ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology
Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2004

ISSN 0968–7769 (print)/ISSN 1741–1629 (online)/04/030203–02
© 2004 Association for Learning Technology
DOI: 10.1080/0968776042000259528

Editorial

Taylor and Francis LtdCALT120301.sgm10.1080/0968776042000259528ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology0968-7769 (print)/1741-1629 (online)Original Article2004Association for Learning Technology123000000September 2004GráinneConoleSchool of EducationUniversity of SouthamptonSO17 1BJg.c.conole@soton.ac.uk

This issue forms a special collection on Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) and
has been produced in conjunction with the International Computer Assisted
Assessment Conference (www.caaconference.com offers a free downloadable archive
of all previous CAA Conference papers. It includes selected papers from the CAA
Conference, along with other CAA papers from across further and higher education.
The variety of different papers, and the issues they explore, illustrates that CAA is
now an active and established research area, which is testing both the technical and
pedagogical challenges associated with developing and delivering assessment online.

This special issue is dedicated to a colleague and good friend, Dr Joanna Bull, who
sadly passed away in June this year. Her death has come as a great shock to us all. Jo
was a leading light in the field of CAA, being well known and respected by the
community. She directed the highly successful TLTP-funded National CAA Centre,
and through this co-authored the Blueprint for CAA which is still widely cited and
used. Jo produced a wealth of publications, material, and most recently had set up an
independent consultancy through her own business ‘Eduology’. She will be very, very
sadly missed, but not forgotten.

The issue consists of six papers: five focus specifically on CAA, and one more
broadly on the pedagogies of e-learning.

The first article by Sclater, describes an ambitious cross-sector initiative in
Scotland which is developing a large bank of assessment items for units across the
Scottish further education sector. The paper highlights the issues involved with the
initiative such as decisions about appropriate item types and subject areas, the need
for training and guidelines for authors, the nature of the peer-review and quality
assurance processes and associated metadata and interoperability issues.

The second article by Sim et al. provides a review of the literature on CAA and a
critique of associated issues, such as interoperability, security, test construction and
testing higher cognitive skills.

The third article by McAlpine reports on the development of an evaluation
framework to facilitate the translation of paper-based to computer-based assessments
and in particular the framework aims to assess and enhance the practicability of large-
scale CAA migration for existing items and assessments.

The forth article by Clarke et al. provides an insightful case study to evaluate the
use of online MCQs in humanities as a means of reinforcing and extending student
learning at Oxford University. In particular the research focused on a series of themes,



204 Editorial

reinforcement of learning, cementing students’ understanding, deepening students’
knowledge and framing educational expectations. However they conclude that ‘there
is still much work to do if there is to be a shift in our assessment paradigms … and
the benefits of formative assessment can be realized and integrated into the rigid study
structures posed by many higher education systems’.

The fifth article by Davies provides a different kind of case study that evaluated the
validity of assessing students via a computerized peer-marking process. The study
concluded that the higher performing students achieve a greater improvement in their
overall marks.

The sixth article by Mehanna on the pedagogies of e-learning explores the different
pedagogic techniques employed to establish effective e-learning practice. She carried
out a detailed study of a computer mediated conference over a year, and derived nine
clusters of pedagogies consisting of 29 pedagogic behaviours, and concludes that
blending different learning theories and pedagogies is not only possible but beneficial.

We continue our Discussion series and in this issue Boyle and Cook provide an
insightful commentary on Conole and Dykes’ affordances of ICT paper published in
the last issue, along with a response from the authors. The notion of affordances in
relation to e-learning is a hotly contested one and we hope that these responses
provide a useful starting point for a more detailed discussion on this topic.

Gráinne Conole, Editor
Myles Danson, Director of the International CAA Conference and

CAA Manager at Loughborough University