Educational assessment is the process whereby knowledge, skills or progress can be measured through some form of evidence based decision making. One of the by-products of the assessment process is grading. It is important to note that assessment is a lot more than just grading, and typically happens on a far more frequent basis than grading (which is typically only a periodical – usually annual – event). That assessment drives the learning process is a belief to which many students and teacher will attest, and this is also supported by research [1, 2]. But exactly how this assessment is implemented is equally important, and this is unfortunately commonly misunderstood. As we move away from curriculum descriptions, and embrace learning outcomes (c.f. Bologna Process – Berlin Communiqué [3]) the need for more adaptable assessment tools is ever increasing.
Today, many understand the need for students to be focused on educational attainment. Annual or other periodic terminal assessment has to date been the primary method of determining this. However, leaving aside when assessment should happen, if we examine the how of assessment (and by whom), we see that there are a number of competing philosophies. First amongst these are the approaches which address learning styles, working with the individual students to identify a suitable methodology through which to provide instruction. Many differing attempts have been made to address learning styles in the classroom. One well known approach is the work of Dr. Rita Dunn and Dr. Kenneth Dunn, or the Dunn & Dunn Model [4, 5, 6, 7].
Dunn & Dunn’s principal text, “Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach”, equips the innovative teacher with an understanding of the background of individual student learners: how they learn, how they are affected by the classroom environment and how to accommodate individual students’ learning strengths into a teacher’s daily classroom activities. Dunn & Dunn conclude that focusing on the learning styles of individuals clearly increases the chances of concentration, and ultimately improves motivation for the student to learn. However the closely related field of assessment types is neglected to a large degree. Examination of learning style and assessment approaches has principally been explored in the university education sector. This is logical, as the students are more mature and have a better opportunity to improve their own understanding of a topic. Equally, the motivation for university students tends to be more tangible the closer they are to completing their course. Employers have been at pains to stress to the university and higher education sectors the necessity to produce graduates who not only posses extensive domain knowledge in their chosen subject, but equally have soft skills such as teamwork, presentation, leadership and negotiation skills. Enquiry, Project & Problem Based Learning (E/Pbl) are all approaches which address the key issues of learning style, lifelong learning and assessment.
Overall studies have been extremely favourable towards E/Pbl approaches, and have found that students across the spectrum of capabilities achieve at minimum the same, if not far better, through E/Pbl as opposed to traditional teaching methods. The work of Mitchell & Delaney [8] compared an E/Pbl course with two differing assessment methodologies – self assessment and facilitator based assessment. Of interest in this work, was the finding that students assessed themselves far harder than a teacher or facilitator ever would. A similar result has been found where peer assessment has been utilised. However, maybe there is an opportunity to devise a blended assessment model, just as with blended learning? Could this be where learning styles meet assessment techniques?
References
[1] Newble DI, Jaeger K. The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med Educ 1983; 17(3):165–71.
[2] Newble DI, Entwistle NJ. Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical education. Med Educ 1986; 20(3):162–75.
[3] http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/030919Berlin_Communique.PDF
[4] Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1985). Learning styles inventory (LSI): An inventory for the identification of how individuals in grades 3 through 12 prefer to learn. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
[5] Carbo, M., Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1986). Teaching students to read through their individual learning styles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[6] Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7 – 12. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.
[7] Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 3 – 6. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.
[8] Mitchell, G. G., Delaney J. D., An Assessment Strategy to Determine Perceived Learning Outcomes on a Problem-based Learning Software Engineering Group Project Course, The International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3):494-502.
