Transformative Assessment in Digitalised Post-COVID-19 Education: Implications for Higher Education Teachers

Introduction

Assessment, in the context of transformative pedagogy construct has no generally accepted definition (Tinning, 2017). It is sometimes considered a discourse community, which embraces diverse critical approaches – such as critical reflection, critical pedagogy, critical inquiry, and liberatory pedagogy. However, when the assessment process entails negotiation between teacher and student, it becomes transformative assessment in theory (Tolgfors, 2018). Transformative assessment can be considered an institution-wide assessment strategy that is based on institutional goals and implemented in an integrated way for all levels – including the course, program, and the institution, to systematically transform teaching and learning. The primary goal of transformative assessment is to elevate students’ learning outcomes. This can be achieved if teachers and students are exposed to learning processes, and the outcomes of these learning processes. Transformative assessment assumes that deepened insight results in individual, programmatic, and institutional improvements (EDUCAUSE, 2004).

Transformative assessment, according to Ehrmann (2001)refers to an ongoing process that enhances learning, using systematic enquiries such as studies of majors, courses (mostly by instructors who teach them), libraries and other services, as well as studies at institutional level. These studies need to be aligned with the mission, budgeting, planning, development, and other important institutional processes so that, together, they can enhance the operations of higher education institutions, the efficiency of staff, students, and administrators. According to Tolgfors (2018), transformative assessment suggests an assessment culture that is divergent, rather than convergent. By using critical engagement and student influence, the assessment practice can be tailored to the different needs and circumstances of students in diverse groups. Learning is considered more elusive than individual criteria compliance and could entail a collective understanding that is collaboratively produced through educational experiences.

Transformative assessment facilitates the achievement of the desired transformation. The design, planning, implementation, and evaluation of the technology used may as well be incorporated into transformative assessment system planning. For assessment to be useful in transforming the institution, it must be perceived as a tool for communicating the nature of the desired transformation of teaching and learning. As Torrance (2012, 2017) stipulates, the transformative assessment process passes through three phases – namely(1) responsibilization, (2) subjectification, and (3) collaboration. In the context of responsibilization, the teacher is held responsible for the alignment between curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment – and this responsibilization can be expressed in different ways. With regard to subjectification, if/when the students are activated as owners of their own learning, the responsibility is transferred to the individual. Finally, if/when the students are activated as learning resources for one another, the responsibility is shared collectively, and this denotes “collaboration”. This relationship is illustrated by the authors in Figure 1.

Figure 1.