Using assessment to encourage deep and active learning. Experiences from the teaching of Italian.

MATTHEW ABSALOM, SCHOOL OF LANGUAGE STUDIES/CEDAM, THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

All too often, language courses at tertiary level make use of assessment methods which actively militate against learning in an integrated, connected way and promote a disjointed approach involving memorisation and rote learning. Realisation of this state of affairs has prompted the author to trial a number of different assessment techniques in a bid to maximise and encourage deep and active learning. Two other important issues at work in the choice to innovate assessment were:

• the desire to make explicit the connection between the aims and objectives of the course and assessment tasks; and,
• the need to challenge the notion that language is easily dissected into distinct and apparently unrelated competencies - writing, reading, speaking, listening, metalinguistic., a message implicitly conveyed by traditional assessment tasks.

After an initial discussion of the context of the innovation, we will examine a number of assessment techniques used from the point of view of both lecturer and students. Why specific techniques were chosen and what they offered will form an important focus of the paper.

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

The spirit and style of student assessment defines the de facto curriculum (Rowntree 1987:1)

The assessment of students is a serious and often tragic enterprise. (Ramsden 1992:181)

It is appropriate to open this paper with a brief reminder of what a deep and active approach to learning involves. For many readers, these concepts will not be new. The terms deep and surface come from the work of Marton & Slj (see Marton & Slj 1997, for example). According to Absalom 1999:

A deep approach to learning involves active participation in and engagement with the learning process, a desire to understand and to see connections with real life, and an holistic appreciation of the relationship between parts in a connected way. By contrast, a surface approach to learning privileges memorisation and promotes the view that learning is simply a quantitative increase in knowledge.

The following table, after Ramsden 1992 table 4.1, teases out further aspects of these two approaches

A deep approach to learning implies an active, rather than passive, orientation. A model of active learning rejects the notion that students are an empty vessel waiting to be filled with the knowledge imparted by the lecturer-expert. As Laurillard (1993:15) points out

The tradition of pedagogy that stretches back to Dewey's rejection of the classical tradition of passing on knowledge in the form of unchangeable ideas, has always argued for the active engagement of the learner in the formation of their ideas. More recent exponents of the latter tradition ... argue for the active engagement of the learner rather than the passive reception of given knowledge.

Active learning, then, seeks to involve the student in the formation of the subject matter. I would argue that active learning also encourages the learner to become explicitly aware of the learning process itself.

It is clear that the oft-repeated aims of higher education are consonant with a deep and active approach to learning. Nevertheless, it is worth reiterating in the words of Marton & Slj (1997:49):

Now that we have found a difference in the way students learn which we believe to be of fundamental importance, and since this difference goes between two approaches to learning, of which one is clearly preferable to the other, should we not try to make students who tend to adopt the less appealing approach, change to the more highly valued one?

In an earlier paper (Absalom 1999) I noted that assessment schemes in many tertiary foreign language courses fail to encourage students to adopt a deep and active orientation to learning due to the use of assessment tasks which are at odds with the stated aims of the subjects in question. Often this mismatch arises from the perpetuation of traditional tasks, such as three hour exams, without properly examining the messages their use conveys to students. Students very quickly notice the difference between the philosophised aims of a course and the reality of what is needed to get by and adapt their behaviour accordingly. The result is often the adoption of surface approaches to learning. The realisation of this situation has prompted me to attempt to harmonise aims and assessment in order to encourage the use of deep and active approaches to learning.

In my view, the emphasis on tasks which promote surface approaches to learning can grow out of a conception of language as something which is easily dissected into a finite set of competencies or abilities. The most common are: reading, writing, speaking, listening and grammar. As a deep approach to learning, and indeed the very notion of tertiary education, is often linked to higher cognitive skills such as analysis and synthesis, a more integrated conception of language is needed.

LANGUAGE: TO DISSECT OR NOT TO DISSECT

The notion that language is easily divisible into a range of component parts is clearly a recurrent notion in both theoretical and didactic texts. Even an incomplete, somewhat ad hoc, survey can reveal this. Rubin & Thompson's How to be a more successful language learner offers readers a barrage of useful strategies to enhance their learning. It is clear, however, that a view of language as made up of component parts underlies their approach with chapters 11-15 entitled respectively Vocabulary and Grammar, Listening, Reading, Speaking and Writing.

Balboni's volume on the teaching of languages concisely spells out the notion of divisibility of language. He says

There exist, in language teaching, as in all other disciplines, certain notions which are taken for granted and definitive, particularly when they are intuitively confirmed by our everyday experiences. An example of this is the "four linguistic abilities", a notion which recurs in all the theoretical literature and which is widely used in didactic materials (Balboni 1991:11, my translation)¹

Balboni's approach is to further dissect language, identifying a set of primary abilities:- reading, writing, listening, speaking- and a further series of integrated abilities. While the nomenclature would suggest a higher degree of integration, the detail of Balboni's discussion reveals even further stratification of language.

By contrast, H. Douglas Brown's A practical guide to language learning presents a picture of language as an integrated whole. For example, chapter 6 is entitled Wide-Angle Lenses, Please and the brief descriptor states "Successful language learning requires getting the 'big picture'. Occasionally you may need to 'zoom' in on the bits and pieces of language, but it's important not to get hung up on details." (Brown 1989:vi).

Italian textbooks can be placed on a continuum which ranges from extremes of disintegration to integration. This depends, of course, on the conception of language conveyed by the organisation of the textbook. It is exactly these sorts of hidden meanings which can have an effect on students' approaches to learning.

TOWARDS ASSESSMENT TASKS WHICH PROMOTE DEEP AND ACTIVE LEARNING

I have chosen three types of assessment tasks which I have used and which I believe successfully encouraged deep and active learning. Each of the assessment tasks attempts to convey a holistic notion of language. I will present these as mini case studies and support my claims with student feedback.

Integrated exercises: are these academic enough?

First year students in semester 1, 2000 had 3 exercises to complete. While each of these focused on a particular ability as suggested by their label, they crucially did not exclude the others. This is important in conveying the idea of language as a whole rather than as a disintegration of component parts. Here is an excerpt of the student guide which related to the exercises.

As well as the options outlined students could always come to me and agree on some other type of exercise. For example, I had four opera students in my course who chose to perform a piece of Italian opera for the class accompanied by a brief synopsis in Italian, which was also submitted in written form. Both the possibility to choose and the variety of presentations in the first exercise were extremely motivational for students. My acknowledgment of student variation and of a diverse set of student interests and expectations and my flexibility in allowing students to incorporate these into their exercises increased student engagement with the tasks. The variety also allowed students to showcase their diverse strengths. The exercises linked clearly to unit aims relating to communication.

Many colleagues have raised their eyebrows (and you may have done so as well) at my reading comprehension exercise which involves reading a recipe, following it and bringing the end product into class. This exercise, however, is one which places students in a real life situation and requires them to draw on, not simply grammatical knowledge, but also high level cognitive skills and world knowledge. Students experience the practical application of what they have learned in class. This is clearly an example of Ramsden's relating theory to everyday life (see table above).

Class tests: getting under the surface

In addition to the exercises, first year students had a 10-15 minute test on the previous week's work at the beginning of each week. The challenge for me was to set tests which did not privilege surface learning. One way to accomplish this was to use different tasks from test to test so that, while there was a routine in having the test, the variety of exercises required understanding rather than memorisation. This variety involved both written, visual and aural comprehension. In designing each test I would pose the question: can this be answered by simple recall. In this way the tasks set were geared towards deep and active learning.

Immediately following the test, it was corrected in class. This gave students important feedback while the relevant issues were still fresh. I employed a range of marking strategies designed to involve students. These included self, peer and group assessment. Here is the information which I distributed to students in their guide:

Level of detail

Another important way in which I have supported the adoption of deep and active strategies is by providing students with clear objectives and directions. The two excerpts from the students' guide illustrated the level of detail which I provide to students. This written information is supported by ongoing discussions in class throughout the semester.

Student feedback from first year Italian, sem. 1, 2000

At the end of each semester students are asked to complete ANUSET² forms to evaluate units and teaching. In addition to this formal instrument I also administered an informal questionnaire mid-way through the semester. Student comments relating specifically to assessment follow

The test, whilst I think should stay, are hard to study for because it doesn't always reflect what we do in tutorials.

...the tests every week are good as it forces one to "keep up" - I really like this aspect of the structure of the course, as it avoids the mass stress (everything due at once)

weekly tests are a good idea

I really like having the weekly tests because it encourages me to prepare for the classes and they're good to look back on.

Weekly tests are a great idea for maintaining student commitment.

Marking system was easy to understand. Continual assessment made learning easier.

Interesting assessments...weekly tests good

The course is well structured with continuous feedback from weekly test.

...the assessable work is interesting and there are a few to choose from to keep everyone happy.

Assessment - new, different assessment methods, much more interesting

Weekly tests were good for motivation

Great variety ..

.good assessment structure

The projects and excersises [sic] were all challenging yet interesting.

Comments relating to the assessment scheme were generally positive. In my view, the first quote highlights my success in crafting tests which, while regular, were not predictable. It was difficult for the student taking a surface approach because success required understanding and integration not simple recall and memorisation. Students describe variety and the challenging nature of some tasks as having a positive effect on their motivation. Continuous feedback is also significant. In my opinion, the generally positive tenor of these comments indicate that students did not encounter a disjunction between assessment tasks to the stated aims of the unit in question. The process of clear and meaningful explanation, combined with student input, assisted in cultivating a deep orientation to the learning of the subject matter.

Project work in third year Italian: the Telegiornale (Italian news)

In Semester 2, 2000 I have a group of 8 students in the unit Italian Studies - Intermediate 2. For some students this is their final semester of Italian. Approximately half of the group commenced Italian as beginners with me in 1998. These students have been subjected to my most radical innovations for almost three years.

At the beginning of the semester I asked the group to consider the following questions:

• What is the best way to assess my progress?
• What are my interests and what do I want to get out of the unit? How should this be tested?
• What worked last semester and what could be done better and differently?

I then asked them to come up with an assessment scheme for the unit. For some of the students, this is the fourth semester in which they have been asked to do so. My role, as lecturer, is basically to guide the process. This input has become less and less necessary over time. For this unit I had two provisos: 1) I wanted to make use of the daily Italian news broadcast, the telegiornale; and 2) as we had agreed as a group that they should read an Italian novel, some tasks had to be centred on the novel. The assessment scheme which they devised is as follows:

This all looks very traditional. It is however highly innovative in its integrated nature, and even more so given that the students themselves designed the program. Each Thursday we would all watch the telegiornale before coming to class. We would then have a discussion about the stories raised in the morning's bulletin with one person being asked, at random by me, to lead the discussion. Because nobody knew who would be called upon, each student had to be prepared. This constituted the oral. The preparation mark, which the students wanted incorporated, relates to readiness to discuss the telegiornale and keeping up to date with the reading of the novel. The major project is also linked to the oral activities around the telegiornale: the students are producing their own filmed telegiornale. The project has both a written and spoken component, involves cultural knowledge, includes interviews and therefore communicative ability in the foreign language, and also entails appropriate gestures and body language.

Informal feedback on the unit from students elicited very positive responses to the assessment scheme and confirm some of the characteristics which I believe promote active learning (see below). These students are very aware of themselves as learners and see assessment as directly affecting their motivation (Rowntree 1977:22).

It definitely tests a more diverse range of language skills than any language unit I've done before...more interesting than other courses I've done...the telegiornali are very challenging (in a good way!)

Comment on the assessment for this unit. Good once it gets going, but a bit confused at first. It's worth waiting for it to be organised because the originality of the assessment always makes me enthusiastic about doing it.

...the variety of assessment helps keep me enthusiastic.

The second quote refers to the initial stages of the unit in which the assessment program is reflected upon, discussed and then agreed.

Conclusions

My experiences have shown that there is a number of crucial ingredients required to promote a deep and active orientation to learning in students. Similar issues are raised in Ramsden 1992, chapter 10 and in Rowntree 1977. These are:

• induction
  I have had the opportunity to work with one group of students for three years and over time have seen them develop a heightened awareness of their own learning goals and needs and how to satisfy these.
  
  
• objectives which are clear and meaningful to students
  At the beginning of each unit I prepare a guide which outlines my objectives for the unit in plain language designed to be meaningful to students. This is supported by discussion in the first class. It is also important that students reflect on the learning process itself and talking about learning objectives with students is one way I introduce this.
  
  
• expectations in the open
  I make my expectations for each unit clear in writing and in the first class and have students do the same. Where there is a mismatch, we can negotiate, something which is impossible if the students' expectations are never made known.
  
  
• student responsibility
  Students tend to participate more actively if they have some ownership of aspects of the unit. In my later year units, students design the assessment plan completely while in first year students participate in peer/self/group assessment.
  
  
• flexibility and accommodation of student interest
  Students become more actively involved in learning if their interests can be met. It is my aim for every assessment task that each student can craft it to suit her interests.
  
  
• relevance
  Students are under increasing pressures and do not respond well to a disjunction between class work and assessment tasks. To combat these feelings I openly discuss student expectations and incorporate these into assessment tasks.
  
  
• variety
  As Ramsden (1992:192) points out "[a]n important way in which students' preferences can be accommodated is through providing a variety of assessment methods...[this] encourages greater responsibility for self-direction in learning", an important component of a deep and active orientation. Ramsden goes on to point out that variety is not an answer in itself, but that the variety of assessment tasks employed must maintain "relevance to the aims and objectives...it is supposed to test". Students have commented explicitly on the variety in assessment in my units. This is not only important for students but also important for lecturers as it provides a more rounded view of what students know. Rowntree (1977:65) evokes the distorted view reliance on one type of assessment task can lead to: "We can run into side-effects if we rely too much on any one such method of assessment".
  
  
• feedback
  The way feedback is used and gathered is integral to promoting active learning. My methods, which turn the learners into givers of feedback, necessarily increase engagement with the subject matter and with the process of learning.

Devising assessment tasks which can encourage our students to adopt a deep and active approach to their learning is a time-intensive activity. The outcome, however, is very heartening notwithstanding Ramsden's warning:

Can we instruct students in the use of deep approaches?...the answer is probably no. (Ramsden 1992:63)

As an aside, innovation is necessarily a challenging activity, around which there is an ever-growing literature. Success in innovation should not be viewed simply from the point of view of outcomes: did the students attain higher grades? For me, by far the greatest, and perhaps most unexpected, measure of success comes from the students realisation of themselves as learners and their insights into the learning process itself. Evidence of this is the fact that my third year group is now extremely capable of designing an assessment scheme which caters both for their personal goals and those of the institution. Not everyone has the opportunity to work with a group of students over an extended period of time, however, and so this may not always be possible. Returning to Ramsden's question above, my answer would be this: Maybe not, but we can certainly try.

References

Absalom, Matthew (1999) "Innovating assessment in an Italian language course: first experiences." HERDSA Annual International Conference, 12-15 July 1999.

Balboni, Paolo E. (1991) Techniche didattiche e processi d'apprendimento linguistico. Padova: Liviana.

Brown, H. Douglas (1989) A practical guide to language learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Laurillard, Diana (1993) Rethinking university teaching. London and New York: Routledge.

Marton, Ference & Roger Slj (1997) "Approaches to learning" in The Experience of Learning. Ed. Ference Marton, Dai Hounsell and Noel Entwistle. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic. 39-58.

Ramsden, Paul (1992) Learning to teach in higher education. London and New York: Routledge.

Rowntree, Derek (1977) Assessing students: How shall we know them? London: Kogan.

Rubin, Joan & Irene Thompson (1994) How to be a successful language learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Footnotes:
1 Esistono, in glottodidattica, come in ogni altra disciplina, dei concetti che vengono dati per acquisiti, per definitivi, soprattutto se trovano una conferma intuitiva nell'esperienza quotidiana. Un esempio costituito dalle "quattro abilit linguistiche", nozione che ricorre in tutta la letteratura scientifica e che risulta ampiamente utilizzata nei materiali didattici. (back)

2ANUSET means ANU Student Evaluation of Teaching. (back)