1 / 15

Embedding Quality in Student Assessment in ODL: The case of the University of Pretoria

Embedding Quality in Student Assessment in ODL: The case of the University of Pretoria. Dr Ruth Aluko (University of Pretoria) & Dr Ephraim Mhlanga (SAIDE) NADEOSA Conference, 29 – 30 August 2011. Assessment: Type & Purpose. Type Purpose Agency

todd-perkins
Download Presentation

Embedding Quality in Student Assessment in ODL: The case of the University of Pretoria

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Embedding Quality in Student Assessment in ODL: The case of the University of Pretoria Dr Ruth Aluko (University of Pretoria) & Dr Ephraim Mhlanga (SAIDE) NADEOSA Conference, 29 – 30 August 2011

  2. Assessment: Type & Purpose TypePurposeAgency Student Formative Learning Teacher Teacher Certification Summative Student Student Accountability system Source: Shavelson (n.d)

  3. Assessment as a monitoring mechanism Assess diagnose address re-plan Source: Brenner & Shalem (2010)

  4. An integrative approach to assessment • Linking assessment task with construct • Shift from using assessment to measure what was learnt in the past to something that guides teaching and learning. • From quality control to quality assurance (Leahy et al. 2005 in Brenner & Shalem 2010)

  5. The Questions • What is the quality of assessment practices of DE programs at the University of Pretoria? • How far do these agree with the assessment policy of the University on DE programs, international and local quality criteria? • What are the challenges, and what is the way out?

  6. Rationale • Shift from process of education to outcomes of student learning for program and institution evaluation (American Psychology Association (APA), 2002) • Value of assessment to DE students (motivation & retention) • Dearth in literature on student assessment in distance learning (Hughes, Okumoto & Crawford, 2010)

  7. Background to the Study • DE context at UP • Large scale (20 000+) • Throughout SA (Rural) • 95% Teachers • 68% Female • 70% over 40 years • Internet access: 1% (2007); 14% (2010)

  8. Quality Assurance at UP • Quality is a priority • Its management is seen as an iterative process • It is always possible to improve • QA is part of a philosophy, a managerial, a teaching and an administrative style • Its policy with regard to DE • All DE programs must meet the same quality standards required of CE programs

  9. QA of DE Programs (The Unit for Distance Education) • University of Pretoria, DE Policy • Guided by: • Commonwealth of Learning (COL). 2004. Planning and Implementing Open and Distance Learning Systems • Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2004. Criteria for Institutional Audits, Higher Education Quality Committee • Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2004. Criteria for Programme Accreditation, Higher Education Quality Committee • NADEOSA Quality Criteria (As agreed upon by DE providers in SA) (Welch & Reed, 2005)

  10. NADEOSA Quality Standards on Assessment & UPUDE Response

  11. Challenges • Delays in delivery of assignments (from & to students) • Continual re-training of service providers • Continual monitoring of the quality of their service • Electronic assignments & electronic marking • Diversifying multiple-mode assessment

  12. Suggestions & Conclusion • Delays are sometimes beyond UP’s control • Investigation into the use of students’ prior learning (RPL) as a form of assessment • Development of rubrics for all modules • Investigation into the use of Ipsative assessment as a part of formative assessment (Hughes, Okumoto & Crawford, 2010)

  13. Bibliography • American Psychology Association (APA). 2002. Principles of good practice in distance education and their application to professional education and training in psychology. Washington, DC: APA. Available www.apa.org/ed/resources/finalreport.doc • Brenner, E. & Shalem, Y. 2010. Immediate response to mediated learning: The use of technology for continuous assessment in higher education: CHE (2010) Teaching and Learning beyond formal access: Assessment through the looking glass: Higher Education Monitor No. 10 of August 2010. • Commonwealth of Learning (COL). 2004. Planning and Implementing Open and Distance Learning Systems: A Handbook for Decision Makers. Vancouver: COL downloaded from www.col.org . • Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2004. Criteria for Institutional Audits, Higher Education Quality Committee, June 2004. Pretoria: CHE. • Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2004. Criteria for Programme Accreditation, Higher Education Quality Committee, November 2004. Pretoria: CHE. • Hendrikz, J. & Aluko, FR. 2011. Quality assurance in ODL & its possible impact on students’ attrition rates. Paper presented at the 3rd ACDE conference, 12-15 July, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. • Hughes, G., Okumoto, K. & Crawford, M. 2010. Ipsative assessment and motivation of distance learners. London: University of London, Centre for Distance Education. • Shavelson, RJ. (n.d.) On the Integration of Formative Assessment in Teaching and Learning with Implications for Teacher Education. • University of Pretoria. 2009. Distance Education policy. Pretoria: UP. • University of Pretoria. 2010. Data from the Unit for Distance Education. Pretoria: UP. • Welch, T. & Reed, Y. Eds. 2005. Designing and Delivering Distance Education: Quality Criteria and Case Studies from South Africa. Johannesburg: Nadeosa.

  14. THANK YOU ruth.aluko@up.ac.za ephraimm@saide.org.za

More Related