The document discusses scaling up assessment for learning (AfL) through the use of technology. It covers using MOOCs and peer assessment in online courses, with automated feedback and peer reviews. While peer assessment can be moderately reliable, students gain more from providing rather than receiving peer feedback. Technology allows for audio, video and personalized feedback at scale. However, simply adding technology without improving assessment design is flawed. Scaling up AfL requires leadership, incentives, communities of practice and staff development to enhance design and develop student understanding of quality.

1. Scaling up Assessment for
Learning
CITERS 2017, June 9
Professor David Carless
University of Hong Kong
The University of Hong Kong

2. Overview
• Assessment for learning (AfL)
• AfL & MOOCs
• Peer feedback & technology
• Leadership & communities of practice
The University of Hong Kong

3. The University of Hong Kong

4. Chapter 1: Scaling up AfL: Progress & prospects
(Carless)
Chapter 14: How does Technology enable Scaling
up AfL? (Dawson & Henderson)
The University of Hong Kong

5. AfL definition
Assessment for which the
first priority is promoting students’
learning (Black et al., 2004)
Cf. Formative assessment
Learning-oriented assessment
(Carless, 2007, 2015a)
The University of Hong Kong

6. Interlinked AfL strategies
1. Productive assessment design
2. Students making judgments
3. Effective feedback processes
4. Developing student appreciation of quality
(Carless, 2017)
The University of Hong Kong

7. Scaling up (Coburn, 2003)
Spread
Depth
Sustainability
Shifts in ownership
The University of Hong Kong

8. Why scale-up AfL?
Research evidence
(Black & Wiliam, Hattie)
Dissatisfaction with current assessment &
feedback practices
The University of Hong Kong

9. Black & Wiliam (1998)
Formative assessment & learning gains
Effect sizes: 0.4 - 0.7
… But implementation is generally weak
The University of Hong Kong

10. Hattie: Visible Learning
The University of Hong Kong

11. MOOCs & AfL
The University of Hong Kong

12. MOOC Assessment design
Alignment of goals, activities & low-stakes
assessment
MC quizzes + automated
feedback
Higher order thinking?
The University of Hong Kong

13. Peer assessment
Peer reviewed assignments + detailed
rubrics as key feature of MOOCs
(Admiraal et al, 2015; Huisman et al., 2016)
The University of Hong Kong

14. Reliability of PA
Moderate reliability of peer assessment
(Admiraal et al., 2015)
Use of multiple peer assessments to
mitigate variance in judgments (Hew, 2016)
The University of Hong Kong

15. Peer feedback for learning
Learners gain more from composing than
receiving peer feedback (Nicol et al., 2014)
The University of Hong Kong

16. Peer & Self-evaluation
Students did 5 peer reviews then self-
evaluated own work
(Hew, 2016)
The University of Hong Kong

17. FEEDBACK PROCESSES &
TECHNOLOGY
The University of Hong Kong

18. Audio & Video feedback
Rapport
Nuance
Personalisation
Monologue or Dialogue?
Time saver?
The University of Hong Kong

19. Peer video feedback
Peer-to-peer video feedback
delivered via Facebook
Hung (2016)
The University of Hong Kong

20. Personalised feedback at scale
Using learning analytics to
scale the provision of
personalised feedback
https://www.ontasklearning.org/
The University of Hong Kong

21. Sustainable feedback
Students generating & using feedback from
peers or self as part of self-regulated
learning (Carless et al., 2011)
The University of Hong Kong

22. DEVELOPING STUDENT
APPRECIATION OF
QUALITY
The University of Hong Kong

23. MOOC limitation?
MOOCs do not systematically develop
student understanding of quality
(Dawson & Henderson, 2017)
The University of Hong Kong

24. Using exemplars
The University of Hong Kong
Exemplars convey messages
that nothing else can
(Sadler, 2002)

25. The University of Hong Kong

26. Appreciating quality
Students need to debate nature of quality &
develop capacities in making judgments
The University of Hong Kong

27. SCALING UP POSSIBILITIES
The University of Hong Kong

28. Enhancing design
Adding technology to existing design &
expecting improvements is flawed
Invest in improved assessment & feedback
designs to leverage gains from technology
(Dawson & Henderson, 2017)
The University of Hong Kong

29. Leadership
Resourcing & support
Incentives & rewards
The University of Hong Kong

30. TELI
Technology-Enhanced Learning Initiative
The University of Hong Kong
Associate Vice-President (Teaching
and Learning) Ricky Kwok

31. Incentives
Teaching Innovation Award
Teaching Feedback Award
The University of Hong Kong

32. Communities of practice (CoPs)
Surfacing and sharing AfL practices
(Hounsell & Zou, 2017)
The University of Hong Kong

33. Staff development
Good CoPs
Dialogue & communication
The University of Hong Kong

35. References
Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., & Pilli, O. (2015). Assessment in massive open online
courses. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(4), 207-216.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the
black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8-21.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education, 5(1), 7-74.
Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual basis and practical
implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57-66.
Carless, D. (2015a). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher
Education, 69(6), 963-976.
Carless, D. (2015b). Excellence in University Assessment: learning from award-winning
teachers. London: Routledge.
Carless, D. & K.K.H. Chan (2016). Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1211246
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback
practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407.
Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting
change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
The University of Hong Kong

36. References
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.
Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we
learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology,
47(2), 320-341.
Hounsell, D. & Zou, T. (2017). Surfacing and Sharing Advances in Assessment: A
Communities-of-practice approach. In D. Carless, S. Bridges, C.K.W. Chan & R.
Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up Assessment for learning in Higher Education. Singapore:
Springer.
Huisman, B., Admiraal, W., Pilli, L., van de Ven, M., & Saab, N. (2016). Peer assessment
in MOOCs: The relationship between peer reviewers’ ability and authors’ essay
performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. Doi: 10.1111/bjet.12520.
Hung, S.-T. A. (2016). Enhancing feedback provision through multimodal video
technology. Computers & Education, 98, 90-101.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher
education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
39(1), 102–122.
Sadler, D. R. (2002). Ah! … So that’s ‘quality’. In P. Schwartz & G. Webb (Eds.),
Assessment: Case Studies, Experience and Practice from Higher Education (p.130-
136). London: Kogan Page.
The University of Hong Kong

37. THANK YOU
The University of Hong Kong