Evaluation of learning: from feedback to self-regulation. The role of technologies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.21.2.7546Keywords:
Formative assessment, feedback, self-regulation, higher education
Abstract
This article presents a review of the assessment in the university focused on the information that is provided to students from the analysis of learning outcomes. To do this, define concepts such as feedback, feedforward and self-regulated learning and places within the assessment process. After segmenting the process into its fundamental components, this work stops at the relationship between how assessment information (with special attention to the role of ICT) and the form is provided that such information is used by the students considering variables that affect academic background, academic goals and learning strategies used to achieve the expected learning outcomes in their training curriculum. The article discusses different ways to align these variables and develops a systematic process leading towards self-regulated learning of students. In these different forms of student participation in the assessment process (co-assessment, peer peer assessment and self-assessment) and their implications for the analysis and use of assessment results they are contemplated. The paper concludes by highlighting the role of policy on assessment of learning and its implications for the development of the processes of student participation in assessment
Author Biography
Eduardo García-Jiménez, University of Seville
References
Alkin, M.C. (1969). Evaluation Theory Development. Evaluation Comment, 2(1), 1-10.
Bloom, B. S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. En R.W. Tyler, (Ed). Educational evaluation: New roles, new means. The 63rd Yearkbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. [pp. 26-50]. University of Chicago Press.
Bloom, B.S., Hastings, J.T. & Madaus, G.F. (Eds) (1971) Handbook on the Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713695728
Boud, D. & Falkinov, N. (2006). Aliening feedback with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050
Boyle, A. & Hutchinson, D. (2009). Sophisticated task en e-assessment: what are they and what are their benefits? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 305-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956034
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M. & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), p. 395-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
Dublin descriptors. Joint Quality Initiative Meeting (2004) http://www.tcd.ie/teaching-learning/academic-development/assets/pdf/dublin_descriptors.pdf
Evans, C. (2013). Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Feisal-Cardenas, J. (2015). La armonización en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior: Estado de la cuestión. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education, 3, 264-282.
García-Jiménez, E. Ibarra Saiz, S. & Rodríguez Gómez, G. (2014). Guía PROALeval_DI. Diseño e implementación de la retroalimentación y proalimentación en la universidad. Documento inédito.
García-Jiménez, E. & Mirmán Flores, A. (2014). La retroalimentación automática en las pruebas objetivas a través de Internet. Comunicación presentada al Congreso Internacional de evaluación del aprendizaje en educación superior (CIEVES, 2014), celebrado en Medellín (Colombia) 5-7 de noviembre de 2014.
García-Jiménez, E. Gallego-Noche, B. & Gómez-Ruíz, M.A. (2015). Feedback and self-regulated learning: How feedback can contribute to increase students’ autonomy as learners. En M. Peris-Ortiz y J. M. Merigó. Sustainable Learning in Higher Education – Developing Competencies for the Global Marketplace [pp.113-130]. New York: Springer.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. ETR&D, 52(3), 67-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504676
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. a., & Kester, L. (2006). Relations between student perceptions of assessment, authenticity, study approaches and learning outcome, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 381-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.10.003
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hounsell, D., Mccune, V., Litjens, J. & Hounsell, J. (2005). Biosciences. Edinburgh: Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project. University of Edinburgh.
Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J. & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658765
JISC (2010). Effective Assessment in a Digital Age. A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. Bristol: HECE, www.jisc.ac.uk/digiassess
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203304846
MacLellan, E. (2001). Assessment for Learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and students, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307- 318, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293012006346 6
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kulhavi, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 225-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543047002211
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Miguel, M. de (2006). Metodologías para optimizar el aprendizaje. Segundo objetivo del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior, Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado,20(3), 71-91.
Nicol, D., & McFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Orsmond, P. Merry, S. & Callaghan, A. (2013) Communities of practice and ways to learning: charting the progress of biology undergraduates, Studies in Higher Education. 38(6), 890-906. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.606364
Orsmond, P., Maw, S. J., Park, J. R., Gomez, S. & Crook, A. C. (2013). Moving feedback forward: theory to practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(2), 240-252. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.625472
Panadero, E. & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). ¿Cómo autorregulan nuestros alumnos? Revisión del modelo cíclico de Zimmerman sobre autorregulación del aprendizaje, Anales de Psicología, 30(2), 450-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.2.167221
Price, M., & B. O’Donovan, B. (2007). Making meaning out of assessment feedback – Getting more than the message. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Annual Conference – Enhancing higher education, theory and Scholarship, July 8–11, in Adelaide, Australia.
Quesada, V. García-Jiménez, E. & Gómez-Ruíz, M.A. (en prensa). Students Participation in Assessment Processes. En G. Ion y E. Cano, E. (Eds.). Innovative practices for higher education assessment and measurement. Hersey (PA): IGI Global.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the Definition of Feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103
Rodríguez Gómez, G. & Ibarra Sáiz, M. S. (Eds.) (2011). e-Evaluación orientada al e-aprendizaje estratégico en Educación Superior. Madrid: Narcea.
Rodríguez Gómez, G., Ibarra Sáiz, M. S. & García-Jiménez, E. (2013). Autoevaluación, evaluación entre iguales y coevaluación: conceptualización y práctica en las universidades españolas. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 11(2), 198 – 210.
Salmerón, H., Gutierrez-Braojos, C., Rodriguez, S., & Salmeron-Vilchez, P. (2011). Metas de logro, estrategias de regulación y rendimiento académico en diferentes estudios universitarios. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 29(2), 467-477
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. En B. R. Worthen & James, R. Sanders (Eds.). Educational evaluation: Theory and practice [pp. 60-106]. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback, Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment- summative and formative -some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x
Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: the missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770802638671
Vermunt, J. D. & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: do students find them usable? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 379-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895752
Wieling, M. B., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2010). The impact of online video lecture recordings and automated feedback on student performance. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 992-998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.002
William, D. (2000). Integrating formative and summative functions of assessment. Paper presented to Working group 10 of the International Congress on Mathematics Education, Makuhari, Tokyo, August. Disponible en http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers.html
Wiliam, D. & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22 (5), 537–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0141192960220502
Wilson, K., Boyd, C, Chen, L., & Jamal, S. (2011). Improving student performance in a first-year geography course: Examining the importance of computer-assisted formative assessment. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1493-1500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.011
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. En M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-40). San Diego, California: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. En D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 299-315). New York: Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The authors grant non-exclusive rights of exploitation of works published to RELIEVE and consent to be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Use 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0), which allows third parties to use the published material whenever the authorship of the work and the source of publication is mentioned, and it is used for non-commercial purposes.
The authors can reach other additional and independent contractual agreements, for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, by including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), as long as it is clearly stated that the Original source of publication is this magazine.
Authors are encouraged to disseminate their work after it has been published, through the internet (for example, in institutional archives online or on its website) which can generate interesting exchanges and increase work appointments.
The fact of sending your paper to RELIEVE implies that you accept these conditions.
Language
Information