Enhancing Quality Assurance in Computer-Based Assessment Methods for UK Higher Education

1. Precepts • All Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) must demonstrate adherence to precepts • General statements, not specific prescriptions • Clear: • HEIs must ensure that ‘ … assessment policies and practices are responsive and provide for the effective monitoring of the validity, equity and reliability of assessment.’

2. Assuring quality Computer-Based Assessment developmentin UK Higher Education Andrew Boyle (NFER) Dave O’Hare (CIAD)

3. Structure of the paper • Use of CBA • Item-based nature of CBA • QA in different contexts • Core tasks for QA • Inhibitors of quality • Possible solutions to QA problems • Conclusions

4. Use of CBA • CAA has grown • Survey data (Stephens and Mascia; CAA Centre national survey) • Equivocal quantitative results • Discrepancy of take up between disciplines • Other evidence of growth • Increase in computer use • Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs)

5. Item-based nature of CBA • Traditional assessment in UK • ‘essay and problem-type final examinations and similarly constructed coursework’ • CBA based on discrete items • Lecturers must devote time to development • High-quality MCQs difficult to write • QA in pre-administration (development) phase

6. QA in different contexts • UK Higher Education (HE) • Other UK educational sectors • Other countries • Documents that refer specifically to CBA

7. UK Higher Education 1 • Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) • Oversees quality and responsible for standards • Section 6 of Code of Practice – assessment • Assessment Code consists of precepts • Other documents • Audit Handbook • Subject Benchmark Statements • Framework for Higher Education Qualifications

8. UK Higher Education 2 • QA documents do not: • mandate universities to carry out specific steps in assessment development • refer specifically to CBA as a particular assessment method whose QA demands are quite different to traditional assessment

9. Other UK educational sectors • Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) • Mandatory Common Code of Practice

10. QCA Code of Practice • Specific and rigorous • Detailed prescriptions • Specific tasks • Specific staff • Awarding bodies must accept, and be able to implement, the Code • Implementation monitored annually by QCA • Shortcomings identified and assurances sought

11. Documents from other countries • Joint Standards (AERA, APA, NCME) • Assessment development methodology • Qualitative and quantitative control stages • Qualitative stages: from assessment specification to item review • Statistical analyses address issues of fairness, item and instrument quality • Reputable developers provide information to users, allowing them to evaluate quality

12. Documents that refer to CBA • Association of Test Publishers (ATP) Guidelines • British Standards Institution - BS 7988: 2002 • Code of Practice for the Use of Information Technology in the Delivery of Assessments • International Test Commission (ITC) • Draft Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing • Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) • Guidelines for Online Assessment for Further Education

13. ATP Guidelines • Planning for a CBA similar to planning for other kinds of assessments • Purpose must be ascertained • Needs analysis – description of population • Computer literacy of population • Avoid construct irrelevant variance

14. BS 7988 • Preparation of content outside the scope of Standard • A poor assessment, delivered appropriately, would conform to BS 7988

15. ITC draft guidelines • Internationally-recognised set of guidelines describing good practice in CBA • Developers should: • Document constructs to be measured • Understand professional and ethical issues • Make appropriate use of psychometric models and theories

16. SQA Guidelines for FE • Ensure institutional commitment • Define reasons for using online assessment and select appropriate delivery methods • Developers should: • Choose items that are appropriate to the knowledge or skill being assessed • Collect metadata, examine item quality • SQA Guidelines strongly favour use of item banks • Share high-quality materials between institutions

17. Core tasks for QA • Analysis of need and description of purpose • Detailed documentation • Iterative process to produce content • Field testing prior to live administration • Administration under controlled conditions • Review of outcomes to consider fairness and validity

18. Inhibitors of the core tasks • Assessment developers’ lack of training • Inexperience at writing ‘objective’ items • CBA has been an ad hoc innovation • Hindrances to field testing

19. Lack of training • All lecturers are responsible for assessment • Standard of training in assessment is low • New staff are ‘thrown in at the deep end’ • Lack skill at writing essay prompts of comparable difficulty • Contrast the mandatory training in other sectors

20. Inexperience of ‘objective’ items • Shift to new formats ‘time consuming initially’ • ‘[Writing MCQs] is so difficult that you almost have to be a professional at creating these questions.’ • You do have to be a professional at producing items • Accountability of CBA - possibility of challenge in the courts

21. CBA has been an ad hoc innovation • Enthusiastic individuals working alone or in small groups • Difficult to embed CBA in wider QA practices • Developments proceed in ‘anarchic fashion’ • Difficult to disseminate innovation effectively

22. Hindrances to field testing • Inhibitors in UK HE • Security fears • Non-stable programmes and small cohorts of students • Contrast between US and UK HE research • US: ‘massive data sets’ permit sophisticated analysis • UK: ‘small-scale craft activities’

23. Possible solutions to QA problems • Institutional support • Staff training and accreditation • Sharing materials • Qualitative research to assure quality

24. Institutional support • Examples of institutional support • CAA Support Unit, Luton; FLI, Loughborough; CIAD, Derby • CBA protocols • Need to include assessment development • Provide for staff training • Staff training only part of the solution • Use of item-based assessment experts • Remove ownership of assessment from subject expert • A major shift in institutional culture

25. Staff training and accreditation • Developing ‘objective’ questions • Professional skill different to teaching or conducting research • CBA must be accompanied by training • Early writers consider training voluntary or optional • Given impact of assessments, mandatory training essential • More formal systems • University of Derby – CPD module in assessment • SQA – Advanced Certificate in e-assessment • Mandatory certification using national qualification preferred

26. Sharing materials • ‘What will really make CAA work … is the development of large assessment item banks … where colleges can combine their efforts to create high quality, peer-reviewed questions.’ • Item banking • Large structured database of assessment items • Based on sophisticated software • Used to generate many forms of assessment

27. Item banking (IB) • Some suggest using items from textbooks • Others feel this approach inappropriate • Item bank technology embeds QA processes • Items move within the bank if QA stage is complete • IB not a ‘quick fix’ – emphasises need for QA • IB dependent on Item Response Theory (IRT) • Permits the reassembly of assessment forms

28. Item banking in UK HE • Previous attempts foundered due to pragmatic difficulties • Relative contributions of partner institutions • Lack of IRT use in HE • In short term IB unlikely to guarantee quality

29. Qualitative research to assure quality • Qualitative techniques • Focus groups of ‘academics-assessment developers’ • ‘CBA expert panel’ • Research on assessments • Student opinions (questionnaires) • Verbal Protocol Analysis

30. Conclusions 1 • Mandatory training and certification of staff via nationally recognised qualifications • Expert panels to review assessments, members include assessment development experts • Piloting of new items in assessments (with scores not contributing to grades) • Full evaluation of CBA within institutions, using quantitative and qualitative approaches

31. Conclusions 2 • Subject networks to discuss methods and arrangements for sharing validated items within national assessment banks • Wider dissemination of QA procedures within the CBA community

32. a.boyle@nfer.ac.uk www.nfer.ac.uk d.ohare@derby.ac.uk www.derby.ac.uk/ciad Contacts