Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
e-Assessment for learning and performativity in higher
education: A case for existential learning
Jennifer Charteris, Frances Quinn, Mitchell Parkes, Peter Fletcher, Vicente Reyes
University of New England, Armidale, Australia
This paper provides a critical and contextualised exploration of assessment for learning (AfL)
as an important area of scholarship in higher education, particularly in online learning
environments. Although AfL can speak to a range of education discourses, the specific focus
here is on the performativity and experiential learning discourses around individual and
collective notions of AfL in online settings (e-AfL). We argue that e-AfL practices that
emphasise performativity and are used primarily for technicist purposes impoverish their
potential to promote learning. We explore the existential notion that e-AfL can transcend
formulaic and procedural interpretations of formative assessment in higher education. Rich,
divergent approaches to e-AfL can support students in higher education courses to develop
their funds of identity, thereby enhancing learner reflexivity and agency.
Introduction
Given the widespread adoption of distance and blended learning opportunities in higher education (HE),
research attention is turning to the issue of assessment for learning (AfL) in online environments, that is, eassessment for learning (e-AfL) (Jordan & Mitchell, 2009). Much recent research focuses on specific AfL
practices in HE and the particular technologies, tools, and techniques that facilitate them. While scholarship
of this aspect of teaching and learning is extremely valuable, in this paper we take a wider socio-cultural
approach and draw from contemporary literature in the sociology and philosophy of education, to explore
some underpinning discourses that both reflect and influence the particulars of how AfL might be
conceptualised and enacted in higher education online settings. A Foucauldian perspective suggests that
discourses construct regimes of truth that regulate how people perceive themselves, each other and the
world (Foucault, 2007). Critically examining dominant assessment discourses allows us to probe the
limitations and affordances of AfL in online HE settings, and hence further inform the choices from an
array of technological and pedagogical options that are available to educational developers and other
practitioners of teaching in HE.
Considerations and conceptions of AfL reflect different ideas of what education is for. It has been suggested
that education, at least within Knowledge Age discourse, “must foreground the development of learners’
dispositions, capacities or competencies to deal with new situations and environments, including those with
high degrees of complexity, fluidity and uncertainty” (Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull, Boyd, & Hipkins,
2012; p. 2). This discourse suggests that economic development is premised on the capacity of new
knowledge creation and the potential value added by innovation. Central in this kind of education is
developing learner reflexivity (Edwards, Ranson, & Strain, 2002) and agency. Here we view reflexivity as
a form of critical introspective questioning of self and society (e.g., Edwards, Ranson, & Strain, 2002), and
agency as the “the capacity of actors to critically shape their own responsiveness to problematic situations”
(Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; p. 971). These are crucial dispositions for learners in HE, who need to be
critical thinkers and active, deep learners able to deal with complexity, fluidity and uncertainty.
The extent to which AfL practices in online environments are commensurate with the kind of education
that supports reflexivity and agency is dubious. AfL is often linked with quality teaching practice that can
enhance learning and achievement in HE online settings (Boud & Associates, 2010; Boud & Molloy, 2013;
Nicol, 2009; Pryor & Crossouard, 2010). Some examples of these quality teaching practices relate to the
levels of interactivity among online participants that somehow influence the effectiveness and efficiency of
formative feedback (van der Pol, van den Berg, Admiraal, & Simmons, 2008) and instances where detailed
and clearly-written feedback is integrated into the work of students (Wolsey, 2008). However, a dominant
aspect in the literature on learning in HE, both in distance and blended contexts, is a discourse that focuses
on transmissive feedback as quality formative e-assessment (Stödberg, 2012). This kind of assessment is
exemplified by learning objects or quizzes which certainly have an extremely useful and important place
in online learning environments. These techniques can enable timely and specific teacher-student feedback,
112
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
and if well designed, allow students and teaching staff to recognise areas of relative strength and also
difficulties, in time to focus their efforts and attention most usefully. They can engage learners to be selfregulating by enabling them to evaluate their own mastery of content and in the process help them assume
a more direct and pivotal role in their learning (Gikandi, Morrow, & Davis, 2011). Although we
acknowledge the value of these tools we also contend that overreliance on such transmissive approaches
does not facilitate or engender learner reflexivity or agency. We argue that transcending such transmissive
e-AfL has the potential to better afford reflexivity and agency, and therefore enhance the learning that might
be possible in online environments.
Therefore we advance a conception of e-AfL that is both reflexive and existential. We use the term
existential to frame ways in which young people make sense of being in and with the world (Biesta, 2015)
and, in particular, how selves are located and produced within specific social cyber contexts. We can see
existentialism working through social media like Facebook, or ephemeral media like Snapchat, where youth
engage in relational contexts and construct selves through connecting with their networked publics (Boyd,
2010). Further, learning as existential is “rich and meaningful [and] consists not only in the materiality or
the social construction of the environment, but also in the embodied and affective ... connection between
learners and the place” (Hung, 2014; p. 1140). Becker-Lindenthal (2015) argues in her article on massive
open online courses (MOOCs), for teachers to be facilitators of existential learning where they take up
positions other than knowledge expert, providing a “challenging, yet supportive environment [as a] ‘safe
space’ for students’ self-expression and interaction with each other” (p. 321).
This article proceeds with a discussion of the important relationships between AfL and formative
assessment (FA), followed by an exploration of how in HE settings these interrelated concepts can be
interpreted from the discourse positions of performativity and existential learning. We conclude with the
recognition of e-AfL practices that promote learner decision-making, and ownership of learning processes
that support the development of learner identities, reflexivity and agency.
The relationship between AfL and FA
In this article we are focussing on assessment that is formative in nature. This is not because summative
assessment is unimportant, as indeed both forms of assessment are closely linked. Summative assessment
can be used dynamically for formative purposes (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003; VadenGoad, 2009), and of course FA can enhance summative outcomes (Miller, 2009). However, it is important
to note that rather than framing kinds of assessment, the terms summative and formative reflect the use
made of information arising from assessments (Wiliam & Black, 1996).
The terms AfL and FA are used in diverse ways, and the relationship between them also varies in the
literature. Some writers use the terms AfL and FA synonymously (Glasson, 2008; James et al., 2007;
Wiliam, 2007), while others differentiate between the terms FA and AfL (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2008;
Stiggins, 2005). We observe that FA has been taken up in university settings as an individualistic process
where there is a focus of the learner’s metacognitive engagement with classroom material (Niedwiecki,
2013). We are in accord with Klenowski (2009), who reports a second generation definition of AfL, which
is embedded in the “everyday practice by students, teachers and peers that seeks, reflects upon and responds
to information from dialogue, demonstration and observation in ways that enhance ongoing learning”
(Klenowski, 2009; p.2). This definition constructs AfL as a sociocultural concept: an interpretation that
came into vogue following Gipps’ (1994) distinction of AfL from assessment of learning (Pryor &
Croussard, 2005). Sociocultural theory offers a view of learning as a social practice of identity development,
and AfL can be a situated practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) where learners activate each other’s learning as
instructional resources for each other (Wiliam, 2011). Examples of such practice could include marking
rubrics that are negotiated or co-constructed between lecturer and students, or that are used by students and
lecturing staff in discursive ways to enhance their learning, discussion board dialogue, peer and group
assessment practices, sharing of assignments, and collaborative discussion board submissions.
The hybridisation of FA and elearning has been given a range of related terms in the literature including
formative online assessment (Einig, 2013), formative e-assessment (Walker, Topping, & Rodrigues, 2008)
and e-assessment for learning (Jordan & Mitchell, 2009). Formative e-assessment can be described as
“multiple processes involving technologies to greater or lesser degrees, where evidence is generated about
113
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
a learner’s state of understanding relative to desirable goals, and where individuals are enabled to take
actions which have formative effects” (Daly, Pachler, Mor, & Mellar, 2010; p. 634). As suggested by
Gikandi, Morrow and Davis (2011), formative e-assessment includes characteristics that differ from faceto-face contexts due to the often asynchronous nature of the participants’ interactivity. Scoping for an
existential conception of learner development, we recognise e-AfL as a sociocultural process potentially
facilitating identity development in HE, with the potential to be a democratic and divergent process.
A range of discourses is manifest in AfL literature. We focus here specifically on two key discourses:
performativity and existential learning, both of which are important in considering how AfL is constituted
in online/blended HE settings.
Performativity: (e-)AfL and the self-governing learner
Learning as performativity as characterised by Lodge (2002), has a focus on external evaluation, ticking
boxes, public recognition, and is teacher-centred with the teacher as the evaluator. In Australia, there is
focus on HE teacher quality that can be aligned with a discourse of performativity (see Ball, 2003). Fuelled
by international comparison data and the drive for economic competition, Australian universities are
charged with raising teacher standards, and monitoring and documenting teacher performance through
various student and peer evaluation, benchmarking, and performance reviews.
AfL is clearly linked with the performative concept of continuous improvement (James & Biesta, 2007) as
a ubiquitous element and key driver of reform in both the HE and schooling sectors. For example, the
Assessment 2020 initiative (Boud & Associates, 2010) begins with the statement, “[u]niversities face
substantial change in a rapidly evolving global context” (p. 1), emphasising the role of global competition
and the need for innovation and improvement in relation to HE assessment practice. AfL is embedded
within the institutional change agenda of Australian universities and arguably in education further afield.
The UK based Learning how to Learn project highlighted the powerful influence of AfL on student
learning, and framed significant reform in the schooling sector (James et al., 2007).
Performativity constructs a sophisticated mode of social and cultural control. Ball (2003; p. 221) explains
how day-to-day educator practice is flooded with a “baffling array of figures, indicators, comparisons and
forms of competition.” This causes “values schizophrenia” (p. 221) for teachers who strive to reconcile
their commitment to their students and their necessity to be seen to “perform” well. He suggests that there
is “a potential ‘splitting’ between the teachers’ own judgments about ‘good practice’ and students’ ‘needs’
and the rigours of ‘performance’” (Ball, 2003, p. 221). As Ball (2003) outlines:
Performativity is a technology, a culture and a mode of regulation that employs judgments,
comparisons and displays as means of incentive, control, attrition and change based on
rewards and sanctions (both material and symbolic). The performances (of individual
subjects or organizations) serve as measures of productivity or output, or displays of
“quality”, or “moments” of promotion or inspection. As such they stand for, encapsulate or
represent the worth, quality or value of an individual or organization within a field of
judgment. The issue of who controls the field of judgment is crucial. (p. 216)
Although there are various elements of the performativity narrative that we view as problematic, we take
up three particular elements in order to frame how they are enacted through practices associated with eAfL. These are their relationship to governmentality, pastoral control, and the kind of learning encouraged
by e-AfL pedagogy. We see these elements as particularly important to scrutinise because of their potential
influence on the kinds of transmissive e-AfL practices that are so readily afforded by current technologies.
The first of these issues is the relationship of performative e-AfL discourse with governmentality, through
emphasis on self. Governmentality as the “art of government” (Foucault, 2007; p.108) describes social
control in relation to to a political rationality that underpins the use of technologies of power (Peters, 2009).
The development of self-governing, lifelong learners feeds into the notion of global competitiveness alluded
to by Pryor and Crossouard (2008) where the neoliberal citizen is a competitive, self-regulating individual.
The self theories of cognitive psychology - self-control, self-management and self-regulated learning can
be interpreted as liberal humanist notions that support governmentality. In HE “the self-interest of the
114
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
academic [or individual learner] is re-constituted in terms of the interest of the university, and the selfinterest of the university translates back into the interest of the academic [or learner]” (Davies & Bansel,
2010; p .9). The learner is constituted as a self-interested customer, and teaching is providing a service to
credential individual learners in competition, to the detriment of broader educational goals that focus on
the “critical learning, ethical deliberation and civic engagement” (Giroux, 2003; p. 196).
Hence performative e-AfL discourse can be seen as a form of governmentality in that it supports the
development of self-surveilling citizens who can manage themselves in accordance with the operations of
the state, such as the schooling sector, HE and the workforce. Much assessment literature and practice
draws on the self theories; such as self- evaluation, for example, through self-assessment (e.g. Falchikov &
Boud, 1989) and self-regulation, for example, through students setting their own assessment goals (e.g.
Boekaerts & Corno, 2005) from a range of digitally presented alternatives, or diagnosing their own gaps in
knowledge through automated feedback from online quizzes. Moreover, there is evidence that the processes
of developing self-awareness, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation are critical elements for effective selfregulation and performance (Kibble et al., 2011; p. 129). A technical rational perspective, where there is a
linear focus on performance, plugging gaps and responsibility devolved out to the learner, is exemplified
in the following extract from Palmer and Devitt (2014).
Formative assessment is designed to inform both student and teacher about the progress of
the student. Student use of formative assessment exercises is intended to create awareness of
their own weaknesses in order to formulate plans to address them. When well designed, a
formative assessment process should reduce students’ dependence on the teacher but, through
good feedback, the teacher will still play an important role. (p. 1)
This connection made between the individualistic self-regulatory e-AfL practices and performance
emphasises the relationship between self-theories of cognitive psychology as a neoliberal humanist
operation of performativity. While we acknowledge the value in e-AfL practices that enhance learner selfregulation and self-evaluation, we also see a danger in uncritically adopting the learner-self lens in e-AfL.
What the self lens leaves out of focus is the social, participative nature of learning that enhances learner
reflexivity and agency, and that depends on more dialogic and collaborative conceptions of e-assessment.
Existentialist notions of learning can be linked with the situated notion of selves in relation to others.
The second point we would make in relation to the performativity discourse is that although the notion of
collaborative and peer e-AfL can appear democratic and inclusive, from a Foucaldian perspective it can
also be a very efficient exercise in pastoral control (Schultz, 2004). Pastoral control encapsulates how
control can be disseminated through networks of participants. In the context of e-AfL in HE this can be
through an individual/social interface in where learners can act as instructional resources for each other
(Wiliam, 2011), for example, through collaborative or peer learning and assessment, monitoring each
others’ discussions and user-generated content. However, teachers in most cases still ultimately control the
learning and assessment activities, quality criteria and the online rules of engagement, but this control is
exercised less directly, and less visibly at arm’s length, through the mutually reinforcing activities and buyin of the learners.
While on the surface, pastoral control appears to be an egalitarian construct, an alternative reading suggests
performativity. In describing pastoral control, Gee, Hull and Lankshear (1996; p. 7) point out that workers
are “asked to think and act critically (but not too critically), reflectively, and creatively”, investing their
“hearts, minds, and bodies fully in their work”. They go on to suggest that “while this offers a less alienating
view of work and labour, in practice it can amount to a form of mind control and high-tech, but indirect
coercion” (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996; p. 7). This important critique of pastoral control when applied to
e-AfL provides an induction into sophisticated mechanisms of pastoral control that can be deployed in other
workplace settings. Schutz (2004) describes how elaborate forms of social control that defy critique or
resistance are operationalised in education settings where pastoral mechanisms of sociocultural control
prevail.
They teach each other the correct way to participate. Unlike traditional settings that tend to
sanction divergences from a static norm, then, pastoral settings foster particular forms of
creativity, often harnessing them to serve the (loosely coupled) systems in which participants
115
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
are enmeshed. And because control … is distributed throughout the environment instead of
located in (apparently) identifiable figures or systems, it is extremely difficult for participants
to detect or resist. (Schutz, 2004; p.15)
The (by and large) invisibility of this form of control speaks to persistent and problematic philosophical
issues in education, such as the tensions between indoctrination and empowerment, and the normative
purposes of education. Along the lines posited by Schultz (2004), if a purpose of education includes
combatting inequality, this arguably entails students learning how to contest and resist domination and
social control, and suggests the importance of educators being at least aware of their own exercise of
pastoral control through e-AfL practices.
The third point pertinent to the performativity discourse relates to the kind of learning encouraged by some
e-AfL practices. The provision of FA as digitally transmitted feedback from teacher to student can be
continuously embedded in the teaching and learning process of a HE curriculum (Lin & Lai, 2013).
Automated responses enable formative e-Assessment feedback to be delivered instantaneously, and instant
digital feedback tools attached to electronic quizzes, closed answer tests and the like are almost ubiquitous
in online HE contexts. Online provision of FA as multiple-choice questions easily meets the performativity
imperatives of feasibility and cost effectiveness (Kibble et al., 2011; Mackey, Derr, & O'Connor, 2009).
Velan, Jones, McNeil and Kumar (2008) report that in their biomedical science context, automated online
FAs were not only popular with their students, but that the sizeable effort and expense in setting up the
online FAs was justifiable because they were popular, and seemed to help enhance learning outcomes.
So in many ways such transmissive and convergent e-AfL is a very appealing approach for academics. On
the one hand, it potentially frees them to support and interact with students in more meaningful ways, such
as “supporting students in the light of misunderstandings highlighted by the e-assessment questions or in
marking questions where the sophistication of human judgment is more appropriate” (Jordan & Mitchell,
2009; p. 383). On the other hand, investing these time savings into research-related activity rather than
more meaningful teaching can also be very alluring to academics juggling heavy workloads, and who are
under pressure to publish or perish in a global knowledge era, where academic work is performative and
commodified.
While Jordan and Mitchell (2009) note that these assessment tools provide an opportunity for students to
take action to close the gap between their current level and a reference point, they suggest this raises a
concern that conventional e-assessment tasks can encourage a surface approach to learning. This is not new.
Closed convergent assessment formats such as those predominating on online tests and quizzes have for
decades been criticised for encouraging surface learning (e.g. Biggs 2001), which often leads to
impoverished learning outcomes (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Likewise, Hodgson and Pang (2012) observe
that digital instant feedback tools with their convergent close-ended answers, can be too narrowly focused
to engage students with deep learning. Although their conceptualisation of convergence is much wider than
automated e-AfL feedback (which would be at the extreme end of their convergent/divergent continuum),
Pryor and Crossouard (2008) make the point that while convergent assessment in HE is both inevitable and
desirable in relaying the curriculum, FA needs to move constantly between convergent and more divergent
discursive practices to also attend to learner agency. This suggests the need to augment the ubiquitous
convergent e-AfL with more existential learning and assessment experiences.
Existential learning
We adopt Jarvis’s (2006) definition of existential learning where an individual’s body, mind and social
situational experiences are “transformed cognitively, emotively, or practically” with the result of a
“continually changing (or more experienced) person” (p. 134). Existential learning comprises the personal
and affective expression of selves. It can be experienced through relational interactions in online
communities. Sociocultural perspectives on student learning offer a useful lens through which to explore
the more existential aspects of learning discourse. The term sociocultural encompasses a range of
theoretical perspectives that share an interest in relations among the person, activity, and situation, as they
are given in social practice (Lave, 2009). Sociocultural theory illustrates the discursive relationships
between human mental functioning and the cultural, institutional, and historical situations where it occurs
(Wertsch, del Rio, & Alvarez, 1995). Hence learning cultures comprise the social practices through which
116
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
people learn, rather than just the context or environment where learning takes place (Hodkinson, Biesta, &
James, 2008). Wenger's (2011) model Communities of Practice (CoP) embodies such a principle. Wenger
defines a CoP as "people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human
endeavor" (p. 1). This is an important difference in that it challenges the notion of learning as a set of
outcomes or products of a particular culture.
As mediated tools that can broker identities online, technologies are inherent in the mediation of learning
cultures and the development of CoPs. A sociocultural interpretation of e-AfL can embed the purposeful
use of elearning technologies in HE to support learner identities. Pryor and Crossouard (2010) construct a
taxonomy that has implications for learning cultures in HE. They define four purposes for FA: completing
the task in hand, thinking about improvement, making sense of criteria, and invoking learner identities
(Table 1).
Table 1
The purposes of formative assessment (Pryor & Crossouard, 2010; p. 270)
The taxonomy outlined in Table 1 is designed as a resource that the authors suggest could entice academics
into thinking more specifically and organically about pedagogies that are more appropriate to pedagogically
and technologically evolving twenty-first century HE. Deploying the table as a heuristic for HE settings, eAfL can be seen to “involve movement across a concrete–procedural–reflective–discursive–existential
continuum, and between the convergent and divergent” (Pryor & Crossouard, 2010; p. 256). The
concrete/procedural dimension could be exemplified by e-AfL that gives narrow procedural feedback on
how to approach a task. If focussed on exclusively, this concrete/procedural and pragmatic kind of e-AfL
can reflect a less sophisticated conception of learning and a preoccupation with performativity. Shifting
into reflective/discursive and discursive/existential dimensions we see engagement with purposes for
education that link with citizenship and the collective social good. Biesta (2006) alludes to existential
discourse in the way that he constructs the role of the educator as a creative process of shaping subject
positions. To be an educator is, “to treat the question of what it means to be human as a radically open
question, a question that can only be answered by engaging in education rather than as a question that needs
to be answered before we engage in education” (Biesta 2006; pp. 4-5). Furthermore, Biesta (2006) argues
that educators should not be seen as midwives engaged in the “production of the rational autonomous
individual” (p. 9), rather they create a world that supports “the coming into presence of unique subjects”
(p. 49) through asking difficult questions and creating difficult encounters that disrupt settled discourses
and practices.
A sociocultural conception of e-AfL in HE facilitates existential learning as identity work. Individualistic
online FA practices offer a focus on the learners’ engagement with classroom material and epedagogy that
extends support to learners. A wider sociocultural conception of e-AfL transcends this focus through
117
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
actively engaging students in driving their own and each others’ learning within a CoP. While there are
studies on online FA practices that take a cognitive view of learning and explore notions of individual
knowledge acquisition and self-regulation (Velan et al., 2008), little has been written from a situative
position where e-AfL practices potentially impact on learning as identity development within a community
of learners. Turkle (1996) notes that an online environment “gives people the chance to express multiple
and often unexplored aspects of the self, to play with their identity and to try out new ones” (p. 12).
Lafuente, Remesal and Álvarez Valdivia (2014) describe how learning can be facilitated in online settings
that support sociocultural practices of negotiating meaning and increased learner autonomy. They highlight
that it is important to acknowledge the impact of support patterns on students’ learning. Sawyer (2002)
points out that a sociocultural position suggests transformation of the social practices of the entire group
and thus analysis of learning cannot be reduced to an analysis of what any one participant in the group does
or knows. Current predominant performance metrics are of limited value in this kind of learning.
Learning can influence how we see the world and, in turn, see ourselves. From a sociocultural perspective,
Pryor and Croussard (2008) challenge the notion that learning is solely the acquisition and possession of
knowledge. They pose a question whether it is “a contextualised performance involving students engaging
with prospective and current social identities, and therefore is an ontological as well as an epistemological
accomplishment?” (p. 265). Taking a similar stance, Biesta (2007) highlights how although knowledge in
the industrial age has always had a loose link with the economy, in recent years it has become more closely
aligned, and that HE itself is a commodity. Thus the knowledge economy with its primary focus on
competition and individualism can be seen to undermine a focus on difference, deep learning and
democratic participation. We suggest that e-AfL could be enacted to better engage learners in existential
processes: to help young people see and be in the world, and to enhance their sense of who they are.
In this sense, the term e-AfL foregrounds the importance of learner assessment literacy (Stiggins, 1991;
2014) as an important capacity to develop in its own right. We use the term assessment literacy as a process
of gathering rich, varied and dependable evidence of student achievement through the use of assessment
processes that both support and certify student achievement depending on the context (Stiggins, 2014).
Assessment literacy is relevant to HE students in digital contexts if they are to take an agentic role in their
own elearning and understand e-assessment processes through the medium of technology.
Effective e-AfL environments embrace what Esteban-Guitart and Moll (2014; p. 31) describe as students’
“funds of identity”: the historically, culturally and socially accrued resources that people use to define,
express and understand themselves. Existential e-AfL that evokes funds of identity can be facilitated
through dialogic feedback that draws on and honours learners’ lifeworlds and funds of knowledge. Forbes
(2005) argues that formative interaction in asynchronous online discussions can be an elemental component
of effective teaching and learning. Deploying the term formative interaction, Forbes (2012) highlights the
interactive nature of formative processes, emphasising that both teachers and students are actively involved.
She points out that through their interactions in asynchronous online discussion forums, opportunities can
be generated for enhancing students’ learning and understandings. Forbes’ conception is a generative
environment in that her research describes a learning culture where students generate feedback about their
learning.
This kind of e-AfL positions learners as agentic and de-centres the power of the instructor in elearning
environments. Due to the nature of elearning technologies, this decentring is increasingly possible through
the development of high-agency student-centred learning environments. These afford student choice in
learning and assessment tasks, for example, through user-generated content and design, synchronous and
a-synchronous multi-way communication, and different multimodal possibilities for soliciting and
representing understandings. Thus e-AfL might be seen as a means of learner empowerment.
Conclusion
The review of literature indicates that e-AfL draws from a range of perspectives. Clearly, a key issue is
purpose, and where procedural knowledge is required, transmissive approaches to feedback can support
learners to engage with knowledge – although deeper engagement with meaning making may be uncertain.
However, we contend that thinking also needs to be centred around e-AfL practices that promote learner
decision-making, understandings of learning to learn, learner ownership of learning processes and the
118
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
development of learner identities. The authors advocate engagement with the discourses that underpin eAfL pedagogies as a shift away from practices that emphasise performativity, the commodification of
knowledge and neoliberal conceptions of learning. We are promoting e-AfL practices that serve to enhance
learner reflexivity and agency by affording the development of funds of identity, and engagement with the
existential question of “Who am I?”. Assessment discourses play an important role in the subjectification
of participants and it is important that tertiary educators recognise how these influences play out through
pedagogical practice. We view that e-AfL can be evaluated in light of Pryor and Crossouard’s (2010)
taxonomy, particularly in relation to the enhancement of learner reflexivity, agency and identity.
References
Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2),
215-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
Becker-Lindenthal, H. (2015). Students’ impression management in MOOCs: An opportunity for
existential learning? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 320-330. Retrieved
from http://www.jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Becker_0615.pdf
Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers.
Biesta, G. (2007). Towards the knowledge democracy? Knowledge production and the civic role of the
university. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(5), 467-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11217007-9056-0
Biesta, G. (2015). Freeing teaching from learning: Opening up existential possibilities in educational
relationships. Studies in Philosophy in Education, 34(3), 229-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11217014-9454-z
Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. United Kingdom:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it
into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and
intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14640597.2005.00205.x
Bolstad, R. and Gilbert, J., with McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., and Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting
future-oriented learning and teaching: A New Zealand perspective. Wellington: Ministry of
Education. Retrieved from
http://westernsprings.school.nz/New%20School/becoming_a_new_school/Resources/Bolstad_Gilbert
_FutureOriented.pdf
Boud, D., & Associates (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher
education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved from
http://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/Assessment-2020_propositions_final.pdf
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In
Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp.
39-58). New York, NY: Routledge
Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2008). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership,
65(4), 14-18. Retrieved from http://www.k-state.edu/ksde/alp/resources/Bibliography-Module18.pdf
Daly, C., Pachler, N., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Exploring formative e-assessment: Using case stories
and design patterns. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 619-636.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602931003650052
Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2010). Governmentality and academic work: Shaping the hearts and minds of
academic workers. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(3), 5-20. Retrieved from
http://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/download/250/85
Edwards, R., Ranson, S., & Strain, M. (2002). Reflexivity: Towards a theory of lifelong learning.
International Journal of Lifelong Education 21(6), 525-536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260137022000016749
119
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
Einig, S. (2013). Supporting students' learning: The use of formative online assessments. Accounting
Education: An International Journal, 22(5), 425-444.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2013.803868
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/231294
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the Funds of
Knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31–48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354067X13515934
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 59(4), 395-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654305900439
Forbes, D. (2005). Footprints: Participant perspectives informing pedagogy for asynchronous online
discussion in initial teacher education. (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Waikato, New
Zealand. Retrieved from http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/7108
Forbes, D. (2012). Footprints: Participant perspectives informing pedagogy for asynchronous online
discussion in initial teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/7108
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France. 1977–1978 (G.
Burchell, Trans.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new
capitalism. Sydney: Allen & Unwin
Gikandi, J., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review
of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
Gipps, C. (1994) Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer
Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2003). Selling out higher education. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 179–200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.1.6
Glasson, T. (2008). Improving student achievement through assessment for learning. Curriculum
Leadership, 6(31). Retrieved from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/improving_student_achievement,25374.html?issueID=11603
Hodgson, P., & Pang, M. (2012). Effective formative e-assessment of student learning: A study on a
statistics course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 215-225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.523818
Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G., & James, D., (2008). Understanding learning culturally: Overcoming the
dualism between social and individual views of learning. Vocations and Learning, 1(1), 27–47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12186-007-9001
Hung, R. (2014). Learning as existential engagement with/in place: Departing from Vandenberg and the
Reams. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(10), 1130–1142.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.799997
James, D., & Biesta. G. (2007). Improving learning cultures in further education. London: Routledge.
James, M., McCormick, R., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Drummond, M-J., Fox, A., … Wiliam, D. (2007).
Improving learning how to learn: Classrooms, schools and networks. London: Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. London: Routledge.
Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2010). Embedded formative e-assessment: Who benefits, who falters?
Educational Media International, 47(2), 153–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2010.492681
Jordan, S., & Mitchell, T. (2009). e-Assessment for learning? The potential of short-answer free-text
questions with tailored feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 371–385.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00928
Kibble, J., Johnson, T., Khalil , M., Nelson , L., Riggs , G., Borrero, J., & Payer, A. (2011). Insights
gained from the analysis of performance and participation in online formative assessment. Teaching
and Learning in Medicine: An International Journal, 23(2), 125-129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2011.561687
Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(3), 263-268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319646
120
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
Lafuente, M., & Remesal, A., & Álvarez Valdivia, I., (2014). Assisting learning in e-assessment: A closer
look at educational supports. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 443-460.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.848835
Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary learning theories (pp. 200–
208). London: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Lin, J.-W., & Lai, Y.-C. (2013). Harnessing collaborative annotations on online formative assessments.
Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 263–274. Retrieved from
http://www.ifets.info/journals/16_1/23.pdf
Lodge, C. (2002). ‘Learning is something you do to children’: Discourses of learning and student
empowerment. Improving Schools, 5(1), 21-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136548020200500106
Mackey, T., Derr, D., & O’Connor, E. (2009). Cost-effective strategies for developing formative
assessments in online workplace training. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning,
2(4), 44-49. Retrieved from http://editlob.org/p/45710/
Miller, T. (2009). Formative computer-based assessment in higher education: The effectiveness of
feedback in supporting student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 181192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956075
Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using
learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335-352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930802255139
Niedwiecki, A. (2013). Teaching for lifelong learning: Improving the metacognitive skills of law students
through more effective formative assessment techniques. Capital University Law Review, 40(149),
149-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460345
Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2014) The assessment of a structured online formative assessment program: A
randomised controlled trial. Palmer and Devitt BMC Medical Education, 14(8), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-14-8.pdf
Peters, M. (2009). Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: A Foucauldian Perspective.
Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 58–71.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher
education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2005, September). A sociocultural theorization of formative assessment.
Paper presented at the Sociocultural Theory in Educational Research and Practice Conference,
Manchester, UK. Retrieved from
http://orgs.man.ac.uk/projects/include/experiment/pryor_crossouard.pdf
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008, December). Formative assessment – reconceptualizing disciplinary
practices, identities and pedagogies? Paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher
Education Annual Conference. Liverpool, UK. Retrieved from
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=john-pryor-and-barbara-crossouardpaper---formative-assessment.pdf&site=41
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2010). Challenging formative assessment: Disciplinary spaces and identities.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 265–276.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930903512891
Sawyer, K. (2002). Unresolved tensions in sociocultural theory: Analogies with contemporary
sociological debates. Culture and Psychology, 8(3), 283-305. Retrieved from
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Tensions.pdf
Stiggins, R. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534-539.
Stiggins, R. (2005). What a difference a word makes. Assessment for learning rather than assessment of
learning helps students succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 27(1), 10-14. Retrieved from
http://ati.pearson.com/downloads/What-a-difference-a-word-makes.pdf
Stiggins, R. (2014). Improve assessment literacy outside of schools too. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 67-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0031721714553413
Stödberg, U. (2012). A research review of e-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
37(5), 591-604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.557496
Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the screen. Identity in the age of the internet. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson.
121
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(3).
Vaden-Goad, R. (2009). Leveraging summative assessment for formative purposes. College Teaching,
57(3), 153-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.57.3.153-155
van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature,
reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 18041817. Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/29790
Velan, G., Jones, P., McNeil, P., & Kumar, R. (2008). Integrated online formative assessments in the
biomedical sciences for medical students: Benefits for learning. BMC Medical Education, 8(52).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-8-5
Walker, D., Topping, K., & Rodrigues, S. (2008). Student reflections on formative e-assessment:
Expectations and perceptions. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(3), 221-234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880802324178
Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11736
Wertsch, J., del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies: History, action, and mediation. In J.
Wertsch, P. del Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind (pp. 1-34). Cambridge, MA:
University of Cambridge Press.
Wiliam, D. (2007). What does research say the benefits of formative assessment are? Assessment
Research Brief. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 1-3. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Research_News_and_Advocacy/Research/Clips_and_Briefs/Rese
arch_brief_05_-_Formative_Assessment.pdf
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D. & Black, P. J. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and
summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1501668
Wolsey, T. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International
Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311-329. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?CFID=5664581&CFTOKEN=39387119&fuseaction=Reader.View
Abstract&paper_id=23564
Corresponding author: Jennifer Charteris, jcharte5@une.edu.au
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology © 2016.
Please cite as: Charteris, J., Quinn, F., Parkes, M., Fletcher, P., & Reyes, V. (2016). e-Assessment for
learning and performativity in higher education: A case for existential learning. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 32(3), 112-122.
122