This paper explores the use of multiple approaches to assess student group projects. It will illustrate how the use of multiple assessment approaches enhance student learning and aid objective assessment of group performance. These approaches include a range of measures and evaluations, each addressing a particular area throughout the life cycle of the project. By using an assessment strategy that provides multiple assessment opportunities, different assessment needs posed by the different facets of the group projects, are addressed. The effective implementation of this strategy and the underlying measures and evaluations, have been developed and refined over a period of three years.

The Group Systems Development Project is an integrated capstone course for the Information Systems major at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. The main objective of the course is to expose students, working in groups of four to five, to the rigours of analysing, designing and developing real life systems. The course is designed to give students invaluable experience of the management issues and complexities of running a real-world system development project. The students approach a possible sponsor in industry to provide them with a business problem. The sponsor supports the students with expert knowledge and experience, and performs assessments from an industry perspective. Students experience the subtleties and complexities of interacting with users in real organisations. An added benefit is that students gain experience of working in teams and realise the challenges that this entails. This course further equips students with crucial problem-solving abilities using object-oriented techniques and business process re-engineering, as well as with the insight and understanding required to capture business processes programmatically.

The assessment of the group projects has several complexities and challenges. These include the assessment of the following: the quality of the product, the understanding of the underlying business problem and principles, technical skills, soft skills, as well as the contribution of individual members to the group project. The strategy adopted to meet these challenges will be illustrated in this paper.

Before proceeding with the discussion of the strategy adopted, it is necessary to provide a background of current theories and thoughts on assessment, measurement and evaluation with which the authors align themselves. The terms assessment, measurement and evaluation will be defined as used in the context of this paper, followed by a short discussion of the purpose of assessment, assessment strategies and assessment instruments. The paper will then examine the assessment strategy adopted for the assessment of the group projects, exploring the multiple approaches used to ensure the effectiveness and objectivity of the assessment process.

2.         Assessment theory

In this paper assessment will be used as described in Du Toit et al (2001) as “a comprehensive term which includes the full range of procedures used to gain information about student learning and the formation of value judgements concerning learning progress”. Measurement and evaluation are components of assessment, with measurement being described in Du Toit et al (2001) as “a qualitative and/or quantitative process of assigning numbers to performance to indicate how much of a characteristic is portrayed by an individual”, whereas evaluation can be seen as a value judgement concerning quality – in essence an interpretation of the results through measurement.

2.1       Purpose of assessment

Assessments are performed for a number of reasons in every educational system. Their purpose will be closely related to the level at which they are aimed in the system. For the purpose of this paper we are looking at classroom or course level. Various authors (Cohen et al (2002), McMillan (2000), Shepard (2000), Pellegrino et al (2001)) point out the powerful effects assessment can have on student motivation and learning. The authors agree with Shepard (2000) that assessment should be used as part of teaching to promote learning. Shepard (2000) argues that assessment must take place FOR learning, in other words supporting the learning process and contributing to it instead of merely acting as a measure of teaching. This is supported by Pellegrino et al (2001) who state that learning is enhanced by assessment that provides feedback to students about the quality of their work and what they can do to improve their understanding. Pellegrino et al (2001) support a co-ordinated system of assessment in which multiple assessments work together with the curriculum and the teaching to support a shared set of learning goals. They feel strongly that assessment does not function in isolation and that its effectiveness depends on its relationship with the curriculum and teaching.

Another purpose of assessment should be to enhance and encourage what Entwistle (2000) describes as a deep approach to learning. A deep learning approach centres around understanding the material, and the student becomes actively interested in the course and its content. In contrast, a surface learning approach centres around meeting the course requirements and often employs recall and reproduction. When using a surface learning approach, students typically study the course material with the intention to reproduce it in tests and exams in order to pass the course.  Entwistle (2000) argues that assessment can promote deep learning by using assessment techniques to encourage students to think for themselves – the students must become active participants. This is echoed by Biggs (2000) who tasks the lecturer with the challenge to design teaching and assessment material that will engage the students in deep learning. Assessment should therefore be closely linked with learning objectives. To achieve this Biggs (2000) advocates moving away from quantitative measurement orientated assessment models to qualitative standards orientated assessment models. This will entail that the lecturer will need to verbalise the standards that will be expected from the students, as well as how they are expected to demonstrate it.  In the course being discussed this is supported by using scoring rubrics, which will be explained under heading 2.3 below.

2.2       Assessment strategies

The use of multiple assessment approaches as part of an assessment strategy is well supported in the literature.  Pellegrino et al (2001) argue that one type of assessment does not fit all purposes and that one form of assessment does not serve all purposes, and therefore multiple measures are needed to serve the different assessment needs. Pellegrino et al (2001) believe that the use of multiple assessments can provide valuable multiple perspectives on student achievements while supporting a core set of learning goals. They identify three properties essential for an assessment strategy: comprehensiveness, coherence and continuity. Comprehensiveness entails that a range of measurement approaches should be used to provide variety of evidence. No single test score can be considered a definitive measure of a student’s competence, and students must be given various ways in which to demonstrate their competence. Coherence implies that assessments should be compatible and complement each other rather than present conflicting goals for learning. Continuity means that assessments should measure student progress over time, and that change must be observed and interpreted.

Shepard (2000) also supports the idea of using multiple assessment approaches by suggesting that a broader range of assessment tools is needed to capture important learning goals and processes, as well as to make the connection between assessment and ongoing teaching. He identifies the following assessment strategies: dynamic assessment, assessment of prior knowledge, the use of feedback, teaching for transfer, student self-assessment, and evaluation of teaching. Dynamic ongoing assessment implies that the teacher can provide assistance and guidance as part of the assessment. He indicates that this can be extended to groups, and the practical application thereof in the group projects will be illustrated later in the paper. Prior knowledge assessment is essential to establish levels of competency before advancing to the next level instruction. Transfer means that new concepts and information are not only understood, but they can be applied and used in new situations. Assessment should establish that students did not only master classroom examples, but are able to apply the underlying concepts to new situations.  Explicit criteria mean that students have an unambiguous understanding of the standards and criteria against which their work will be assessed, ensuring fairness and enabling them to aim for and achieve the highest standards. Self-assessment compels students to take responsibility for their own learning and performance and encourages more collaboration between lecturers and students. Students are sensitised to be honest about their own efforts and contributions, as well as to be fair to other students in the group. Evaluation of teaching serves to evaluate and improve the teaching methods and environment to promote student learning.  These assessment strategies have all been put into practice in this course and the implementation thereof is discussed in the paper.

An important component of the multiple assessment strategy is the recognition of individual contributions to group performance. As observed by Cooke et al (1997), when assessing group performance, the focus cannot be on the product only. Cooke et al (1997) states that peer evaluations are standard practice in industry, and therefore peer evaluation should play a role in the assessment of group performance. Feigenbaum and Holland (1997) express concern about equity when assigning grades to group projects. When the same grade is assigned to all group members, it is assumed that all members of the group contributed equally. This is however not always the case. Feigenbaum and Holland (1997) believes that the use of peer evaluations allows group members to voice their perceptions of their contributions and those of the other members in the group. Through the quantification of these perceptions and by assigning a weighting factor to them, individual grades can be derived. The authors are cognisant of the fact that major problems can occur when one or more members of a group do not do their fair share of the work. It is therefore imperative that the assessment strategy includes an assessment instrument that will allow the measurement of individual contributions to the group project by peers (the group members) based on specific criteria. Peer evaluations therefore play a complementary role in the assessment of the group project, and are of vital importance in the multiple assessment strategy that will be discussed in this paper.

2.3       Assessment instruments

Amongst the assessment instruments discussed in the literature, scoring rubrics have been found to be the most effective to support student motivation and learning as well as to enhance objectivity. Rubrics can be described as a set of guidelines for giving scores. The guidelines include all the dimensions that are being assessed, the scale for the assessment as well as descriptions guiding the user to place what is being assessed, on the scale. Rubrics are described by Metler (2001) as rating scales or scoring guides with pre-determined performance criteria. Moskal (2000) contrasts scoring rubrics with checklist. While checklists are limited to the determination of whether pre-determined criteria have been met, scoring rubrics, being based on descriptive scales, support the evaluation of the degree to which the pre-determined criteria have been met. Moskal (2000) further points out that while formative assessment and the assignment of a numerical weight (e.g. a test or exam score) can also be used to determine the degree to which criteria have been met, this method does not give students any indication of how their performance can be improved. Moskal (2000) argues that in contrast scoring rubrics provide descriptions at each level as to what is expected and help the students to understand why a specific score was awarded and guides them regarding what to do to lift their performance to the next level.

As pointed out by both Moskal (2000) and Mertler (2001), there are two types of rubrics, namely holistic and analytic. In the case of holistic rubrics, the overall product or process is scored as a whole, with no attention given to the separate components or parts making up the whole. On the contrary, when using an analytical rubric, the separate components or parts are scored first, and the individual scores added to obtain a final score.  According to Mertler (2001) the decision regarding the usage of an analytical or a holistic rubric must be based on the intended use of the results. A holistic rubric is most suitable if a summative score is required, while an analytical rubric will provide significant formative feedback. The nature of what is being assessed as well as the performance criteria and time requirements must also be considered.

3.         The group systems development project

The objective of this course is to expose the student to the practical implementation of their theoretical knowledge, consolidating knowledge and skills in systems development and extend the use of object-orientated techniques and business process re-engineering. This provides the students with a valuable opportunity to integrate the knowledge obtained in complementary theoretical courses in the shaping and delivery of the final deliverable.  To increase student exposure, as well as to inform the industry and schools (especially those in underprivileged communities), students have the opportunity to showcase their respective projects at an open day (expo) event. This is a fitting closure for a course of this nature - requiring perseverance, planning and passion from the students to deliver quality products.

The business problem involves the development of a comprehensive web-based management system with a Visual Basic back-end. The students are presented with functionality guidelines as well as the generic system functions that must be incorporated. These requirements can be adapted to the specific needs of the business problem of the industry sponsor. The project has been sub-divided into clear phases, each with well-defined interim deliverables. For the purpose of this paper deliverables refer to all marked assignments, including written documents and source code, as well as project management and design diagrams. The phases identified are:

§          Project definition

§          System analysis

§          System design

§          System Build and Testing

For each phase the applicable system development deliverables, project management deliverables as well as quality control procedures are specified, and culminates in a milestone deliverable.

Table 1: Project phases and corresponding milestone deliverables

The breakdown of the project into interim phases and deliverables helps to keep the students motivated by creating attainable subtasks, and enables the continuous assessment and feedback of the work-in-progress. Through the deliverables of the project, students are forced to:

§          Identify the business problem and the alternatives to solve it.

§          Cope with the difficulties of getting user requirements and the changing nature thereof.

§          Evaluate the alternative solutions and come up with a recommended solution.

§          Analyse, design and build the proposed system.

§          Apply their prior knowledge (theoretical, as well as practical).

§          Acquire new specialised skills to solve their specific business problem.

§          Deal with and manage customer expectations and scope creep.

§          Work efficiently as individuals in a team.

§          Deliver a shrink wrapped product at a non-negotiable deadline.

Students work in self-chosen teams of four to five members. This size is optimal in terms of spreading the required work and achieving an adequate mix of skills and personalities. At the same time it does not allow members to benefit from the work of others without contributing. It is also a size which permits reasonably easy logistics in terms of arranging physical meetings and walkthroughs. Working in teams exposes students to "soft" IT issues, such as motivation, ethics and conflict resolution.

As noted by Dawson & Newman (2002) preparing students for the IT Industry is particularly difficult. Unlike more traditional subjects, IT is constantly developing and changing. This includes hardware, software, terminology, and approaches. During the past three years, the Group Systems Development Project course evolved from being developed according to a structured system development lifecycle to an object orientated development lifecycle. Software changes involved moving from VB6 to the VB.Net development environment. With the move to object-orientation, came a different analysis and design approach namely Unified Modelling Language (UML). All these changes had to be reflected in the assessment approach. The need for multiple assessments each targeting a different facet of the project which includes constructive and regular feedback became more acute, resulting in the assessment strategy currently being employed. This strategy includes regular review-points and measures addressing a particular area throughout the life cycle of the project.

Through the discussion of the key areas below, the strategy adopted for the assessment of the group projects and the implementation and integration of the assessment approaches used will be illustrated.

3.1       Project management and support

The course is managed by a course convenor and a course assistant. This is a resource intensive course, with the student numbers ranging from 180 to 220 over the past three years. This translates into between 38 and 44 teams per year. The course convenor and course assistant are supported by a team of faculty members acting as project managers. Each project manager provides guidance to approximately three student teams, with one of their main responsibilities being the assessment of interim deliverables, using measures designed for each stage of the development process. The instruments used are elaborated on under heading 3.4.2 below.

Students are also supported by their industry sponsors. An understanding of the company's business rules to establish the project requirements and scope definition is obtained through interviews, with follow-up meetings to monitor the project progress. Students are prepared for the challenges of team work through two interactive lectures dealing with team building skills and conflict in groups. During the building phase of the project when students might experience serious group conflict and disintegration of group cohesion, these skills are re-visited and additional support provided. While peer evaluations can be used throughout the life-cycle of the project whenever the need arises, it is performed as a “health-check” during the building phase in an effort to pre-empt any possible group conflict and to create an awareness of individual contributions towards the final product. It is important that each group member is aware of the group’s perception of his/her participation and commitment, as this perception will be reflected in the peer evaluation that will be conducted as part of the final assessment of the project. This final peer evaluation could affect the marks of individual group members, as explained under heading 3.4.3 below.

3.2       Communication

The three main properties of the assessment strategy (comprehensiveness, coherence and continuity) are supported through several communication channels, such as formal lectures, e-mail, weekly reports, project meetings, a course website and a dynamic FAQ (frequently asked questions) environment. Dynamic feedback, assistance and guidance are provided during the project meetings where project managers assess the interim and milestone deliverables. The formal lectures, e-mail and the course website are used to:

§          address current administrative as well as technical issues

§          provide and explain templates needed for project documentation

§          provide the theoretical background to supplement their body of knowledge

§          explain assessment criteria for the interim deliverables.

The weekly reports are used by the students as a reflective tool to analyse and evaluate the team progress. Team decisions and the motivation thereof as well as major alterations are recorded. In addition, major areas of concern to be addressed by the course convenor can also be recorded. A website hosting a dynamic FAQ environment is used as a forum for discussion and the addressing of questions posed.

3.3       The transfer of skills

There should be an alignment between the level of skills possessed by students and the level of skills demanded by development companies. It is vital that students are equipped with the most prominent specific skills and technologies that the industry requires. These are conveyed through formal lectures, technical workshops, information sessions with the sponsor and through facilitation by the faculty members acting as project managers. The technical workshops are conducted in a computer laboratory environment, where students are required to build a pilot system, empowering them for the development of their own system.

3.4       Assessment

The range of measures used for the assessment of the student group projects includes both measurement and evaluation. These are used throughout the life cycle of the projects to enhance the reliability and validity of the assessment of the groups. It also provides feedback on progress, and the opportunity to learn from mistakes and improve the performance of the groups.  

A multiple assessment approach is applied to the final assessment of the project. For the final assessment, students are required to deliver a shrink wrapped product at a non-negotiable deadline. This includes documentation, a CD containing the program code, an installation package and database files. The documentation required includes a business case, user specification document, system specification document, user guide and a test case document. The final product is then assessed by means of a project presentation, a code presentation and peer evaluations.

The strategy adopted for the assessment of the student group projects will be illustrated below.

3.4.1   Assessment strategy

Given the complexity of what must be assessed, and supported by trends in literature, it became clear that multiple approaches must be employed in the assessment of the group projects. As mentioned by Bennet (2001), practical work lends itself to a wide variety of aims, calling for the use of a variety of assessment methods. The authors became aware that the practical nature of the course and its many varied deliverables resulted in a wide range of abilities that must be assessed, and that cognisance must be taken of the fact that some forms of assessment only target a limited range of skills. To address this problem and to contribute to the objectiveness and fairness of the overall evaluation, the different skills needed to perform the tasks and deliverables were identified. Assessments were chosen that would effectively address those skills and deliverables.

The assessment strategy developed for this course is grounded in the strategies put forward by Shepard (2000), which were discussed under heading 2.2 above. These are: dynamic assessment, assessment of prior knowledge, the use of feedback, teaching for transfer, student self-assessment, and evaluation of teaching. The strategy also exhibits the three properties advocated by Pellegrino et al (2001), namely comprehensiveness, coherence and continuity. The strategy adopted for the assessment of the group projects, and the implementation and integration of the assessment approaches, is summarised in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Assessment strategy

The summary in table 2 reflects the comprehensiveness of the assessment approaches being used. The complementary nature of the approaches ensures coherence, while regular review-points and the assessment of interim deliverables provide opportunities for feedback and improvement, contributing to the continuity of the assessment process. Through this assessment strategy that promotes comprehensive, coherence and continuity, students are coached into a deep learning approach thus maximising their learning experience.

3.4.2   Assessment instruments

Three elements of assessment are used in this course: Formal summative assessment, e.g. the traditional tests and exams, to ascertain the student competence level; formal continuous assessment over the duration of the course, e.g. dynamic assessment of interim deliverables; and informal formative assessment to assist the students and the lecturers, e.g. self-assessment, peer evaluation and as course evaluation. Various assessment instruments are used, e.g. tests and exams, checklists, questionnaires, mark sheets and scoring rubrics.

In the assessment of the student group projects, rubrics form the backbone of the assessment instruments used. The use of rubrics is in line with moving towards a qualitative standards orientated assessment model as advocated by Biggs (2000) and discussed under heading 2.1 above. In this course the use of scoring rubrics were found to be the most effective way to align the lecturers acting as project managers, the course conveners, the markers and the students, and to stimulate conversation. It is the best way to limit bias and to convey to the students the standards against which they will be measured. Both analytical and holistic rubrics are used, depending on what is being assessed. Cohen et al (2002) point out that due to the nature of groups and group learning, it is important that all the groups members have clarity on the assessment criteria that will be used. In this course the rubrics (or mark sheets and other assessment instruments used) are published well in advance, ensuring that students are aware of the assessment criteria and associated standards. This enables the students to know what to aim for as well as encourages groups to do self-assessment. In this way the assessments support the learning goals, become part of the process of learning and encourage students to adopt a deep learning approach.

3.4.3   Assessment procedures

Clear assessment procedures, with associated timelines and/or deadlines, have been put in place for the assessment of all course deliverables. This is necessary for the successful administration of the course, as well as to give students direction and a structure within which they can learn and grow. All project managers and student groups receive detailed documentation, stipulating course objectives, assessment procedures, mark allocation (individual vs group), dates and deadlines. The documentation is available as hard copies, and is published on the course website along with all checklists, questionnaires, mark sheets and rubrics.

The interim deliverables are assessed by the project managers for each group. The assessments are discussed and students can use the feedback to improve the quality of their work, as the interim deliverables culminates in milestone deliverables. Each milestone deliverable is marked by two independent markers to ensure objectivity and equality.  

The final assessment of the project comprises of a project presentation, a code presentation and peer evaluations. For the project presentation the groups are required to present their systems to a panel of three examiners. All presentations take place on campus, and suitable venues are provided. Groups are allowed to bring their own equipment for their presentation. Two different venues are available, one of which has suitable equipment for those students not using their own equipment for the presentation. The groups are allowed to invite their sponsors to attend the presentations. Each group gets a 2-hour presentation slot, which includes the following:

§          30 minutes:    Setting up.

§          15 minutes:    General introduction of system using a video/powerpoint or any combination thereof.

§          45 minutes:    Live demonstration using previously documented and submitted test cases to extensively illustrate the capabilities and functions of the system.

§          30 minutes:    Panel question and answer session.

The rubric for the final presentation was developed using the following main criteria: presentation, documentation, user interface, security, robustness and integrity, scope and functionality, innovation and extras, and general. In figure 1 below, an extract of two of these main criteria is shown.

Figure 1: Extract from rubric for assessment of final presentation

A one hour code presentation is conducted on a separate day. During this presentation the focus is on the effectiveness of the object oriented (OO) code. Aspects evaluated include adherence to sound programming standards, OO features and techniques, readability and maintainability of code as well as the building of own controls/components versus the usage of shareware. Also required is the demonstration of a proper installation procedure corresponding to the instructions in the user manual created for the project.

Peer evaluations are also conducted by each group, as described in a peer evaluation document provided. This document enables a student to perform a self assessment as well as individual assessments of other group members using a rubric. A numerical analysis is performed on the outcome. In cases of significant variances from a mean value, a penalty deduction will be applied to the specific student’s mark. In this way full participation of each group member is encouraged.

Table 3 below reflects the weighted contribution of the different components of the course to the final mark.

Table 3: Mark distribution

It must be noted that the mid-year exam and the technical workshops are not assessed as group deliverables. Marks awarded to these two components are done on an individual basis. A student’s final mark therefore consists of a 20% individual contribution and an 80% group contribution.

Since the assessment strategy described in this paper has been implemented, there has been a marked decrease in the number of groups requiring facilitation in conflict resolution, as well as the number of groups requiring additional technical assistance. The authors see this as a clear sign that the assessment strategy adopted supports the learning process and aids objective assessment of the group projects.

4.         Conclusion

Exposure to real-world projects is vital for the development of the students into marketable IT professionals. Through the Groups System Development course, students experience the value and pressures of teamwork, communicating with and being accountable to a real-world user (the sponsor), the full system development life-cycle, dealing with time constraints and deadlines to deliver and present a final shrink wrapped product. In essence the project provides the students with a unique opportunity to experience the convergence of multiple disciplines as might characterise the day-to-day experience of an IT specialist in industry. Students are passionate about and proud of “their system”, and it is essential that they are assessed in a transparent and fair manner. This prompted a serious re-evaluation of the assessment of the student projects over the period of three years, resulting in the multiple assessment strategy presented in

It has been observed that the use of a multiple assessment strategy aids the resolution of issues surrounding the objective assessment of student group projects. Our experience over the three years is that previous contentious issues surrounding the assessment of the projects, the objectivity thereof as well as student learning are successfully addressed by the current assessment strategy. This strategy will continuously be assessed, refined and adapted to the changing needs of the students, the course material and all the role players involved with the course. 

References

• Bennet, J. (2001). “Practical work at the upper high school level: The evaluation of a new model of assessment”, International Journal of Science Education, Vol 23, No.1, pp97 – 110.
• Biggs, J. (2000). “Assessing for quality in learning”, in Assessment to Promote Deep Learning: Insights from AAHE's 2000 and 1999 Assessment Conferences, Suskie, L. (Ed), Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, p65.
• Cohen, E.G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P.L., Scarloss, B.A., Schultz, S.E. (2002), “Can groups learn?”, Teachers College Record, Vol 104, No.6, pp1045 – 1068.
• Cooke, J. C., Drennan, J. D., Drennan, P. (1997), “Peer Evaluation as a Real-Life Learning Tool”, Technology Teacher, Vol 57, No. 2, pp 23-27.
• Dawson, R. J. and Newman, I.A. (2002). “Empowerment in IT Education”, Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol 1, No.2, pp125 – 141.
• Du Toit, G., Khabanjane, E., Korff, W., Kotze, G., Masehela, K., Mostert, S., van Tonder, F. (2001). Assessment in OBE, A project sponsored by the Ministry of the Flemish Government, Department of Education, Final Report.
• Entwistle, N. (2000). "Promoting Deep Learning Through Teaching and Assessment", in Assessment to Promote Deep Learning: Insights from AAHE's 2000 and 1999 Assessment Conferences, Suskie, L. (Ed), Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, p9.
• Feigenbaum, L. and Holland, N. (1997). “Using peer evaluations to assign grades on group projects”, ASC Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference, University of Washington - Seattle, Washington, April 2 - 5 1997, pp 75 – 80.
• McMillan, J.H. (2000). “Fundamental Assessment principles for Teachers and School Administrators”, [online], Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8), http://edresearch.org/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=8
• Metler, C.A. (2001). “Designing Scoring Rubrics for your Classroom”, [online], Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25), http://edresearch.org/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25
• Moskal, B.M. (2000). “Scoring Rubrics: What, When and How?”, [online], Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3), http://edresearch.org/pare/getvn. asp?v=7&n=25
• Novitzki, J.E. (2001). “Critical issues in the Administration of an Integrated Capstone Course”, in Informing Science. Challenges to Informing Clients: A Transdisciplinary Approach. June 2001, pp370 – 379.
• Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., Glaser, R. (Eds), (2001). Knowing what students know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
• Shepard, L.A. (2000). “The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture”, in Educational Researcher, Vol 29, No.7, pp4-14.

EJISE is published by Academic Conferences Limited
Curtis Farm, Kidmore End, Nr Reading RG4 9AY, England
Tel: +44 (0)1189 724148, Fax: +44 (0)1189 724691, Email: info@ejise.com

Send mail to info@academic-conferences.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2002-2006 Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation
Last modified: September 29, 2005
ISSN 1566-6379