Diagnose eAssessment team practices, before evaluating the intervention!
conference contributionposted on 06.12.2017, 00:00 authored by James CallanJames Callan, Scott RichardsonScott Richardson, Patrick KeleherPatrick Keleher, Colin BeerColin Beer
Grading integrity hinges on effective implementation of evaluation systems, standards, and benchmarks. Inculcating eAssessment systems to elaborate fidelity in grading and moderation processes offers a crucial opportunity to overthrow conventional impediments to the grading, feedback and moderation cycle. The fact that eAssessment challenges existing assumptions, principles and policies needs to be welcomed as an opportunity to overthrow the limitations that adversely influence fidelity in assessment systems, and embed a change in culture by renegotiating values, practices, and systems of organising. A system-level approach to enshrine the wholesale diagnosis of academic concerns about the adoption of eAssessment practices and consensus moderation derives from preliminary findings of a pilot study into team-based eAssessment activity across 3 schools at Central Queensland University in 2011. The findings highlight the disparity in understanding of fidelity during the move to adopt eAssessment procedures, and that such an impasse risked destabilising relations, and imposed an undue burden of responsibility upon course convenors. This presentation into eAssessment advocates the installation of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model to manage change intervention. Disguised (verbatim) accounts of concerns during the study highlight moments-of-truth that call for the use of a valid diagnostic approach to configure eAssessment and consensus moderation as practiced innovations.