Learning management systems (LMS) are employed by universities around the globe and are widely used regardless of the course delivery mode (i.e., f2f, blended, or fully online). LMSs offer widely used functions, such as delivery of course content and assignments, but they also offer functionalities whose potential is often left underutilized, such as opportunities for formative feedback, interaction, and learning analytics. From a European perspective, it is interesting that most of the major LMSs (Canvas, Blackboard, Sakai, etc.) have been developed in North America and are based on a model of higher education that is different from the Humboldtian model that still defines most European universities. Norwegian universities have been called “exam giving institutions” (OECD, 1998), and a proportion of courses consist of traditional lectures still followed by high-stakes, end-of-term exams. The use of formative assessment and feedback strategies (i.e., assessment for/as learning) is not common in many disciplines, and there are often administrative barriers that hinder implementation of such strategies. This paper focuses on the following research questions: 1) Can LMS functionalities enable and even encourage the use of formative assessment strategies that have not been commonly used in Norway? And 2) To what extent have the availability of these “American-style” elements impacted Norwegian assessment practices? Canvas, an American LMS recently adopted by several universities in Norway, will be used as an example. Assignments in Canvas include various types of feedback, for example, peer assessment (Nicol, 2010). Assignments and Discussions allow for connecting a rubric to each assignment, which is important for ensuring learner-instructor engagement (Bolliger & Martin, 2018). Quizzes give the opportunity for self-assessment and reflection, as well as system-generated feedback helping instructors and students identify areas where more work is needed. Hints added by the instructor provide extended elaboration of the concepts or alternative approaches to solving the task (Coll, Rochera, & de Gispert, 2014). Assignments, Discussions, and Quizzes all connect with the Outcomes tool, thus helping to ensure constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) in the course design and communicate to students how well they are achieving the intended learning objectives. Finally, learning analytics and log data can provide information on students’ learning (Poon, Kong, Yau, Wong, & Ling, 2017), including an overview of student activity on the platform. One needs to reconsider that learning analytics have a potential to assist educators in student assessment but also present several ethical challenges.

References Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (4th. ed). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press / McGraw-Hill. Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 1-16. Coll, C., Rochera, M. J., & de Gispert, I. (2014). Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups: Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation. Computers & Education, 75, 53-64. Nicol. D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. OECD, Thematic Review of the First Years of Tertiary Education, (1998). Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/thematicreviewofthefirstyearsoftertiaryeducation-homepage.htm. Poon, L. K., Kong, S. C., Yau, T. S., Wong, M., & Ling, M. H. (2017). Learning analytics for monitoring students’ participation online: Visualizing navigational patterns on learning management system. In International Conference on Blended Learning (pp. 166-176). Springer, Cham.