Main Article Content

Abstract

Assessments are the fundamental media between students and educators. This paper aims to evaluate how to create assessments, how students learn from them, and how to link them to the industry and entrepreneurism. The implementation plan postulates how students can generate income from income-generation assessments or business innovation assessments. In this paper, we discuss the involvement of modern industry in assessment. We examine evidence from approximately 100 assessments detailed in 32 subject outlines. We employ a descriptive, pragmatic research methodology to consider whether they can be aligned more with industry expectations and expected duties. We propose a framework to connect with industry and create student income-generating projects. This proposed income-generating assessments framework recommended industry-based assessments with which students can not only earn marks towards a subject but potentially earn an income based on it. This paper extends the idea of peer learning to expert or industry learning: an approach that did not employ in higher education. Our approach supports educators in keeping the assessment up-to-date, enabling students to add more value to their learning of industry products and procedures. Students can directly contribute to the product and procedures and learn from the strategies actively employed in the workplace.

Keywords

Industry Assessments Income Generating Peer Learning Industry Learning Learning Pedagogy

Article Details

How to Cite
de Souza-Daw, T., Di Serio, A. ., Falah, A., Fahd, K., & Parvin, S. . (2022). Assessment Re-Think: Income-Generating and Industry-Based Assessments. International Journal of Asian Education, 3(4), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.46966/ijae.v3i4.299

References

  1. Agrawal, V. K., Agrawal, V. K., & Taylor, A. R. (2016). Trends in Commercial-Off-The-Shelf vs. Proprietary Applications. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 25(4). https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1292&context=jitim
  2. Amin, H., & Mirza, M. (2020). Comparative study of knowledge and use of Bloom's digital taxonomy by teachers and students in virtual and conventional universities. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15(2), pp. 223-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-01-2020-0005
  3. Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., . . . MC, W. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York. https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/18345
  4. Beblav´y, M., Teteryatnikova, M., & Thum-Thysen, A. (2015). Does the growth in higher education mean a decline in the quality of degrees? The role of economic incentives to increase college enrolment rates. CEPS Working Document No. 405. DOI: https://doi.org/10:6084/M9:FIGSHARE:1358036
  5. Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. . New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
  6. Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment In Higher Education: A Practical Guide. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pete-Boyd/publication/263088354_Developing_Effective_Assessment_in_Higher_Education_a_practical_guide/links/5496ec160cf20f487d316395/Developing-Effective-Assessment-in-Higher-Education-a-practical-guide.pdf
  7. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with Each Other. (1st ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315042565
  8. Breen, A. V., Twigger, K., Duvieusart-Déry, C., Boulé, J., Borgo, A., Ferandes, R., . . . Whitehouse, E. (2018). "We Learn by Doing": Teaching and Learning Knowledge Translation Skills at the Graduate Level. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1176416.pdf
  9. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing Learners in Higher Education (1st ed. ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203062036
  10. Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (2019). Innovative assessment in higher education: A handbook for academic practitioners (2 ed.). Routledge. https://cetl.ppu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Innovative%20Assessment%20in%20Higher%20Education.pdf
  11. Case, R. (2013). The Unfortunate Consequences of Bloom's Taxonomy. Social Education, 77, pp. 196-200. http://idmforgifted.pbworks.com/f/Case.Bloom.pdf
  12. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Seven Principles For Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 1991(47). Retrieved from https://www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/sevenprinciples.pdf.
  13. Chida, M., & Brown, G. (2011). Evaluating the gap between industry assessment of job readiness and graduation standards in higher education institutions: the case of fashion studies. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 4(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2010.525533
  14. Churches, A. (2009). Taxonomía de Bloom para la era digital. 11, pp. 1-13. https://www.academia.edu/download/34778640/taxonomia_de_bloom_para_la_era_digital.pdf
  15. Clarke, H. (1998). Dumbing-down in Australian universities. Quadrant, 42(9), pp. 55–59. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/INFORMIT.012920891286943
  16. Côté, J. E., & Allahar, A. (2011). Lowering Higher Education - The Rise of Corporate Universities and the Fall of Liberal Education. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=id&lr=&id=zOxcdaP-j8gC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=C%C3%B4t%C3%A9,+J.+E.,+%26+Allahar,+A.+(2011).+Lowering+Higher+Education+-+The+Rise+of+Corporate+Universities+and+the+Fall+of+Liberal+Education.+Toronto+:+University+of+Toronto+Press.&ots=PWS5UjaH8S&sig=ClUEY-Q1eQPFZJOh9XgmQCKrfHk
  17. de Souza-Daw, T. a. (2021). Fraud in higher education: a system for detection and prevention. Journal of Engineering, Design, and Technology, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEDT-12-2020-0504/full/html
  18. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935
  19. Driscoll, M., & Driscoll, G. (2013). Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. Thomas Nelson Inc. https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=id&lr=&id=14dM-PMjJ8kC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Driscoll,+M.,+%26+Driscoll,+G.+(2013).+Real+Marriage:+The+Truth+About+Sex,+Friendship,+and+Life+Together.+Thomas+Nelson+Inc.&ots=sVngA5KlTa&sig=BpHbJ2kob3dqLaU1GU9dS6p6k0c
  20. Dunne, E., & Rawlins, M. (2000). Bridging the Gap Between Industry and Higher Education: Training Academics to Promote Student Teamwork. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/135580000750052973
  21. Emam, K. E., & Hoptroff, R. (2019). The Synthetic Data Paradigm for Using and Sharing Data. Data Analytics & Digital Technologies, 19(6). https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrPqB16W4Bjr2caGAHLQwx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNzZzMEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1669385211/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fdocslib.org%2fdoc%2f8859608%2fsynthetic-data-paradigm-for-using-and-sharing-data-by-khaled-el-emam-and-richard-hoptroff/RK=2/RS=Gv2DPTj2mfm9lThG1wU5Sl1YmWg-
  22. Fincher, S., & Finlay, J. (2016). Computing Graduate Employability: Sharing Practice. Kent, UK: Council of Professors and Heads of Computing, University of Kent. Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/53848
  23. Flus, M., & Hurst, A. (2021). Design at hackathons: New opportunities for design research. Design Science, 7( e4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2021.1
  24. French, A. (2013). ‘Let the Right Ones In!’: Widening Participation, Academic Writing and the Standards Debate in Higher Education. Power and education, 5(3), pp. 236–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2013.5.3.236
  25. Giroux, H. (2012). Dumbing Down Teachers: Attacking Colleges of Education in the Name of Reform. Counterpoints, 400, pp. 73-87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42981521
  26. Goggins, J. (2012). Engineering in communities: learning by doing. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(4), pp. 238-250. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jamie-Goggins/publication/263145610_Engineering_in_communities_Learning_by_doing/links/56ebca4408ae2a58dc4a94d9/Engineering-in-communities-Learning-by-doing.pdf
  27. He, S., & Adar, E. (2016). VizItCards: A Card-Based Toolkit for Infovis Design Education. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 23(1), pp. 561-570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599338
  28. Hilsdon, J. (2014). Peer learning for change in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(3), pp. 244-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796709
  29. Hitchcock, L. (2005). Industry certification: value, validity, and a place for SoDIS®. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(4), pp. 59–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1113847.1113878
  30. Junejo, I., Memon, A. K., & Mohammad, J. (2018). Current Practices in Higher Education Institutes Pakistan and Gap Reduction between Industry and Academia: A Systematic Literature Review Approach. Asian Journal of Contemporary Education, 2(2), pp. 173-181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.137.2018.22.173.181
  31. Leathwood, C. (2005). Assessment policy and practice in higher education: Purpose, standards, and equity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), pp. 307-324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063876
  32. LeCounte, J. F., & Johnson, D. (2015). The MOOCs: Characteristics, Benefits, and Challenges to Both Industry and Higher Education. In F. M. Nafukho, & B. J. Irby, Handbook of Research on Innovative Technology Integration in Higher Education. Hershey, USA: Information Science Reference, IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/the-moocs/125116
  33. Lee, S. A. (2008). Increasing Student Learning: A Comparison of Students' Perceptions of Learning in the Classroom Environment and their Industry-Based Experiential Learning Assignments. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 7(4), pp. 37-54. DOI: https://doi.org/15313220802033310
  34. Leedham, M. (2009). From traditional essay to ‘Ready Steady Cook’ presentation: Reasons for innovative changes in assignments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), pp. 191–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343187
  35. Loughran, J. (2013). Pedagogy: Making sense of the complex relationship between teaching and learning. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), pp. 118-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12003
  36. Mulcare, D. M., & Shwedel, A. (2017). Transforming Bloom’s Taxonomy into Classroom Practice: A Practical Yet Comprehensive Approach to Promote Critical Reading and Student Participation. Journal of Political Science Education, 13(2), pp. 121-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.1211017
  37. Murphy, R. (2006). Evaluating new priorities for assessment in higher education. In C. Bryan, C. Bryan, & K. Clegg, Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 57-67). London: Routledge. https://cetl.ppu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Innovative%20Assessment%20in%20Higher%20Education.pdf#page=58
  38. Nabaho, L., & Turyasingura, W. (2019). Battling Academic Corruption in Higher Education: Does External Quality Assurance. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v9i1.449
  39. PA, T. (1997). Disengaged students and the decline of academic standards. Academic Questions, 10(2), pp. 46–56. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/education/our-people/Faculty/additional_pages/duemer/epsy_5310_class_materials/disengaged-students-and-the-decline-of-academic-standards.pdf
  40. Price, M., O’Donovan, B., Rust, C., & & Carroll, J. (2008). Assessment standards: a manifesto for change. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 2(3), pp. 1-2.
  41. Pring, R. (1971). Bloom's Taxonomy: A philosophical critique (2). Cambridge Journal of Education, 1(2), pp. 83-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764710010205
  42. Rahman, S. A., & Manaf, N. F. (2017). A Critical Analysis of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Teaching Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Malaysia through English Literature. English Language Teaching, 19(9). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1153951.pdf
  43. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=id&lr=&id=fQ7eAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA187&dq=Ramsden,+P.+(1992).+Learning+to+teach+in+higher+education.+London:+Routledge&ots=YRAz6IA0tY&sig=7auyuo7WlVjFn8SEpBviIyEK6Y0
  44. Ross, R., & de Souza-Daw, A. (2021). Educational Escape Rooms as an Active Learning Tool for Teaching Telecommunications Engineering. Telecom, 2(2), pp. 155-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/telecom2020010
  45. Seaman, M. (2011). Bloom's taxonomy: its evolution, revision, and use in the field of education. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 13(1-2). https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=id&lr=&id=QQMoDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA29&dq=Seaman,+M.+(2011).+Bloom%27s+taxonomy:+its+evolution,+revision,+and+use+in+the+field+of+education.+Curriculum+and+Teaching+Dialogue,+13(1-2).&ots=9h99ZyNsUU&sig=GzcqNH4OWaahVu1Kr_AuQyW9arg
  46. Sparks, J. R., Katz, I. R., & Beile, P. M. (2016). Assessing digital information literacy in higher education: A review of existing frameworks and assessments with recommendations for next‐generation assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 2016(2), pp. 1-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12118
  47. Steglich, C., Salerno, L., Fernandes, T., Marczak, S., Dutra, A., Bacelo, A. P., & Trindade, C. (2020). Hackathons as a Pedagogical Strategy to Engage Students to Learn and to Adopt Software Engineering Practices. Proceedings of the 34th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pp. 670–679. https://repositorio.pucrs.br/dspace/bitstream/10923/20443/2/Hackathons_as_a_Pedagogical_Strategy_to_Engage_Students_to_Learn_and_to_Adopt_Software_Engineering_Practices.pdf
  48. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), pp. 631-645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172
  49. Trout, P. A. (1997). Disengaged students and the decline of academic standards. Academic Questions: AQ, 10(2), pp. 46-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-997-1067-3
  50. Venkatraman, S., de Souza-Daw, T., & Kaspi, S. (2018). “Improving employment outcomes of career and technical education students.” Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning Journal, 8(4). https://scholar.archive.org/work/2bqicgezbnfvvigodkby3mm3ji/access/wayback/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/HESWBL-01-2018-0003/full/pdf?title=improving-employment-outcomes-of-career-and-technical-education-students
  51. Waite, J. (2017). Pedagogy in teaching computer science in schools: A literature review. London: Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/computing-education/literature-review-pedagogy-in-teaching.pdf
  52. Watty, K. (2007). Quality in Accounting Education and Low English Standards Among Overseas Students: Is There a Link? People and Place, 15(1), pp. 22–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.334902746417918
  53. Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2021). Analysing micro-credentials in higher education: a Bernsteinian analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(2), pp. 212-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1887358
  54. Wohlfart, O., & Hovemann, G. (2019). Using importance–performance analysis to bridge the information gap between industry and higher education. Industry and Higher Education, 33(4), pp. 223–227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219838465

Most read articles by the same author(s)