IIER logo 3
Issues In Educational Research, Vol 13, 2003
[ Contents Vol 13 ] [ IIER Home ]

Online assessment in higher education: The influence of pedagogy on the construction of students' epistemologies

Maria Northcote
Edith Cowan University
Educators and courseware designers in the higher education sector are currently being challenged by the recent advances in online learning technologies. This paper considers the place of assessment in the teaching and learning context of the modern university, with a particular focus on how the adoption and design of online assessment reflects teachers' pedagogies. The impact on student learning is also considered, especially as the type of assessment task assigned to students can have such an influence on their learning outcomes and developing epistemologies.

The recent trend whereby surface assessment tasks have seemingly dominated assessment choices of curriculum designers in online education is considered. Reasons for this pattern are investigated by reflecting on the role of assessment in both traditionally delivered university courses and courses that incorporate the new computer and online technology.

To redress the perceived current overuse of assessment tools that tend to focus on objectivist knowledge and surface learning, the paper concludes with a recommendation to develop a more balanced approach to student assessment in online environments, one that evaluates a wider range of student learning outcomes and encourages teachers to consider their own epistemologies when designing online assessment tasks. This paper may interest those who are involved in the design and delivery of university courses with online components. It provides insights for educators who are concerned about the pedagogical and epistemological implications of various assessment formats.


With the increase in popularity of Web-based course delivery techniques in tertiary education, many university educators and curriculum designers are taking a fresh look at various course components. Learning activities, course outcomes, evaluation tools, communication techniques and assessment tasks are all under the pedagogical microscope. The value of the new online, computerised mode of learning that continues to permeate and even characterise many of our educational institutions is the topic of much discussion across universities worldwide.

As we move into an era where flexibly delivered courses of study are no longer limited to the use of printed and mailed material, lecturers' pedagogies are extending to include a more eclectic range of teaching and learning strategies (Peat, 2000). Instead of comparing the "old" methods of course delivery with the "new", this paper explores how online and computer technology has impacted on the design of assessment tasks. The design of such tasks is often guided by current learning theories, described by Hofer & Pintrich as "current shifts in educational thinking toward a constructivist approach" (1997, p. 133). These constructivist learning theories are derived in many cases from constructivist philosophical tenets, which assume the importance of the learner and aim to create opportunities that enable students to take an active part in the learning process. In such contexts, assessment tasks are described as being authentic in that they are "derived from and simulate 'real life' (or authentic) conditions or situations" (Berns & Erickson, 2001). From such a theoretical foundation, knowledge is viewed more as a process of construction than a collection of facts:

The teacher interacts with the learner in line with the assumption that learning involves active construction of meaning by the student and is not something that is imparted by the teacher. (Biggs & Moore, 1993, p. 25).
The author's instructional design experience in developing online assessment tasks, together with an exploration of recent literature on the topic, forms the basis for an investigation into the appraisal of the pedagogy behind the practice of recent online assessment usage. Underpinned by constructivism, this paper begins by considering the place of assessment in tertiary education in light of the recent developments in alternative course delivery techniques and the evolution of various technologically based course components. The discussion then leads into a consideration of recent and current online assessment practices in higher education and how they are indicative of teacher pedagogies and epistemologies. The influence of these pedagogical and epistemological bases are then taken into account in terms of how teachers' beliefs impact not only on learning outcomes but on the very epistemologies being constructed by their students. Schommer's work on how students' epistemological beliefs influence their learning is recognised as a major theoretical basis of this element of the discussion (Schommer, 1990, 1993; Schommer & Walker, 1995) and is extended and contextualised by Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) recent paper which focuses on the development of epistemological theories and how they relate to learning. Various other research in the field of educational and epistemological beliefs is also cited as a theoretical backdrop to this paper.

The paper then presents a position which suggests that current online assessment practice is unbalanced and requires a wider use of assessment techniques to ensure the valid assessment of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of knowledge. This position, it is suggested, may be achieved by considering the pedagogical and epistemological beliefs behind all aspects of online assessment design.

Higher education assessment practices in transition

What are the best methods to assess students in the context of e-learning? Traditional tertiary educational practices frequently use assessment tasks that are largely summative, being situated at the conclusion of a set module, content section or unit of study. Presumably, this decision about where assessment is structured or embedded into the learning material reflects the pedagogical stance of the curriculum designer or lecturer. For instance, if assessment is only concerned with evaluating the outcomes of learning by the teacher, then an examination may be adequate, although this form of assessment offers restricted opportunities for the provision of feedback to students. On the other hand, if the purpose of an assessment task is formative or diagnostic, it may be included at the early stages of the learning process, module or semester thus increasing the opportunities to provide feedback to students about their ongoing progress. Deciding on the type of assessment to be used and where to position it within the learning process has caused much disagreement amongst educators and instructional designers, a debate which can be traced to disciplinary traditions, pedagogical beliefs and epistemological frameworks. For example, Samuelowicz & Bain's article (2002), Identifying academics' orientations to assessment practice, found that teachers' beliefs ranged from a focus on knowledge reproduction through to a focus on knowledge transformation. Accordingly, these beliefs were linked with the teachers' teaching and learning beliefs, ranging from teacher-centred through to learning-centred beliefs.

Similarly, other research has shown that students' epistemological beliefs affect their academic performance. Schommer (1993) found that students with a view of knowledge as dualistic often considered learning in terms of factual standards whereas those who held beliefs about knowing as being related to construction of meaning and reasoning were focused more on understanding meaning and applying it. In a much earlier study, Perry (1970) also found that the beliefs of college students varied across a range of positions including dualism, multiplicity, relativism and commitment within relativism. As Hofer and Pintrich (1997) explain, "Perry was the first to suggest that how college students made meaning of their educational experiences was not a reflection of personality but an evolving developmental process. He provided an interactionist model for interpreting students' epistemological responses to the college environment" (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 93). In this way, the university teaching and learning environments can be seen to be interdependent in regards to belief development and that students' belief systems develop as a result of contact with such environments. From such research, it seems that the choice and quality of assessment tasks reflect not only the educator's pedagogy and epistemological beliefs, but also influences the construction of the students' epistemology in general and their specialised knowledge base (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1: The influence of lecturer's pedagogy and epistemology
on student epistemologies through assessment task design

Significance of online assessment design

Whether or not we intend assessment to be integral to the courses we teach, students naturally put the majority of their effort into assessment requirements (Hedberg & Corrent-Agostinho, 1999; Thorpe, 1998). This concentration of effort results in assessment being one of the main influences on student learning. In fact, some online units of study and Web-based education materials now acknowledge this pattern of student behaviour and use assessment tasks to actually drive the entire learning experience (Donnan, 1996; Hargreaves, 1997; Ramsden, 1992; Herrington et al., 2000). As such, there is a strong case for assessment to be one of the first design considerations when preparing an online course, a situation that reflects the common phrase, "assessment - the tail that wags the dog". This link between teachers' pedagogical orientations, assessment design and student learning outcomes is a line of discussion that has been the topic of much educational research in the past and now represents an area that requires further discussion in the online learning context.

As well as the actual intentions of online assessment, the style and purpose of the content being taught is of crucial significance when deciding how to design online assessment. Content that is factually based and requires minimal critical thinking or creative response may best be assessed by assessment methods which are more quantitative in nature. In most cases, the content of tertiary education courses is composed of much more than lists of factual information, especially as students progress through their degree courses and move into postgraduate study (Cliff, 1998). University students are expected to think critically, act creatively, solve complex problems and apply their knowledge to new, novel and workplace situations. Evaluating the interpretation and understanding of such content requires more than just quantitative methods of assessment and it is suggested in this paper that a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment techniques would more adequately assess a wider range of university student learning outcomes. Such assessment would ideally ensure that various approaches to learning, surface and deep (Biggs & Moore, 1993; Entwistle & Tait, 1990), and various conceptions of learning (Marton, Dall'Alba & Beaty, 1993; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992, 2001) are not only acknowledged but also incorporated and distinguished in assessment practices.

Types of assessment

In the context of this paper, surface assessment tasks will be interpreted as the provision and evaluation of activities that require students to provide closed, predictable responses and include such examples as multiple choice tests and short answer questions. These tasks typically test objective knowledge and factual recall. On the other hand, deep assessment tasks are interpreted in this context as the method of assessing student learning by assigning activities that require learners to provide open-ended responses that are less predictable in nature. These activities encourage students to explore a wider range of options, are often set in authentic or real life contexts, and may include tasks such as the development of workplace policy documents, development of work portfolios and involvement in research projects. Furthermore, assessment activities of this type are traditionally linked with knowledge construction processes using critical analysis and higher order thinking.

If set against a continuum with learning outcomes and knowledge as comparative scales with an objective-constructive backdrop, deep and surface types of assessment practices can be seen as being especially appropriate for the evaluation of either surface or deep learning outcomes (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2: Comparison of assessment practices, learning outcomes and knowledge

Of course, there are many variations of assessment types in between the two extremes of surface and deep assessment that represent different degrees of learning quality, as well as a combination of the two types. The basic premise of this paper is that, although both types of assessment are useful, examples that assess surface learning dominate the current online environment. This delineation between surface and deep assessment is based on findings understanding from previous research which has associated a surface approach to learning with a "narrower" approach as compared to the more "holistic" style of the deep approach (Entwistle & Tait, 1990, p. 171).

Tension between old and new course delivery techniques

As universities move into the online arena in terms of methods of courseware delivery, the transition process itself can cause educators to question their general pedagogical beliefs and practices. Tam describes this shift as a "transformation of the system from a used-to-be industrial model to a post-industrial one, which is found to be congruent with the constructivist principles and developments in modern technology" (Tam, 2000, p. 50). As educators, this challenge is far-reaching and requires deliberation about our fundamental pedagogical ideas and basic epistemological notions in light of current educational practices. The traditional forms of assessment used in on-campus and print-based distance education course modes are not necessarily suitable for the new online context, nor are revamped versions of such tasks.

The inclusion of traditional-style assessment tasks within the structures of an online course is becoming less and less acceptable from both the student and the educators' point of view. Essays and examinations, frequently used as assessment tasks in on-campus or print-based distance education courses, are no longer the most frequently used or appropriate forms of assessment in online courses. What is more, constructivist philosophy and educational theory supports a view of assessment as a procedure that has many purposes. As well as being a means to guiding teachers' instruction and evaluating student outcomes, assessment is now seen as a mechanism by which educational programs can be improved (Raizen et al., 1998, p. 3) and, as a result of this, the online environment has influenced the development of new assessment practices. This transformation of course delivery modes, and its subsequent epistemological and pedagogical consequences, not only has implications for the roles of the major stakeholders in tertiary education, but for the whole process of creating learning materials.

Naidu (1994) suggests that "the entire instructional design process will need to be changed from a serial stage model in which assessment enters and leaves, to a model in which processes that serve as instructional stimuli also serve to provide data to a multivariate model" (Naidu, 1994, p. 8). According to this viewpoint, assessment is viewed as an integral component of the broader teaching-learning process and takes on a more complex role - one that not only entails assessing student outcomes but also includes the provision of feedback and learning opportunities for students. This idea in itself is not new, but the manner in which assessment is designed, assessed and communicated to students in the context of online learning represents the latest challenge to educators. This challenge would ideally involve a situation where the technology is utilised and fashioned in order to achieve specific learning intentions, rather than the situation where the educator is being dictated to by the technology (Clark, 1994). Instead of placing assessment at the end of a learning episode, as has often occurred in traditionally delivered courses, the online environment offers opportunities to integrate assessment tasks throughout the entire learning experience.

Peat (2000) echoes this perception that university learning processes are changing and further acknowledges the student's place within such a transformation by outlining how the university sector is going through a transition process, one in which both student and teacher roles are being revised and redefined. She believes that in the near future we will all be required to adjust our teaching styles to take the new technologies into account. Tam particularly outlines the added benefit of the new online learning environment as being able to "replace the determinist, teacher-controlled model of distance education with contextualised work environments, thinking tools and a conversation media that support the knowledge construction process in different settings" (Tam, 2000, p. 58). In fact, Samuelowicz and Bain (2002) surveyed the beliefs of university staff about the nature and function of their assessments and found that their orientations to assessment were related to their teaching and learning orientations, ranging from an emphasis on knowledge reproduction through to knowledge reconstruction and/or transformation orientations to teaching. The online learning environment clearly requires assessment models that are not only appropriate to the new mode of learning in general but that also provide a balance of methods that are able to assess deep and surface learning, and qualitative and quantitative forms of knowledge.

Evolution of online assessment practices

As the online educational environment has evolved, a number of common online assessment practices and software tools have become available. Many online assessment practices have developed in a different manner from those assessment tasks previously assigned to traditional on-campus university students. This development has been largely influenced by the functionality and capabilities of available computer software applications and online learning courseware packages. Given the potential benefits offered by online learning contexts, university educators are no longer limited to designing and assigning assessment tasks that are restricted to written or verbal presentation modes. Instead, online courses are able to include assessment tasks which are more reflective of constructivist philosophy and educational theory, authentic learning principles and are able to incorporate varied multimedia elements, online quizzes and collaboration among students. When considering the design aspects associated with developing hypermedia courseware, Reushle summarises the practical implications of this recent movement:

The educational trend is moving towards more active learning or learner participation in activities where learners communicate and cooperate inside and outside the classroom. Teachers are tending to provide guidance in preference to lectures and are becoming facilitators of learning. They are encouraging student choice in the selection of learning activities and supporting student responsibility to think and research, with attention being directed towards students' higher order thinking skills rather than rote memorisation. (Reushle, 1995, p. 1)

Selection of online assessment tasks

Fetherston (2001) suggests that much Web-based assessment is atomistic, presenting course material in separate parts instead of presenting it in a way that encourages students to conceptualise the content in a more meaningful, interrelated manner. This overuse of one form of assessment may then affect the type of learning that is promoted in online contexts. An example of such an assessment task may involve students completing a multiple choice test in which they select appropriate definitions for medical terms from a limited choice of options provided by the lecturer. By favouring these assessment methods, it could be argued that online assessment has almost become synchronous in practice and intention to the assessment of declarative knowledge. Although, the original enthusiasm associated with the potential of e-learning created high expectations for online assessment opportunities (Burbules, 1997), much of this fervour has been tempered by a concern by many tertiary educators that the new technologies have so far "ushered in" an unbalanced preference for assessment that assesses surface knowledge (Fetherston, 1998; Looms, 1997; Urken, 1999; Thorpe, 1998). As always, the ideal situation must be considered in terms of the day-to-day practical issues that face all university educators. In busy times, it is understandable for educators and instructional designers to be guided by the "ease of use" principle, choosing assessment tasks with low time and effort requirements or high familiarity levels.

The overuse of quantitative assessment methods may reflect the lack of appropriate models available for the development of online curriculum components. Just as Herrington, Sparrow and Herrington (2000, p. 6) emphasise "the importance of the activity as a central organising device", so too assessment activities can be integral to any learning experience. However, despite all the evidence supporting the value of integrated qualitative assessment and the new affordances of the new technologies, online assessment has remained predominantly summative and frequently isolated from the principal learning material. The opportunities offered by the "inclusive" context of the online environment can create learning sequences that are "structured by the designer/author ... but often in ways determined by the reader" (Burbules, 1997, p. 105). The use of learner-generated (Wittrock, 1991) assessment techniques that assess deep learning outcomes can provide possibilities for students to take greater control, which is preferable to an over reliance on designer-imposed assessment tasks (Naidu & Bernard, 1992).

Pedagogical influences and online assessment design

Although recent educational research has focused heavily on how constructivism as an educational philosophy (Smith & Ragan, 1999, p. 14) has influenced educational practice, not all such theory has transferred readily to teaching and learning practice. This gap between educational theory and practice is quite evident when investigating assessment design, and online assessment has been no exception to this trend. So, despite the obvious potential of e-learning, there is clearly a tension between constructivist theory and instructivist practice (Herrington & Standen, 1999) in the current online learning context. This is evident in the abundance of "old" style assessment used in courses in the "new" environment. The examination, the essay, the multiple choice test and the tutorial presentation, to name a few, are not necessarily the most ideal assessment tasks for online learning environments and it seems that behavioural approaches of the past have yet to be replaced by constructivist approaches of the present (Tam, 2000, p. 54). Many current examples of online assessment measure surface learning by setting tasks and posing questions that require students to provide closed responses with only a limited, predicted range of acceptable answers. Such tasks often call on the students' ability to restate information as presented in courses, reinforcing a conception of learning related to the reproduction of knowledge. Jonassen describes the situation as one in which "learners are told about the world and are expected to replicate its content and structure in their thinking" (Jonassen, 1991, p. 29). This current tendency to utilise surface assessment techniques, which are most appropriate for assessing surface learning and objectivist knowledge, reflects a conception of learning based on the acquisition of objective knowledge and would equate with Marton, Dall'Alba and Beaty's (1993) more simplified conceptions of learning as increasing one's knowledge and learning as memorising and reproducing. Such conceptions fail to include more refined and complex interpretations of learning, also identified by Marton et al. (1993), such as learning as understanding, learning as seeing something in a different way or learning as changing as a person, which are far more reflective of authentic learning. What's more, the design of such tasks tend to reflect a conception of teaching which is associated merely with the imparting of knowledge without a wider intention to support student learning (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992, 2001). Fetherston (1998) reflects how a more authentic and valid form of assessment that is more focused on deep learning outcomes can be put into practice:
In general, to become more valid, assessment needs to be changed from traditional multiple choice methods (which focus on recognition, recall and quick, atomistic, measure surface learning, are based on course objectives, and are conducted out of context) to assessment focussed on students' own conceptions, which is holistic, measuring deep learning, and long lasting knowledge, is linked to learning theories, is conducted in context, allows students to express interpretations and is authentic. (Fetherston, 1998, p. 2)
The situation described by Fetherston denotes the complex challenge of online assessment design in that it needs to be multifunctional as well as able to meet specific student, lecturer and course requirements. Overall, the pedagogy behind the assessment task design is that which will indicate the quality of the learning and, therefore, is a significant factor in any university learning context from both the teacher's and the student's perspective.

Impact of teacher pedagogical and epistemological beliefs on assessment

Apart from the fundamental qualitative versus quantitative debate, the nature of learning or assessment activity selected for any educational course inevitably reflects the epistemological stance of the course designer.
Constructivism emphasises the construction of knowledge while objectivism concerns mainly with the object of knowing. It is the fundamental difference about knowledge and learning that departs the two in terms of both philosophy and implications for the design of instruction. (Tam, 2000, p. 51)
The breadth of knowledge is also relevant to our choice of assessment techniques and, again, indicates a direct link between the epistemological beliefs and assessment intentions of the university lecturer or course designer. Whether there is a need to assess explicit knowledge of a specific domain or implicit knowledge of a broad field, such contextual requirements impact on the type of assessment used (Sternberg, 1998, p. 13). Surface style assessment tasks may be more suited to some forms of explicit knowledge, whereas qualitative techniques would definitely suit the evaluation of more implicit knowledge. As tertiary educators, our design and choices of learning activities and assessment tasks clearly reflect our view of the nature of knowledge which in turn may be reflective of or influenced by our own particular field of research or disciplinary background.

Although the value of each form of assessment, deep and surface, is useful for different contexts, examination of the actual epistemological stance of the teachers involved is often neglected. Educators who hold the epistemological view that knowledge is comprised of measurable, provable facts and principles (sometimes known as the positivist view) may favour quantitative assessment tasks, which focus on the objectivity of knowledge. At the other end of the scale, educators who view knowledge as less definite and who recognise the socially negotiated aspects of knowledge (sometimes known as postmodernists or social constructionists), prefer using assessment tools that recognise the complexity of knowledge and its application in social, affective and authentic domains. Although an educator's epistemological beliefs are not always so clear cut that they fall into one of these categories (Geelan, 2001), such epistemological considerations appear to be especially overlooked in the choice of assessment techniques in online tertiary education courses.

Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and theories are ultimately reflected in the types of assessment task they assign to their students and the manner in which such tasks are marked. Mehrens and Lehmann recognised difference in surface and deep assessment design as early as 1973 when they speculated that the development of the objective type test would be a direct response to the criticisms levelled against more qualitative tasks, such as the essay. These criticisms of qualitative assessment included claims based on poor content sampling, unreliable scoring and time required to grade such assessment tasks (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1973, p. 245). Many of these criticisms are still relevant today as well as the extra criticisms regarding the issue of how to maintain consistency across a number of markers when using non-objectivist testing. With these influences in mind, it is understandable to see how online assessment design has been dominated by tasks that are more suited to evaluating a limited range of learning outcomes, namely those which assess quantitative learning outcomes and objective knowledge.

Impact of assessment on students' epistemologies

Many online assessment software packages are recognised for their efficiency, a quality which is often emphasised over and above the original assessment outcomes or the educators' pedagogical intentions. When taken to the extreme, the quality of assessment is consequently reduced (Kennedy & McNaught, 1997) due to an excessive emphasis on objectivist learning. This can be seen to occur when assessment software tools are promoted as being especially effective with large classes (Dingsdag, Armstrong & Neil, 2000; Brawner, 2000; Looms, 1997) due to management and efficiency factors.

When using assessment tools and practices that focus on the evaluation of factual knowledge and recall of information, the subsequent impact on students' emerging epistemologies must be considered. The manner in which information is presented in university courses has an impact on the quality of knowledge constructed by students, an epistemological influence noted by many researchers (Brownlee, 1998, 2001; Chan, 2000; Jehng, Johnston, & Anderson, 1993; Roche, 2000; Schommer & Walker, 1995). Students who are presented with course information and disciplinary knowledge as a list of clearly defined facts, principles, definitions and theories will develop a different set of epistemological beliefs than a group of students who are encouraged to interact with and evaluate such facts, principles, definitions and theories in a more critical manner which also relates to and integrates with their own background experiences and prior knowledge.

Similarly, and perhaps even more so than the course information, the types of assessment tasks we include in any course has a monumental influence on the student learning outcomes. Many researchers have found that the way in which university teachers teach has an impact on their students' beliefs and learning approaches (Archer, 1999; Bruce & Gerber, 1995; Eklund-Myrskog, 1998; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Kember & Gow, 1994; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Therefore, the link between teacher-assigned assessment and student learning cannot be ignored. In the particular context of e-learning, the value and appropriateness of correct-incorrect style responses, characteristic of much quantitative style assessment, requires acknowledgement. If this type of assessment dominates, overtakes or replaces more authentic style assessment, less student-centred learning will be promoted:

Assessment focusses on the learning process as well as the learning products. For instance, if learning changes from direct instruction to situated learning the assessment of successful and less successful learners (or experts and novices within a domain) must change from an emphasis on right and wrong responses toward an emphasis on the information that each student perceives in the situations. (Naidu, 1994, p. 8)
Hofer and Pintrich (1997) explain that theories about knowledge may be influenced by certain academic tasks and suggest that further research is required in this area. The field of online assessment and the associated academic tasks that such assessment activities include would be a likely area for future investigation. The example they provide in their paper cites an example of how learning task assignments can influence students' epistemologies:
For example, students who are given multiple-choice tests composed of low-level items may come to view knowledge as a collection of facts and learn to study for tests by memorisation and rehearsal strategies. Moving to a class where higher-level processes are expected may require not only a change in strategy use, but a change in epistemological theories. (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p 129)
To place this argument into a customer-focused context, we can see that many students are now demanding a type of learning that has a direct link between their study and work environments. Such authenticity is definitely more possible by providing deep assessment tasks, or tasks that are more tailored to specific groups of students and able to reflect the nuances of various fields of study across different disciplines. Assessment tasks that encourage deep learning have the potential to be more open-ended and subjective in nature, catering to a wider range of student needs and able to effect a broader scope of learning outcomes. They may include reflective journals to foster personalised knowledge construction strategies and collaborative projects to reflect real-life workplace processes. Such tasks reflect a qualitative view of learning and value the quality and depth of the learner's understanding and knowledge over and above the amount of knowledge acquired. This view of learning is often seen in opposition to the more traditional objectivist view, which imposes a pre-existing structure onto the learner based on a single objective reality, and allows a process of learning that is characterised by more student generated activities and outcomes (Kourilsky & Wittrock, 1992; Wittrock, 1991).


The recent advance of online learning technologies and the subsequent development of computer assisted and online assessment techniques has heralded a situation where assessment is no longer the "poor cousin" of university course components. Also, with the current popularity of educational theories based on constructivist learning principles, a more widespread recognition of the importance of assessment with the evaluation of deep learning as its purpose is, hopefully, not too far away. An investigation of assessment as an element of instruction that influences students' epistemological beliefs could increase our "understanding of how beliefs are communicated in the classroom environment", a research gap identified in Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) paper.

Instead of just focusing on a limited range of traditionally designed assessment activities, online educators should be encouraged to consider the potential capabilities and functions offered by the new information and communication technologies (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000; Thorpe, 1998). Assessment tasks that address deep learning outcomes allow educators to take advantage of the "pedagogical benefits of hypermedia and multimedia as they allow for a tighter integration of subject material, learning activities and assessment" (Benyon et al., cited in Evans & Edwards, 1999, p. 152). These functions of hypertext and hypermedia are especially complementary to deep assessment as they create opportunities for flexibility and open-endedness of student responses in online assessment tasks (Kommers, Grabinger, & Dunlap, 1996).

To ensure that online assessment techniques become less dominated by the evaluation of surface learning, there is a need to create new online models of qualitative-style assessment that suit and are based on the unique features of the online learning technologies. Such examples should be manageable to mark whilst also providing adequate feedback to students about their own learning and feedback to lecturers about the students' progress. Ideally, deep-learning assessment tasks should integrate the distinctive affordances, or potential benefits, of the new online context such as hypertext and global searching facilities. The present lack of "showcase" examples of assessment tasks that are appropriate for assessing deep learning outcomes may have contributed to the overuse of methods which emphasise objective knowledge. Hopefully, once this pattern reverses, new and more suitable models of design, development and delivery will emerge and be used as models of high quality, qualitative assessment practice.

Finally, for online assessment to be truly viable and valid, a balance of tasks must prevail to assess all levels of deep and surface learning outcomes. From this viewpoint, Fetherston (1998) suggests that the interactive capabilities of computer learning actually provide opportunities for "creative testing strategies" and make use of authentic simulation techniques (Fetherston, 1998, p. 2). Such a balanced use of online and computerised learning environments must be evident within both individual courses and across disciplines. Gone should be the days where only humanities based subjects favour qualitative assessment techniques. Likewise, the science based disciplines should be encouraged to explore the rich opportunities offered by tasks that require qualitative-type responses. We should ensure that neither our enthusiasm for the new online learning environment nor our concern regarding the current lack of resources in the education sector be primary factors in our choice of online assessment techniques. As Taylor and Maor caution, "we must be careful to ensure that technological determinism doesn't overshadow educational judgement" (Taylor & Maor, 2000, p. 3). Rather, the ideal situation may be one where we are guided by our own pedagogical stance, by considering the needs of our students, and by reflecting on the intentions of the content in our courses. Such a balanced outlook can surely lead to a balanced use of varied and high quality online assessment strategies.


Archer, J. (1999). Teachers' beliefs about successful teaching and learning. Paper presented at the AARE-NZARE Conference, Melbourne. http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/arc99491.htm

Berns, R. G., & Erickson, P. M. (2001). Authentic assessment [Online project report]. US Department of Education, Bowling Green State University, Ohio. [viewed 10 Dec 2001, verified 6 Jul 2003] http://www.bgsu.edu/organizations/ctl/aa.html

Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). Conceptions of learning and teaching, The process of learning (3rd ed., pp. 20-26). Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia.

Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). How students approach their learning, The process of learning (3rd ed., pp. 307-323). Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia.

Brawner, C. E. (2000). Practical tips for using web-based assessment systems. T.H.E. Journal, 28(4), 38-39. http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3133.cfm

Brownlee, J. (1998). An investigation of core beliefs about knowing and peripheral beliefs about learning and teaching in pre-service graduate diploma teacher education students. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide, South Australia. http://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/bro98204.htm

Brownlee, J. (2001, July). Beliefs about knowing in pre-service teacher education students. Paper presented at the HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia) Conference, University of Newcastle, NSW.

Bruce, C. K., & Gerber, R. (1995). Towards university lecturers' conceptions of student learning. Higher Education, 29, 443-458.

Burbules, N. C. (1997). Rhetorics of the web: Hyperreading and critical literacy. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 102-122). St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Chan, K. (2000). Teacher education students' epistemological beliefs: A cultural perspective on learning and teaching. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, University of Sydney. http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/cha00343.htm

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Cliff, A. (1998). Teacher-learners' conceptions of learning: Evidence of a "communalist" conception amongst postgraduate learners? Higher Education, 35, 205-220.

Dingsdag, D., Armstrong, B., & Neil, D. (2000). Electronic assessment software for distance education students. Paper presented at the ASCILITE Conference: Learning to Choose: Choosing to Learn, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, NSW. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/don_dingsdag.pdf

Donnan, P. (1996). Assessment practices at Charles Sturt University. Occasional Papers in Open and Distance Learning, 19, 1-14.

Eklund-Myrskog, G. (1998). Students' conceptions of learning in different educational contexts. Higher Education, 35, 299-316.

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194.

Evans, C., & Edwards, M. (1999). Navigational interface design for multimedia courseware. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 8(2), 151-174.

Fetherston, T. (1998). Using interactive multimedia for assessment. Paper presented at the EdMedia Conference, Freiburg, Germany.

Fetherston, T. (2001, 11 July 2001). Pedagogical challenges for the World Wide Web [Online journal article]. AACE. [viewed 9 Nov 2001 at http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/fetherston.cfm, verified 6 Jul 2003 at http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue1/fetherston.cfm]

Geelan, D. R. (2001). Feyerabend revisited: Epistemological anarchy and disciplined eclecticism in educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 28(1), 129-146.

Hargreaves, D. J. (1997). Student learning and assessment are inextricably linked. European Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 401-409.

Hedberg, J., & Corrent-Agostinho, S. (1999). Creating a postgraduate virtual community: Assessment drives learning. Paper presented at the EdMedia Conference.

Herrington, J., Sparrow, H., & Herrington, T. (2000). Instructional design guidelines for authentic activity in online learning units. Paper presented at the EdMedia Conference, Montreal, Canada.

Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (1999). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Paper presented at the EdMedia Conference.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.

Jehng, J. J., Johnston, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and students' epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(1), 23-35.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 28-33.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58-74.

Kennedy, D. M., & McNaught, C. (1997). Design elements for interactive multimedia. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 1-22. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet13/kennedy.html

Kommers, P. A. M., Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1996). Hypermedia learning environments: Instructional design and integration. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Kourilsky, M., & Wittrock, M. (1992). Generative teaching: An enhancement strategy for Economics in cooperative groups. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 861-876.

Looms, T. (1997). Issues concerning web-based assessment and testing [Online article]. George Washington University. Retrieved 28 May, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/%7Etlooms/research.html [7 Jul 2003: link failed]

Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277-300.

McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know whey but do we know how? Paper presented at the Flexible Futures in Tertiary Learning, Teaching Learning Forum, Perth, Western Australia. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html

Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. L. (1973). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Naidu, S. (1994). Applying learning and instructional strategies in open and distance learning. Distance Education, 15(1), 1-14.

Naidu, S., & Bernard, R. M. (1992). Enhancing academic performance in distance education with concept mapping and inserted questions. Distance Education, 23(1), 218-233.

Peat, M. (2000, 2-4 February). Online assessment: The use of web based self assessment materials to support self directed learning. Paper presented at the Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Teaching Learning Forum, Perth, Western Australia. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/peat.html

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Raizen, S. A., Baron, J. B., Champagne, A. B., Haertel, E., Mullis, I. V. S., & Oakes, J. (1998). Assessment in elementary school science education. Colarado, US: National Centre for Improving Science Education.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Reushle, S. E. (1995). Design considerations and features in the development of hypermedia courseware. Distance Education, 16(1), 141-156.

Roche, L. A. (2000). The nature of teaching and learning [Online course notes]. Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved 2 August, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.fed.qut.edu.au/irving/leb336/lawrence/nature.html [7 Jul 2003: link failed]

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93-111.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (2002). Identifying academics' orientations to assessment practice. Higher Education, 43(2), 173-201.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28(3), 498-504.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406-411.

Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 424-432.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design ( 2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 11-20.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.

Taylor, P., & Maor, D. (2000, February 2-4). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the Constructivist Online Learning Environment Survey. Paper presented at the Flexible Futures in Tertiary Learning, Teaching Learning Forum, Perth, Western Australia. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/taylor.html

Thorpe, M. (1998). Assessment and 'third generation' distance education. Distance Education, 19(2), 265-286.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. T., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70.

Urken, A. B. (1999). Taking assessment online. ASEE Prism, 9(2), 29-30. http://www.asee.org/prism/oct99/html/toolbox.htm

Wittrock, M. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. Elementary School Journal, 92, 169-184.

Author: Maria Northcote is a PhD student and sessional lecturer with the School of Education at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Western Australia. In her previous position, she worked as an instructional designer at Kurongkurl Katitjin, the School of Indigenous Australian Studies, at Edith Cowan University in Perth. Her research interests include online unit design, online assessment, staff development and the link between teacher pedagogies and practice. She is currently working on her doctorate in education, researching the interplay between the beliefs held by university teachers and students about teaching and learning.
Contact details
Maria Northcote, School of Education, Edith Cowan University,
Mount Lawley Campus, Mt Lawley WA 6050, Australia.
Email: m.northcote@ecu.edu.au

Please cite as: Northcote, M. (2003). Online assessment in higher education: The influence of pedagogy on the construction of students' epistemologies. Issues In Educational Research, 13(1), 66-84. http://www.iier.org.au/iier13/northcote.html

[ Contents Vol 13 ] [ IIER Home ]
© 2003 Issues In Educational Research. This URL: http://www.iier.org.au/iier13/northcote.html
HTML: Clare McBeath, Curtin University of Technology, [c.mcbeath@curtin.edu.au] and
Roger Atkinson [rjatkinson@bigpond.com]
Created 17 Jul 2003. Last revision: 25 May 2006.