Examining a collaborative assessment process in networked lifelong learning

232232232232232 D. McConnell

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1515151515, 232–243

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (1999) 1515151515, 232–243

232232232232232 © 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd

Examining a collaborative assessmentprocess in networked lifelong learning

D. McConnellDepartment of Educational Studies, University of Sheffield

AbstractAbstractAbstractAbstractAbstract This case study paper is concerned with the developmentof professional practice in networked learning environments.Through the presentation of one case (a) an assessment process in anetworked learning environment which involves the learner, theirpeers and a tutor in making judgments about the learner’s formalcoursework; and (b) the role of the tutor/ teacher in these processesare examined. From an analysis of the case it is suggested thatassessment should be a learning event and that networked learningcourse participants should be involved in making judgments abouttheir own and their peers’ learning. The benefits to learners and tutorsof these collaborative learning processes are examined and discussed.

Keywords: Assessment; Collaborative work; Lifelong learning;Networked learning.

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

This paper examines some issues concerning collaborative self/peer/tutorassessment of adult learners’ formal coursework in one particular networkedlearning context. This case study analyses one particular collaborativeassessment process while, at the same time, trying to indicate some of the moregeneral potential benefits of this approach. The intention is to make it possiblefor each reader to generalise from this case to their own practice.

Assessment of learning is probably one of the last remaining bastions ofacademic life. It is usually the one element in a formal course where the learnerhas no, or very little, say or control over. Assessment is usually unilateral, carriedout solely by the teacher, and often final.

Making assessment a learning event, rather than a form of unilateraljudgment, is surely a goal that we should strive to achieve in the context oflifelong learning. This is especially so in the field of continuing professionaldevelopment where we work with people who already have some expertise inmaking judgments about their professional work. However, few teachers seem

Based on a paper selected from the Networked Lifelong Learning Conference, Sheffield University,April 1998

Correspondence: Professor David McConnell, Centre for the Study of Networked Learning,Department of Educational Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2JA

Email: [email protected]

Collaborative assessment in networked learning 233233233233233


willing to embrace the possibility of involving learners in assessing their ownand others work. Perhaps it is a fear of letting go of this last source of powerthat we have that stops this happening? Perhaps it is a fear of standards fallingif we ‘allow’ learners to bring their own judgment to this process? Perhaps it isthe structures and rules of the institution that prevent it happening? No matterwhat the cause, it does seem that few of us carry out any form of collaborativeassessment in our practice.

Networked collaborative learningNetworked collaborative learningNetworked collaborative learningNetworked collaborative learningNetworked collaborative learning

The process of developing skill and understanding about collaborative self andpeer assessment has to take place in a wider supportive learning context. It ishighly unlikely for us to be able to introduce these processes into a networkedlearning course that does not function as a cooperative learning community.Learners and tutors have to develop a sense of trust and a common purpose, abelief that they are a community of learners, before they are likely to believethat self and peer assessment will really be taken seriously, and will workeffectively. They are, after all, going to ‘reveal’ themselves in this process.

The development of networked collaborative learning communities requiresa focus on the processes of collaboration, and the well being and developmentof the collaborative group (McGrath, 1990). What is needed in order to supportthe networked learning community has been discussed elsewhere (McConnell,1994). In summary, this involves:

• openness in the educational process;• self-determination in learning;• a real purpose in the cooperative learning process;• a supportive learning environment;• collaborative assessment of learning;• assessment and evaluation of the ongoing learning process.

Networked collaborative learning emphasises the networking of people andresources, and the incorporation of collaborative learning processes as the majorform of social relationship within a learning context. Networked collaborativelearning is therefore the bringing together of learners via personal computerslinked to the Internet, with a focus on them working as a learning community,sharing resources, knowledge, experience and responsibility through reciprocalcollaborative learning.

What happens in networked collaborative assessment?What happens in networked collaborative assessment?What happens in networked collaborative assessment?What happens in networked collaborative assessment?What happens in networked collaborative assessment?

The context drawn on for this paper is the MEd in Networked CollaborativeLearning at the University of Sheffield, which is a two year part-time programmefor professional people wishing to develop their skill and understanding of theuse of the Internet and electronic communications in learning. The course isrun using the Lotus Notes groupware, and via a Web site (details can be foundat http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/csnl/). Small groups of participants andtutors work as ‘learning sets’ in the Lotus Notes environment. Discussions,seminars and collaborative group work take place here, as well as the submission

234234234234234 D. McConnell


of electronic course assignments and their subsequent collaborative review andassessment, by the participants themselves, their peers and tutors. Participantsnegotiate the focus of their course assignments with their peers and tutor,allowing them to find a topic of real relevance to their personal learning andprofessional practice. Two sets of criteria are normally used in the collaborativeassessment process: those provided by the participant who’s work is beingreviewed; and those provided by the tutor, representing the views of the courseteam.

There are several issues emerging from the practice of collaborative self,peer and tutor assessment in this networked learning environment which canhelp to illustrate what is involved. Two examples typical of the collaborativeassessment process will help to illuminate some of these issues.

Example One: Sharing thinking about course assignment proposalsThe first example relates to the development of a supportive learningenvironment, where course participants come to feel they are working within atrusting learning community where they can offer tentative thoughts and ideasconcerning the course assignment they wish to produce.

Learners’ relationship to assessment does not start at the point where theyhand in a piece of work for assessment. Most learners are engaged in a complexrelationship with assessment from the moment they join a course of study whichis to be accredited. We know that the assessment process can be central to theway in which learners engage with learning. How they are to be assessed oftendetermines what they learn, how they learn it and how they prepare for theirassessment (Becker et al., 1968; Miller et al., 1974). If we are to develop deepprocesses of learning, and authentic, meaningful learning, we have to try toproduce, as early as possible, an environment where it is possible for us all toshare our thoughts and feelings about the development of the coursework thatis to be assessed. If this is achieved, then learners are in a better position tobring some self-determination into the process, and feel that they have somecontrol over it. This in turn helps them develop a more secure relationshipbetween themselves, their tutor, other peer learners and on their assignmentsand their assessment.

An example of how this starts in a networked environment may help. Belowis a summary of an online discussion of how one course participant started toengage co-learners and tutor in thinking about the production of a courseassignment (P stands for ‘participant’ and T for ‘tutor’).P1 makes a statement about the possible focus of his assignment (which is ‘facilitating

IT/networked development of teachers in schools’); he asks if this would beappropriate for the assignment.

T makes a supporting comment; asks a question relating to the assignment; observesthat it could be quite a complex piece of work to carry out; asks how P1 might goabout developing the idea.

P1 provides details and acknowledges that he should keep the assignment ‘simple’.T makes a supportive statement; asks more detailed questions; offers further support

and requests that P1 keeps the learning set informed of his work.P1 provides a long entry describing his contacts with the school and their enthusiasm

to be involved; mentions how he is becoming more focused in what he wants towrite about; mentions a Web resource he has found and gives a URL for others inthe learning set to examine; mentions a relevant DfEE (Department for Education



and Employment) document found on the Web and quotes from that in order toillustrate the need for teacher development in this area; asks T for specific help onone issue.

P2 makes a supportive comment; copies parts of what P1 has said to reflect back tohim (as quotes) and asks some questions; finishes by saying she is puzzled abouthow this will relate to his own practice?

P3 points P1 in the direction of a CMC system freely available on the Web (gives URL)which might be of use in his assignment; asks him to let her know what he thinksof it.

T makes a supporting comment; copies something P1 said earlier, quotes it back tohim, and makes some detailed comments on it; makes a cautionary statement toP1; poses some questions about P1’s proposed assignment.

P1 says he recognises the need to be ‘cautious’ in what he is attempting for theassignment; re-states his re-worked assignment proposal; gives more backgroundinformation about IT resources available at the school; describes who he is workingwith in the school; discusses how the development work at the school will ‘fit into’the MEd assignment and his own practice.

T quotes back to P1 something he said earlier in order to elaborate on it; makes asupporting statement; makes a further possible suggestion concerning P1’s proposal;provides some ideas on how to carry out educational evaluations; makes asupporting statement concerning the role of the learning set in helping P1; ends bymaking another supportive statement.

P1 some time later: reports back on work already carried out in the project; gives somethoughts on what is involved for school teachers taking part in the project; says hehas now set-up a virtual classroom and is examining his own role (his practice) inthe project as part of the assignment.

P3 makes a supporting statement; expresses her interest in seeing the results; asks aquestion about something he said which isn’t clear to her.

P1 thanks P3; answers her question; makes a further statement about what he is tryingto achieve in the project.

This sustained, focused discussion about P1’s proposed assignment topicoccurred over several weeks. The asynchronous nature of the networkedlearning communication technology allowed him time to think about and re-shape the topic while receiving detailed comments from the members of thelearning set. His struggle to make sense of what he was trying to achieve wascarried out in a supportive learning environment. Because of the asynchronousprocesses involved, he was able to take time to think about the comments othersmade, go off and find Web and other resources to help him develop his thinking,and bring some of that back to the group to share with them. Even though sometime elapsed between some of the entries in the discussion, P1 was able to pick-up the thread of the conversation whenever he needed to and could count onthe other learning set members to ‘be there’ for him whenever he needed to talkwith them.

By examining the ‘transcript’ of the discussion it is possible to ‘see’ P’s ideasand knowledge developing, to ‘see’ him picking up other participants’ andtutor’s points and using them. By working in this way, participants are able todevelop their understanding of the importance of a supportive online learningenvironment by directly experiencing and participating it.

“One great positive from this course for me has been the invaluable insight Ihave been given into issues through the views of others - wonderful afterhaving worked on my own for so long. It has really helped to examine myown viewpoints.” (Participant)

236236236236236 D. McConnell


This extended period of discussion and development of the course assignmentalso sets the context in which the assignment can finally be submitted forcomment and assessment. Those involved know what P1 is trying to achieveand why, and know something of his thinking around the topic. They havebeen prepared in advance for receiving his assignment, and are already in adifferent kind of position to understand how to approach it’s assessment thanthey would have been had they not been involved in this process. The processis a necessary precursor to the assessment itself.

Example Two: Developing learning relationships through assessment processesThe opportunity for participants and tutors to share their criteria for makingjudgments about the learning that is evidenced in a course assignment can alsobe a fruitful arena for learning.

When the focus of the assignment is on issues relating to the participant’sown professional practice, they can be encouraged to reflect on their practice,critically examine it and carry out a small scale action research interventioninto it. Such assignments often have a dual role for them : it is a piece of workthat has some real use in their practice e.g. it may lead to a document that canbe used in their institution for some aspect of staff development or organisationalchange. At the same time the work also forms the basis for the course assignment.

One issue around this that sometimes emerges is how to write for differentaudiences when using the same research material. There can be a tendency forparticipants to prepare just one document for the two purposes (their paid work,and the course). This often leads to a discussion about the form of a documentthat can be used for submission as an academic piece of work, and the form ofa document for work-related purposes.

An example of this will help to illustrate the complexity of this learningrelationship and show how beneficial it can be for a participant to be able tochallenge the tutor’s judgments on their work — within the wider social spaceof the collaborative learning set. For reasons of clarity reference is only madehere to discussions between the participant and the tutor, leaving aside thepeer reviewer’s comments on the assignment.P presents her assignment online for peer and tutor review and assessment; she offers

several criteria which she wants to be used by others in making judgments aboutthe assignment.

T reads the assignment; makes many supportive comments; raises several issues,including his view on the explicitness of the critical perspective which the participanthas taken on some issues in the assignment (he suggests her critique is sometimes‘implicit’ and not explicit).

P says she is confused and doesn’t understand his comment; she challenges him togive some examples of ‘explicit critique’ so that she can understand what he meansby ‘implicit’; she thinks she has been ‘explicit’ in her critique; she points out that Tdoes not raise this in reviews of other P’s assignments (which are being reviewedat the same time), yet from her analysis of them they offer no fuller explicit critiquein their assignments.

T reads the assignment again and agrees she does carry out an explicit critique, tosome degree; he goes on to try and explain what he means by ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’



critique, and why explicit critique is so important in the assignments; the T issomewhat defensive at this point…

P sometime later: P says she still needs to be clearer about implicit and explicit critique,before the end of the Workshop; she copies and pastes sections from the assignmentwhich she thinks shows that she was being explicitly critical; she asks T what henow thinks?

T re-confirms his view that she has been explicit in her critique, to some degree.Once again, this discussion occurred over several weeks. The summary of thediscussion does not capture the strength of feeling that was clearly evident inthe participant’s comments to the tutor. She made it clear that she wanted tochallenge the tutor on the issue. However, there was no sense in the discussionof either one of them taking the view that one was ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’.There was also no sign of the tutor resorting to a differential power relationshipin order to retain his status. Both took time to ‘listen’ to each other, to re-readthe assignment in the light of their new understanding of it, and offer newinsight and comment on it. They were engaged in a ‘learning relationship’.

This extract indicates the possibility for a deep T-P learning relationship in anetworked learning environment. The tutor’s comments on the assignment canbe challenged and dissected in an open way by the participant. This is also readby the other participants in the learning set, who can follow the ensuingdiscussion. This high degree of openness contributes to the participants’ growingunderstanding of their role in the course, and the possibility for them to ‘takecontrol’ and manage the learning process. Of course different participants engagewith the process in different ways, and to varying degrees. But the sharing ofpower does become something that is real to them all, and not just rhetorical.They come to see that, through this process, they do have power, and that itcounts.

The P’s final comment to the T shows something of her orientation:“Thanks for your comments (T name) and clearing up the implicit/explicitconfusions — there is a lot to think about in words like explicit critique! It wasreally useful to think about it. I re-read my assignment on the train back to(town)…and could see how the critique was more to the fore in some placesthan others… (snip). It is interesting as the bit I found most difficult (brainwise) to write was the section where I was trying to be more explicit in mycritique with reference to theoretical ideas as well as ‘how they work inpractice’. So looking at your initial comment about it being explicit has reallyhelped me develop my thinking about this in evaluating my own work, andother things I’m evaluating, and of course being clearer about academicconcerns… (snip)…The process — i.e. my difficulty in writing (the)assignment for work and (the) MEd, and your difficulty in commenting onsomething geared around my practice, has been a total pain but again reallyuseful in terms of taking my thinking further around the distinctions andoverlaps around professional and academic awards. Sooooo…all in all a reallyuseful learning and assessment process…”

Implications of this case studyImplications of this case studyImplications of this case studyImplications of this case studyImplications of this case study

What are the possible implications of this case study for the practice ofnetworked collaborative assessment?

238238238238238 D. McConnell


Concerning the ‘networking’ of learningAn analysis of transcripts from several networked learning groups’ collaborativeassessment work reveals a series of steps and processes that those involvedtypically move through:• negotiating (with peers and tutor) the focus of the assignment topic, from

an initial tentative idea to a fully confirmed topic;• asynchronous discussion of issues, problems and viewpoints surrounding

the topic, moving between short entries to the discussion and more fullyformed entries which focus on substantive conceptual and methodologicalissues;

• sharing resources (e.g. research papers; Web sites; ideas; experiences) relatedto the topic;

• submission of several drafts of the assignment, followed each time by:• collaborative self/peer/tutor participation in reviews of the drafts;• formal submission of the final ‘polished’ assignment paper.

It is both the groupware supporting networked learning, and the socialscaffolding of the group’s learning processes that makes it possible forcollaborative assessment to take place. This is only possible in an asynchro-nous communication medium such as Lotus Notes.

Concerning tutoringIn formal learning situations, knowledge is produced in the context of power(Giroux, 1992). While we as tutors may strive to engender a ‘learningrelationship’ in our networked learning practice, we are nevertheless constantlyengaged in a power relationship. We can only hope to be aware of our practiceand its inevitable consequences by engaging in some form of critical reflectionon our pedagogy. Teaching is complex, and our practice is full of contradictions.It is our willingness to look for these contradictions, to be open to them and toengage with our learners about their meaning and impact, that can lead to thepurposeful and reflective development our networked learning practice.Naturally, the goal is not to assume that we can achieve perfection in this respect— each situation and context is different. We can, however, critically re-visitthe issues throughout our practice as we engage in the processes of our practice.

An issue that is sometimes faced by tutors in networked learningenvironments is when to ‘close’ the review and assessment process. Theassessment process is formative, rather than summative. It is a an importantlearning opportunity. The engagement of the learner, her peers and the tutorleads to some detailed, in-depth discussion of the content of the assignment.Peers and tutor ask questions, offer their own insights on the topic, offer theauthor resources that relate to the topic, suggest alterations to the assignmentand so on. This allows the author to re-work the piece, using these commentsas and where they think appropriate. The process is akin to the rigourousrefereeing process of academic journals.

However, it is sometimes difficult to know when to close the discussion. Atime limit of three weeks is often put on the process, but this can have the effectof forcing the group to close too early, just as they are beginning to ‘dig into’ the



content of the assignment, and move away from the assignment itself to theissues it raises. In one particular case, the review process took the form of anextended discussion about issues emerging form the piece, which continuedfor several months. Clearly, this amount of time cannot be devoted to everyparticipant’s work, yet participants agree that this aspect of networked learningis often the most interesting, challenging and involving.

Although the tutor’s role in these reviews and assessments is meant to be asa critical colleague, with the tutor holding no more power than anyone elseinvolved in the process, we find in practice that there still is a power relationshipweighted in favour of the tutor. Participants do engage fully in the whole process,and the level of comment and insight which they provide to the author indicatesconsiderable time and thoughtfulness given to the task. However, when it comesto them having to say whether or not the author has ‘passed’ according to thegiven criteria, they provide good judgment around the criteria, but sometimesstand back from actually saying if the person involved has ‘passed’. Theirwillingness to give this kind of judgment does develop as the course progresses,and they begin to feel more comfortable, and perhaps more empowered, togive judgment on a ‘pass’ in this way. This is perhaps understandable, yet it cansometimes single out the tutor as the final arbiter.

There are times when the judgment of the group is not unanimous. Thishappens less often than might be imagined, mainly because the actual processof collaborative work of this kind ensures that those involved know in advancewhat each assignment is about and how the participant is approaching it. Butsometimes participants do find that they receive reviews which are sufficientlycritical to suggest a pass may not be given, without considerable additionalwork. However, the review group is usually very supportive of individuals inthis situation, and will go out of their way to help the participant re-work theirassignment. It is sometimes at this juncture that the tutor’s view is challengedby the other members of the group, who may suggest that, even though thetime limit of three weeks has transpired and the tutor is looking for closure ofthe process, additional time should be given to the participant in order tocomplete the piece satisfactorily. The power of the participants in the group isused to support the author. This is a rare event but it does point to an additionaldifferent power relationship within the group.

Concerning learningResearch into the perceptions and experiences of participants involved incollaborative assessment * suggests there are at least three good reasons for thisform of assessment in networked learning:• it is a way of engendering cooperative group work: In general, the assessment

process is largely a hidden one. Although quality control systems nowrequire most of us to be more open about the criteria used in assessment,

* The research involved the administration of a comprehensive questionnaire concerningparticipants’ experiences and perceptions of collaborative learning, as well as analysis ofthe ways in which the networked learning sets organised and carried out their work.

240240240240240 D. McConnell


the actual process of assessing a learner’s coursework is largely closed andnot open to any form of scrutiny, from the learner’s point of view. This isregrettable, and in terms of our practice as educators, unacceptable.Assessment is quite probably the most profound element in any learner’sexperience. The control of power in this unilateral way is surely counter-educational? By making the assessment process public within the course ofstudy — by involving the learner in their own assessment, and that of otherlearners — we are trying to ensure that an environment of trust andcooperation will develop in the online group. Participants say they learn agreat deal about other participant’s work through these collaborativeprocesses, and feel that collaborative assessment is a fairer way of assessingtheir coursework. They do not wish tutors alone to have control overassessment. They also say that they enjoy the collaborative assessmentprocesses.

• it is a way of enhancing learning: Self and peer assessment has been shown tobe a way of enhancing and supporting learning (Boud, 1995). By bringingtheir own criteria for making judgments about their learning into the arena,and by engaging with others in discussion about the application of criteriagenerally to their work, learners begin to take control over their learningand begin to develop stronger positive views of themselves and of theirability to learn. Additionally, the free exchange of course assignments inthe networked learning environment between participants gives them accessto a wide range of material which adds to their understanding of how theirpeers think and write, and how they approach the examination of relevantcourse issues and problems. Participants think this is a powerful way ofenhancing their learning, that it is very appropriate for a post-graduatecourse and that it has potential in other areas and levels of education.

• it is a way of developing lifelong learning skills: Self and peer assessmentprocesses work towards developing skill in ‘effective’ lifelong learning.Learners who are formally involved in making judgments about theirlearning carry these skills into other areas of their life and know andunderstand the need for self determination in their learning. Participantssay they now have a better understanding of the meaning of assessmentgenerally from having to participate in these forms of collaborativeassessment, and this can be carried into, and inform, their own professionalpractice. Experiencing this form of assessment also makes them aware ofthe power of a tutor in unilateral tutor-student assessment, and the potentialdrawbacks of that form of assessment. This new awareness often becomesa focus for discussion and debate in the learning sets. Some participantsfeel challenged in a very direct way by their experience of this form ofassessment, and find it necessary to examine their own practice and beliefsconcerning assessment processes and methods. The process seems often tohave a profound impact on their learning. This is a phenomenon reportedelsewhere by Boud (1995), who suggests several important learningoutcomes for graduates who have been self assessors. They:



• develop a wish to continue their learning;• know how to do so;• monitor their own performance without constant reference to fellow

professionals;• expect to take full responsibility for their actions and judgments.

Reflection on learning: The architecture of asynchronous systems such as LotusNotes supports one of the underlying educational purposes of networkedcollaborative learning, which is to offer an opportunity for participants to reflecton their learning as it occurs in the learning sets. For learners, there are at leastthree outcomes of reflection:

• the production of new forms of knowledge;• learning to learn;• the development of ‘deep’ approaches to learning.

New forms of knowledge: Of course, within the networked learning sets, we onlyhave a partial ‘view’ of learning, captured within the online discussions. Butthe technology of networked learning environments makes it possible for thistrace to be open to analysis by the learner, who is able to view, and re-view thediscussion as it unfolds before them. This is surely unique to networked learning?Participants do in fact do this, and find it highly beneficial to their understandingof the discussions. This ‘written’ record also allows them to develop newknowledge about the topic under discussion, as participants point out:

“It gives a written record of knowledge being developed, as well as a finalproduct of the assignment. This makes it easier to refer back to relevantentries and pick up on different points over time.” (Participant)

“One of the ‘goodness’ factors, for me, is that I can read the responses, reflectand respond if I feel that I have something worthwhile to say. I can be aparticipant or watcher...I can go back to the ‘parent previews’ to refresh thethreads of the conversations and nearly always see something new there,especially if I have been doing some reading in between.” (Participant)

By being able to access previous entries posted by members of the learning set,the participant is able to develop, through reflection on the discussion, newunderstanding which can lead to new knowledge. This might be thought of asa form of ‘local’ knowledge which, at any moment, is implicit within the evolvingdiscussion. It requires the participant to make it explicit by reflecting on it,organising it, deconstructing it and then constructing it’s ‘new’ meaning forthemselves.Learning to learn: This ‘referring back’ is also a form of level two learning (Bateson,1973) i.e. learning to learn. By taking time to reflect on the discussions,participants are examining what took place at a meta-level. It can perhaps beassumed they are analysing the discussion with a view to trying to learn abouttheir learning. This can lead to a “change in the process of learning” (Bateson,1973, p. 264), a re-direction concerning their understanding of the nature oftheir own learning. It is the dialogical nature of the networked learning processwhich makes it possible for this to occur. If there is no discussion within the

242242242242242 D. McConnell


learning set, then there is no trace for the learner to reflect on.Even where active participation in some of the discussions does not take

place, participants are quick to acknowledge the benefits to them of ‘vicarious’learning : being able to read and follow the discussion of others. Indeed, thecommunity has at times engaged in heated discussion about the meaning of‘participation’, with some course participants assuring the community that theirpresumed ‘lack’ of ‘active’ participation does not mean that they are not engagedin the discussions. This is a phenomenon observed by others:

“Why should observation ever be better than actively participating ? First notethat there are two distinctions in play — voyeurism versus participation andconsumption versus construction. These two are not independent but neither arethey identical. The voyeur as well as the participant may be actively engagedin constructions, checking them against those of the participants. Theparticipant may be merely engaged in fact consumption.”

(McKendree et al., 1998, p. 117)

However, the contribution of non ‘active’ participants to the collaborative processcan perhaps be challenged. Collaboration requires active involvement in orderto take it forward, though the extent of any one person’s involvement is a pointfor debate and is something which we have yet to fully come to terms with inthe context of assessment.

Deep approaches to learning: The social learning environment in whichcollaborative assessment takes place — with an emphasis on the developmentof ideas and thinking within a discursive environment, and the exposure ofeach person’s writing to the group as a whole — can foster deep approaches tolearning. This is not however a purely cognitive process, but a co-productionprocess supported by the social scaffolding afforded by the learning set. Whatis involved here is a sociocultural transformation of the kind that Lave andWenger discuss:

“Contemporary developments in the traditions of Soviet psychology, in whichVygotsky’s work figures prominently…(suggest that) In the context of theserecent developments, a third type of interpretation of the zone of proximaldevelopment takes a ‘collectivist’, or ‘societal’ perspective. Engestrom definesthe zone of proximal development as ‘the distance between the everydayactions of individuals and the historically new form of societal activity thatcan be collectively generated as a solution to the double bind potentiallyembedded in…everyday actions.’” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 49)

By agreeing to participate in the learning sets’ focus on collaborative learning(becoming situated), participants and tutors contract to collectively engage inhelping each other develop, review and assess their course assignments. Toengage successfully in such processes requires something greater than ‘surface’participation. It is the collective, collaborative assessment processes themselvesthat signal to the participant what form of learning is expected. As Ramsden(1988) points out: “The evaluation process provides a signal to students aboutthe kind of learning they are expected to carry out; they adapt by choosingstrategies that will apparently maximise success.” In this context, participants



adapt to a learning environment that requires them to discuss issues in a criticalway, and to be able to collab-oratively review their assignments with others inan open but critical way.

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

Several observations can be made from this case study of assessment processesin this networked collaborative learning setting:• the need to provide supportive learning environments for ‘deep’ learning

to occur;• the usefulness to learners of reflecting on the online discussions and using

them as a learning resource;• the importance and benefit to tutors/teachers of critically examining their

own practice;• the benefits of exposing, and working with, power relations in networked

learning.The critical pedagogist Henry Giroux speaks of the need to engage in practicein ways that are open to critical analysis:

“… critical pedagogy suggests inventing a new language for resituatingteacher/student relations within pedagogical practices that open up ratherthan close down the borders of knowledge and learning…it serves to reinventthe project and possibility of teaching and learning within a context thatengages in its own ideological assumptions rather than suppresses them.”

(Giroux, 1992, p. 166)This study is one instance of an attempt to open up the borders of knowledgeand learning. It points to the benefits to us all, tutors and learners alike, inengaging in critical analysis of our pedagogy.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Bateson, G. (1973) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Paladin, St.Albans.Becker, H.S., Geer, B, & Hughes, E.C. (1968) Making the Grade: The Academic Side of

Academic Life. Wiley, New York.Boud, D. (1995) Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment. Kogan Page, London.Giroux, H. (1992) Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. Routledge,

New York.Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.McConnell, D. (1994) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning. Kogan Page,

London.McGrath, J. (1990) Time matters in groups. In Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological

Foundations of Cooperative Work (eds. J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido) pp. 23-61.Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ.

McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J. & Cox, R. (1998) Why observing a dialoguemay benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1414141414, 2, 110-119.

Miller, C.M.L. & Parlett, M. (1974) Up to the Mark: A Study of the Examination Game.Society for Research into Higher Education, Windsor, UK.

Ramsden, P. (1988) Context and Strategy: Situational Influences on Learning. In LearningStrategies and Learning Styles (ed. R.R. Schmeck) ch. 7. Plenum Press, NY.

Documents

Examining a collaborative assessment process in networked lifelong learning