internally moderated. Furthermore, UNAM has a guiding policy on appointing external moderators. For instance, the moderator should be a senior lecturer, with expertise of the module and should be affiliated to a university. These are some of the measures the university has put in place to enhance quality assurance in the assessment process. Moderation is a quality assurance process that ensures appropriate standards. It is a process for ensuring that marks or grades are awarded appropriately and consistently. Therefore, the purpose of moderation is to ensure that assessment aligns with established criteria, learning outcomes and standards; its processes are equitable, fair and valid; and judgements are consistent, reliable, and based on evidence within the task response (Adie et al., 2011).
1.1. Statement of the Problem
According to UNAM (2013a), assessment is a process which involves evaluating student knowledge, understanding, abilities or skills and promotes learning by providing students with feedback. In contrast to that, in setting assessment tasks, some academic staff do not adhere to the university’s assessment policy in fact some are not even aware of its existence. Thus, UNAM encourages outcomes-based assessment where assessment is expected to be aligned to the learning outcomes (Brown, 2001). Academic freedom and lack of supervision or monitoring systems means that lecturers are free to do what they wish with assessment which may compromise the quality of assessment since no one is there to monitor their work. Sometimes lecturers get too harsh and expect more than they offer to the students. For instance, they provide unclear instructions in the assessment tasks. Furthermore, a number of academics struggle to prepare marking guide/rubrics to guide the students on what is expected. There is poor to no feedback provision, as some lecturers lack the knowledge of providing constructive feedback. Academics also pointed out that there is inconsistency in the university assessments, for example marking same work but different marks or marking the same group with different expectations sometimes they are lenient or too strict. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to take a critical reflection on quality assessment beyond remote teaching, learning and assessment at the University of Namibia.
1.2. Objectives of the Paper
This paper is guided by the following objectives:
1) To encourage assessment tasks that promote critical thinking beyond remote learning period.
2) To promote constructively aligned assessment that enhances quality student learning.
3) To fulfill various purposes of assessment in higher education setting.
2. Methodology
This paper used the critical reflection, which according to Schön (1996) should be done on continuous basis in order to transform process of constructively aligned remote assessment for quality learning beyond COVID-19 pandemic. This model is most suitable because it places emphasis on reflection during the event (during assessment) and reflection after the event (after assessment) which is in line with the UNAM assessment policy. Here academics should employ the contextual reflection aimed at changing the assessment process that guides learning. Shandomo (2010) agrees that through reflection the agents should engage in a process of self-examination and self-evaluation in order to improve assessment for quality learning beyond COVID-19 era. Stierer (2008) amplified critical reflective practice as an opposite of taking common-sense approach to learning in a higher educational setting. The lecturers should critically introspect their practice within their context in order to effect transformation in assessment that aid student learning. Critical reflection brings new insight instead of being complacent with the status quo and stagnation. Lecturers are encouraged to continuously think about making improvements in their community of practice. According to Schön (1996), reflective practice requires the academic staff to learn from experience within the environment of practice in order to transform constructively aligned assessment practice that promote quality lifelong learning. After reflection and introspection, academic staff should develop strategies to address the identified challenges that may hinders effective assessment among students. Therefore, this paper is guided by Schön’s (1996) “reflection-in-action” to analyses the process of remote assessment for quality learning beyond COVID-19 pandemic.
This paper will describe three aspects of remote assessment as a point of reflection at UNAM. It premises its discussion on an understanding that remote assessment is context specific, and it is not implemented in isolation from the theories and principles of assessment. Furthermore, to guide academics reflection on the remote assessment process post COVID-19, it is essential that the paper sheds light on both summative and formative assessment as approaches to assessment.
3. Literature Review
The literature reviewed focused on remote assessment, theories, principles as well as approaches to assessment. These discussions set the basis of gaps identified in literature.
3.1. The Impact of the Context on Remote Assessment
UNAM is part of the global village, its context has been either directly or indirectly influenced by changes in higher education context namely internationalization, globalization and revolution in digital technology, marketisation and competition (Barnett, 2004). Consequently, in an attempt to redress the social injustices of the past through education (McKenna, 2013), the Namibian government promoted a shift from education for the elites to education for all (Ministry of Education and Culture, 1993) through access, equity, equality and democracy. Thus, at a national level, UNAM’s context is influenced by professional bodies, student numbers, infrastructure and policies. The context is also impacted by the institutional factors such as policies, multi-campuses, resources and industries.
To begin with, UNAM can be described as a traditional university that focuses mainly on research, teaching and community engagement. The increase in the enrolment number of students at UNAM negative impacts on the assessment practices. Large groups of students are reported to make it difficult for academics to find a proper venue for assessment as well as invigilators to assist, and students often tend to be dishonest. Academic dishonesty is hard to control in large classes and assessment beyond remote learning to address this issue academic use more staff members during tests, but the problem persists. Again, another attitude to assessment is reflected by academic staff’s argument that there are not enough large-capacity venues and the timetable is congested for the students; this is one of the consequences of increasing student ratios without expanding the infrastructures it has the potential to threaten the quality of assessment. Alternatively, some academics tend to give group assessments as a means of reducing the load of marking and to be able to give feedback on time to students. However, the disadvantage of group assessment is that it does not necessarily give a true reflection of the learning of the students since some students may not participate and the lecturer may not know unless the other students report those who did not participate. This is most unlikely given the high level of academic dishonesty amongst students.
Conversations with some academics beyond the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that due to limited staff to administer and grade assignment activities they rely on members from the department for invigilation, in some instances, they reduce the content to be tested or make use of student assistants to mark the less crucial activities like assignments. Too large groups and limited time results in lecturers setting assessments that are easy to mark to ensure that students get feedback on time. These practices compromise the quality of the assessment activities and may also influence the purpose of assessment because the assessment tasks might not promote critical thinking but may consist of multiple questions that promote rote learning. Against this background, we argue that effective assessment requires lecturers to be creative in setting assessment activities. Lack of creativity during remote assessment results in lecturers repeating assessment tools because they are not exposed to varied modes of assessment. Again, academics tend to assess only for Continuous Assessment marks and not to determine whether learning has taken place or the outcomes of the course have been achieved. Some academics set poor quality assessments which are not focused on the desired exit learning outcomes. For example, a lecturer may copy a text or piece of written information from the internet without contextualizing it to the learning outcome in their course outlines.
There is a need for lecturers to collaborate with one another where possible this will improve their chances of being exposed to a variety of assessments approaches. Often than not the lecturers at a university were taught at different high institutions of education and are therefore exposed to various assessment practices. It is beneficial to learn from one another and exchange experiences of setting assessment tasks.
UNAM has an assessment policy drafted in accordance with both national and institutional policies such as: Namibia Qualification Authority Act 29 of 1996, High Education Act 26 of 2003 and the University of Namibia Act 18 of 1992. National Qualifications Act of 1996 established the National Qualification Framework to provide quality learning and qualification and serve as a forum for addressing matters pertaining to qualifications. The custodian of the assessment policy is the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (PVC: AA) assisted by the Centre for Learning and Teaching Intonation (CILT). Through this policy UNAM aims to provide guidance to the academic staff. Guidance to academics will be given through communication of assessment requirements to both students and lecturers to promote “effective assessment” in courses and timely student feedback (UNAM, 2013a). The policy furthermore, outlines UNAM’s assessment philosophy which embraces the following (p. 5):
· Purpose of assessment is to support and enhance student learning;
· Every student is a complex individual with a broad spectrum of abilities, skills and knowledge;
· Assessment shall consider a wide range of relevant performance information, formal and informal, standardized and non-standardized;
· Assessment shall be based on valid standards such as grade level expectations;
· Assessment data shall be communicated to students on a timely basis.
These are well articulated plans and objectives but without the academics enacting their role in implementing these ideas they remain ineffective and merely ideas on paper. The academic developers need to provide platforms where the assessment policy is discussed and to empower the academic staff to implement the university’s assessment philosophy.
Academics are reluctant to read and some have poor academic writing skills. Again, there is lack of authenticity in the students’ work due to high plagiarism experiment during remote assessment. Reading culture among students and academics seems to have diminished, which is a challenge and the use of work done by others without recognizing them is still prevailing. Another trait of students which makes student assessment challenging is the issue of procrastinating leading to poor quality work due to limited effort and less time invested. Students, like the lecturers, are marks oriented and not skills focused. Some academics believe that most students shy away from peer assessment and that they can be biased and inconsistent when peer assessing. Academics also hinted that it is challenging for them to create or adapt learning assessment methods that support active and experiential learning, which are suited for students’ different learning styles since students are not one size fits all, catering for all type of students becomes difficult owing to the diversity of the body of students we have in classes. Nonetheless, we cannot teach without assessing, it is only through assessment that we can discover whether the instructional activities in which we have engaged our students has resulted in the intended learning (William, 2013). Furthermore, William (2013) argues that our students do not learn what we teach and but what we assess becomes the curriculum. In other words, this simple yet profound reality translates into: assessment being the bridge between teaching and learning as well as the curriculum.
3.2. Theories and Principles of Remote Assessment
There are four types of learning theories, namely behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism and humanism. The UNAM’s (2013b) Teaching and Learning Policy indicated that it promotes student-centred learning as proposed by the constructivism learning theory. Thus, students are expected to learn by actively doing learning activities themselves. Furthermore, the constructive alignment between intended learning outcomes (ILO), teaching and learning activities (TLAs) and the assessment tasks (ATs) accentuates the importance of constructivism (Biggs & Tang, 2007) as seen in Figure 1. This approach model has an effect on student learning because student learn what is assessed. Therefore, the alignment between learning outcomes (curriculum), instructional activities (teaching and learning) and assessment should promote effective lifelong learning.
In addition, some lecturers strive to motivate and encourage students when they get good results. This is in line with rewards (positive reinforcement) and punishments (negative reinforcement) supported by the humanistic learning theory to reinforce students learning. In planning learning outcomes (curriculum), it is vital to focus on what students can do or what lecturers want their students to learn. Consequently, teaching and learning activities should support the learning outcome. Equally when it comes to assessment, lecturers should be aware of the purpose of giving the assessment to avoid assessing just for the sake of assessment (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Learning is a lifelong journey and hence the process of assessment is a crucial part of that journey.
Assessment is a key element of learning because it improves students’ learning. When students are able to see how they are doing in a class, they are able to determine whether or not they understand course material (Luckett & Sutherland, 2000). Assessment can also help motivate students. Thus, assessment can serve a number of purposes, and at the onset of designing assessment it should be clear what the educational purpose the assessment will be serving (Luckett & Sutherland, 2000; Ramsden, 1992).
There are different reasons why students are assessed. They are such as: Assessment drives instruction—For example, a pre-test given prior to teaching activities yields information on what students know and do not know at the
![]()
Figure 1. A model of constructive alignment in curriculum design.
outset, setting the direction of a course (Knight, 2001). These data highlight the gap between prior knowledge and a desired outcome. Due to time constraints few academics use assessment for diagnostic purposes. Effective teaching and learning involve finding out what students already know, and using their prior knowledge as a stepping stone to develop new understanding. These findings of assessment can further be complimented by data obtained by checking in with students throughout instruction, the lecturer constantly revises and refines their teaching to meet the diverse needs of students. Thus, assessment provides the lecturer with information regarding achievement of course outcomes and may be useful in reflecting on the teaching and learning activities and preplanning for better student performance (Ashwin et al., 2015).
Assessment drives learning—To begin with, what and how students learn depends to a major extent on how they think they will be assessed. Assessment tasks when drafted correctly have the power to change students’ approach to learning also referred to as transformative assessment. Academics more often than not complain that the students belong to a generation of copy and paste. Students are not going beyond what they are taught in class, which could result in academics setting assessment tasks that conform with students’ views and due to the fear of failing, they opt to play it safe and give us the facts back (Gibbs, 1999). Assessment practices must thus send the right signals to students about what to study, how to study, and the relative time to spend on concepts and skills in a course. Academics needs to be encouraged to communicate clearly what students need to know and be able to do, both through a clearly articulated syllabus, and by choosing assessments carefully in order to direct student energies. High expectations for learning result in students who rise to the occasion.
Assessment informs students of their progress—To communicate with students concerning their performance lecturers rely on effective assessment which provides students with a sense of what they know and do not know about a subject. Therefore, timely feedback provided to students indicates to them how to improve their performance. To avoid misalignment between assessment and learning outcomes, academics must ensure that assessments clearly match the content, the nature of thinking, and the skills taught in a class. The most important aspect in the process of learning is providing feedback to students because feedback makes students aware of their strengths and challenges with respect to course learning outcomes. According to Torrance (2012) assessment, if done well, assessment should not be a surprise to students, and many of the academics are guilty of this. Therefore, academic should shift their approaches to assessment and make it explicit to students.
Assessment informs teaching practice—Through reflection on student accomplishments lecturers gain insights on the effectiveness of their teaching strategies (Luckett & Sutherland, 2000). Evidence collected through feedback can help us determine how well student learning matches our expectations for a lesson, unit or course. Furthermore, it guides on how to improve instruction, where to strengthen teaching, and what areas are well understood.
Role of grading in assessment—Grades should reflect what a student has learned as defined in the student learning outcomes (Knight, 2001). They should be based on direct evidence of student learning as measured on tests, papers, projects, and presentations, etc. Grades often fail to tell us clearly about “large learning” such as critical thinking skills, problem solving abilities, communication skills (oral, written and listening), social skills, and emotional management skills. Therefore, is in assessment both quantity and quality of assessment tasks matter (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
When student learning outcomes are not met—From the data coming out of the assessment tasks students complete before, during and at the end of a course, is useful to determine the degree to which student learning outcomes are or are not met. If students are off course early on, a redirecting, revising of a topic, referral to student learning centres, or review sessions by the instructor may remediate the problem (Boud, 2007; Gibbs, 1999; Knight, 2001). Hence careful analysis of the said data enables us to determine the challenges and weaknesses of instruction in order to support student learning better.
Principles of assessment serve as guidelines to ensure that the assessment tasks are useful, appropriate, effective, and plausible. These principles are crucial to be taken into consideration because assessment is an important aspect of educational process which determines the level of accomplishments of students. There are principles of assessment such as reliability, fairness, transparency and validity. It is crucial that assessment is reliable which means that assessment decisions are made consistently (Luckett & Sutherland, 2000). It is also important that assessment is fair to ensure that students are entitled to parity of treatment and comparable assessment demands in modules of equal level and credit (UNAM, 2013a). Furthermore, effective assessment is transparent requires the criteria and methods for judging the students’ work to be clear to both students and lecturers. Finally, the assessment should be valid in the sense that it relates to the intended learning outcomes and thus assess what it was intended to assess (Knight, 2001).
How we handle the outcome of assessments yields two forms of assessment-norm-reference assessment and criterion reference assessment. Norm-referencing assessment is comparative, it tells us that one student is better than another. Thus, its focus is on ranking the students, it is more a way of treating marks than awarding them (Knight, 2001). Criterion referencing assessment on the other hand is a system for awarding marks. It is based on a simple theory which involves identifying “what counts as successful performance or good attainment, specify it precisely and judge evidence of achievement accordingly” (Knight, 2001: p. 18). For example, UNAM applies criterion referenced assessment and has published the criteria and guidance that enables the academic standards to be described and maintained (UNAM, 2013a). This is a great practice so that there is transparency in assessment processes. Lecturers should make it a practice to discuss the UNAM assessment criteria with their students.
3.3. Remote Formative and Summative Assessment
There are two main approaches to assessment, the formative and summative assessment respectively. Formative assessment may be defined as the assessments that provide information to students and teachers that is used to improve teaching and learning (National Research Council, 2001). It can be either formal or informal. Thus, the approach to assessment which is intended to inform students about how to do better is known as formative assessment. For example, diagnostic assessment which involves using carefully designed tasks to try and identify barriers to learning is a formative assessment (Luckett & Sutherland, 2000). It is considered as a low stakes assessment with emphasis on providing useful feedback (Knight, 2001).
Formative assessment embraces three purposes of assessment namely: assessment of learning, assessment for learning and assessment as learning. It assesses what the students understand of the course this is their present level of understanding thus assessing what they have learnt. By cross-referencing their performance to the expected learning outcomes (the level of understanding where we would like them to go) the lecturer determines what needs to be done to improve their learning this is assessment for learning. Finally, the feedback given to students serves the role of assessment as learning and can be used to close the gap in the students’ understanding of course materials. Potential assessment for learning tasks may include but are not limited to: quizzes, observations, presentations these provide feedback for students’ future learning. According to Tan (2013) students’ enhanced learning depends on the opportunities for students to receive and act on feedback. For example, sending student-teachers out at schools for School-Based Study (SBS) it is a form of formative assessment which provides transferable skills that promotes lifelong learning. The advantage of transformative assessment, it allows academics to assess the process of learning as opposed to the end product.
On the other hand, summative assessment refers to assessments used to sum up the students’ performance, usually occurring at the end of a unit or topic coverage, that intend to capture what a student has learned, or the quality of the learning (National Research Council, 2001) and judge performance against some standards. Although we often think of summative assessments as traditional objective tests, this need not be the case. For example, summative assessments could follow from an accumulation of evidence collected over time, as in a collection of student work like the portfolio. The assessment of learning through integrated professional portfolios is an example of how formative assessment tasks can become summative assessment. Worth pointing out here is that summative assessment provides a feed-out such as a degree, diploma, certificate or progress to the next year within a programme of study (Luckett & Sutherland, 2000). Assessment for summative purposes is associated with high stakes and as a result student tend to do their best to conceal ignorance and suggest competence (Knight, 2001). This approach to assessment carries with it the need to take reliability very seriously, hence examinations which are summative assessment should be moderated externally and internally. Academics must invest more effort in setting examination papers because these will be evaluated for validity.
4. Discussion
4.1. Quality Enhancement and Assurance in Remote Assessment
It is important to differentiate between two key concepts of quality-quality assurance and quality enhancement. Quality assurance may be defined as a collection of policies, procedures, systems and practices internal or external to the organisation designed to achieve, maintain and enhance quality (Williams, 2016). Again Williams (2016) described quality enhancement as concerned with improvement of students’ learning as well improvement in the quality of the programme of study.
Some of the academic staff indicated there are many threats to the quality of assessment. They suggest that large class size, students’ dishonesty, plagiarism and lack of large lecture halls pose a threat to effective assessment processes in the sense that supervision of assessment tasks is a challenge and crowded venues promotes student cheating in tests. Lecturers find it difficult to assess large classes as that will give an overload of marking work. Furthermore, some academic staff have also indicated that they have limited choices of assessment tasks and often opt to set easy to mark assessment tasks this indicate lack of creativity for setting assessments tasks.
Quality assurance at UNAM is mainly implemented for the summative assessment such as examinations. The moderators often only look at the technical aspects of the paper and makes very little if at all comments regarding the content being assessed and the level of assessment. This process may not be effective. In addition to that, the moderation of marked examination scripts returns very late from the moderators and the changes are often not affected as the marks has already been communicated to students to make provision for smooth running of supplementary examination. Examination papers are observed with several errors despite being externally moderated.
4.2. The Role of Lecturer in Remote Assessment
One responsibility of the lecturer is to use meaningful learning experiences as meaningful assessment experiences. To be effective assessment should focus on assessment for learning to improve teaching and epistemic access. Thus, the information generated from the assessment activity must be used to inform the academics and/or students what to do next to improve future teaching and learning. In such a view, assessment becomes virtually a continuous classroom focus, quite indistinguishable from teaching and curriculum (Brown, 2001).
The role of a lecturer is to address issues of assessment through a workshop for staff development where they share of alternative approaches to assessment. Also, the capacity building interventions for the academic staff is very important to empower academics not be afraid of changing the assessment practice or approach to assessment to obtain desired learning outcomes. Academic staff to shift from the focus on summative assessment towards a balance between summative assessment and formative assessment. Academics are missing out on the power of formative assessment in improving our students’ learning and for once focus on the process of learning rather than the product. It also important to have regular discussions on issues pertaining to assessment (demystifying assessment) because assessment is the heart of teaching and learning. For example, have debates about student capacity building through making assessment explicit and promoting participatory assessment.
Participatory assessment in which students are actively involved in assessment task should be explored. This type of assessment has many benefits such as it allows and enable students to take up ownership of their learning and yields students that are life-long independent and self-regulated. Equally important, this type of assessment gives students a voice in assessment and reduces the role of power which traditionally resides with the lecturer. There are many ways how we can promote student participation in assessment. For example, asking students to design questions for an assessment task, group work and students assess or the lecturer could seek feedback from the students and work on it to improve teaching and learning. However, the success of participatory assessment lies on effective preparation of students for giving and receiving feedback. In a nutshell lecturer need to engage in effective assessment complimented by timely feedback for transformative learning.
5. Conclusion
Indeed, assessment is the heart of education and should be well understood by both the lecturer and the student. Therefore, effort should be made to ensure that culture does not constraint quality assessment. For example, some academics at present still teach and assess the way they were taught and assessed. In terms of structure, lack of constructive alignment between the content, assessment activities and the learning outcomes lead to poor quality assessment activities. This refection changed our views on assessment. Assessment should be made explicit for students to encourage them to engage more with the content and use a deep approach to learning. In order to enhance quality assessment that promotes student learning academics should use constructively aligned assessment approach.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are deduced from the discussions and conclusion made in this paper:
· It is recommended that academic should make it a practice to discuss the UNAM assessment criteria with their students.
· It is also recommended that the university should organize capacity building interventions for lecturers to empower them about the ever-morphing assessment practice or approaches.
· Again, it is recommended that lecturers should shift from the focus on summative assessment towards a balance between summative assessment and formative assessment.
· It is recommended that assessment in a contemporary university should be centered around students’ epistemic access through the process of learning rather than the product.
· Also, it is recommended that units should host assessment aimed at promoting lifelong learning seminars to prepare both academics and students to give and receive feedback.
· Finally, it is recommended that more attention should be placed on demystifying assessment which is the core of teaching and lifelong learning.