presented as a tool to facilitate the implementation of the alternative model. Tracker was evaluated in an experimental session. The evaluation was successful and resulted in additional issues for the future development of Tracker.
Whereas rationalization is central to current application of educational technology, it should be obvious that Tracker is not an effort in this direction. On the contrary, the ExCon project suggest a migration towards a more complex and demanding assessment system. It is claimed that Tracker can support the strive to influence grade- oriented students to become more learning oriented. To the objectivist and control oriented educator, Tracker probably makes no sense. But to those who subscribe to the ideal of the constructive and cooperative model of learning it probably does.

Tracker in Action
Tracker was tested in an experimental setting. The purpose was to validate the principle of alternative assessment and to test the functionality of the prototype. A senior professor and eight undergraduate students were invited to participate in the testing. To prepare for the test, the professor was equipped with Tracker installed on a Newton. He received a short instruction on how to operate Newton. He then spent a few days becoming comfortable with the pen-driven interface and the Tracker application. For this purpose, Newton has several built in tutorials.
The session took place in a regular lab where the students were equipped with a personal computer. The notion about product and process oriented assessment was introduced to the students. Also the functionality of Tracker was explained to the students. Screen shots of Tracker were presented and they had opportunities to ask questions. A short discussion followed. The students were then asked to articulate their feelings and spontaneous comments about Tracker during the actual testing.
To make the testing somewhat close to reality, two scenarios of educational activities were developed. The first scenario described an activity, divided into three phases. The first phase involved discussions in smaller groups where the students presented their idea of project. The second phase was the guiding of the first outline of the paper. And the third phase was the professor walking around the poster session looking at the different posters. The professor was asked to think out loud while listening to the scenario and penning in the notes. After each phase, the professor were asked to comment the phase using Tracker and then connect and upload the feedback to the Web. The students were asked to read, discuss and comment on the feedback they received. This was repeated for all phases in the scenario.
The second scenario involved a group project. The first phase described a lecture where the assignment was handed out. The second phase described the groups working during the week and how they were facilitated by the teachers. And the third phase described the group presentation at the end of the week. The same procedure as in the first scenario was repeated here.
From leading scenario and observing the session it is obvious that Tracker is working. The evaluation experienced no technical problems. The professor as well as the students were impressed by this fact. The professor concluded his testing by stating: "Contemporary assessment system is based on the notion of negative feedback. This tool is certainly a reaction to this." The students agreed on the usefulness of Tracker. During the discussion they stated that the open feedback is lacking today and that it is welcomed. But, the students participating in the evaluation also raised some concern about the necessity of engagement among the students.

Discussion
In this paper I have discussed an alternative model to traditional assessment and examination in higher education. A mobile computing software, Tracker, was described and

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Erik Finnman for invaluable programming.

help

with

the

References
1. Harasim, L., et al., Learning Networks - A Field Guide
to Teaching and Learning Online. 1995: The MIT Press.
376.
2. Hiltz, S.R., Impact of college-level courses via
Asynchronous Learning Networks: Some Preliminary
Results.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
1997. 1(2): p. 1-19.
3. Patton, M.Q., Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. 2nd ed. ed. 1990: SAGE Publications, Inc. 4. Gibbs, G., Research into Student Learning, in
Research, Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
B. Smith and S. Brown, Editors. 1995, Kogan Page
Limited: London. p. 17-29.
5. Ramsden, P., Learning to Teach in Higher Education.
1992, London: Routledge.
6. Leidner, D.E. and S.L. Jarvenpaa, The Use of
Information Technology to Enhance Management School
Education: A theoretical View.MIS Quartely, 1995.
19(3): p. 265-291.
7. Slavin, R.E., Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research,
and Practice. 1990, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 8. Hawkins, J., Technology and the Organization of
Schooling.Communications of the ACM, 1993. 36(5):
p. 30-35.
9. Rogers, C., Freedom to Learn. 1969, Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E Merill Publishing Company.
10. Bourne, J.R., et al., Paradigms for On-Line Learning:
A Case Study in the Design and Implementation of an
Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN) Course.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1997. 1(2):
p. 38-56.
11. Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler, Connections - New ways of
working in the networked organization. 3 ed. 1993: The
MIT Press.
12. Schön, D., The Reflective Practitioner. 1983, New
York: Basic Books.