"It's the tail that wags the dog."

The method of assessment drives student learning. If you want to bring students for instance to application, it is necessary to assess this application level and not limit yourself to a merely knowledge exam.

So, although assessment of students seems to come up only at the end/the tail of the learning process (although we know from the previous page that this too is not true), it is still crucial to have this clearly worked out before the start of a course and that students are well aware of this.

4 principles of qualitative assessment

The vision of Howest on qualitative assessment for educational programmes is based on the following 4 principles:

1. Competence-oriented

Assessment is done in line with gradual competence development. A mix of assessment forms, depending on the stage of the competence development, is therefor appropriate.
Competence-oriented assessment implies also that some of the assessments in a programme take place in an authentic -albeit sometimes simulated- professional context.

2. Student-centred

Student-centred assessment implies a broad view of assessment. Assessment includes not only summative assessment but also formative assessment. This latter is an important tool for developing a student-centred learning environment because it gives the student the opportunity to adjust their learning.

Student-centred assessment also implies a transparent assessment procedure and good preparation for assessment through e.g. sample questions and mentoring sessions.

Some assessments in a programme aim to stimulate students' self-directedness. Certain formats such as self- and peer assessment are thoughtfully used as a means of stimulating this self-direction. A build-up in these self-directed forms of assessment is expected throughout the programme.

3. Feasibility

Efficient assessment is expected, whereby the quantity of assessments is in proportion to the intended learning goals. The assessment forms are thoughtfully chosen, also taking into account the study load of the students and the work load of the teacher.

4. Field-oriented

Some assessments in an education programma assume the work field as co-assessor. Especially in courses at graduation level, this is an indispensable partner. Moreover, assessments at graduation level should be in line with what the field can expect from a graduating student within a certain EQF level.

Assessment = a layered concept

The assessment policy at Howest describes 6 indicators to realise a qualitative assessment. We put the indicators on 3 layers, where the higher layer is always conditional for the underlying layers. The first two layers are real must have's. These are the bare minimum for a qualitative assessment practice. The third layer contains rather nice-to-have's. These are specific choices we make at Howest. We expect the indicators to be present in every educational programme, but not necessarily in every course unit. The figure below provides a visual overview.

Figure. 6 indicators for qualitative assessment

What is meant by the different indicators?

Validity: Do you measure what you need to measure? Is your assessment suitable for the objectives to be measured?

This calls for a well chosen assessment form and questioning the right subjects.

When is the validity not ok?

Imagine that you examen the swimming skills of your students by taking a written exam...

Or imagine you ask your students to do crawl on their swimming exam, when the learning goal only stipulates to do be able to breaststroke...

Reliability: Are the results a good reflection of you students' abilities? If we repeated the test at a different time or with a different assessor, would we see the same score?

This asks for measures to avoid errors in measurement as much as possible. This may include:

- Measurement errors within the test itself.

When is the reliability not ok? e.g. a poorly readable font, the question could be interpreted ambiguously

- Measurement errors by the conditions under which the test is taken

When is the reliability not ok? e.g. examination room is too cold, too warm, to noisy, student has just broken up with his girlfriend (you don't have an influence on everything 😉)...

- Measurement errors by the way the students are assessed

When is the reliability not ok? e.g. fatigue, bais towards certain students...

Transparancy: Are the expectations for the assessment clear? Are the instructions clear? Is the assessment clear and understandable for everyone?

This requires clear communication of expectations for the various assessments within a course and clear instructions on the assignment, on the exam.

When is the transparancy not ok?

Imagine giving an assignment without communicating the learning goals, not giving clear deadlines, not giving clear assessment criteria...

Meaningfulness & Self-direction: In what way does the assessment support the self-directing skills of the students? Does the assessment give your students tools to adjust their learning?

This requires providing concrete aids to encourage self-direction. E.g. analysis of assignments from previous years, peer evaluation, feedback moments, self-reflection, certain degrees of freedom for an assignment...

When is the meaningfulness and self-direction not ok?

Imagine an educational programme where they only provide assessment OF learning, and give no possibilities for students to give their own reflections, redirect themselves, learn from feedback.

Authenticity: To what extent the assessment uses authentic contexts?

This calls for embedding an authentic context in the assessment where possible. E.g. framing assignments in a profession-specific context, using real cases from the work field, taking assessments in the work field, involve people from the work field in the evaluation.

When is the authenticity not ok?

Imagine graduating nursing students who never came into contact with real patients during an assessment and never had to perform medical procedures....

Are you keeping up?

Time for some short tests.