Setting formative assessments in real-world contexts to facilitate self-regulated learning

Original Paper

Abstract

Some writers (Black and Wiliam in Phi Delta Kappan 80(2):139–148, 1998; Clark 2012; Panadero and Jonsson in Educational Research Review 9:129–144, 2013) have hypothesized a link between formative assessments (FA) and self-regulated learning (SRL). FA give students an opportunity to play an active role in their learning exercise, in other words to exercise SRL, while SRL gives the learners the will and skill to take advantage of the feedback offered by FA to progress. This paper provides empirical evidence of this link through interviews of 13 students (aged 16–17) from an all-girls school who were assigned two tasks which tested the same cognitive skills but set in contrasting contexts: one was a paper-and-pen class assignment while the other, in a live online forum. Data were gathered through one-to-one interviews which probed students’ use of SRL in the 3 phases (Forethought, Performance, and Self-reflection) based on Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulation (2000). The findings helped shed light on how different FA contexts can affect students’ use of SRL, specifically in terms of their motivation, metacognition, and behavior.

Keywords

Formative assessments Self-regulated learning Real-world context 

References

  1. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
  2. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Berge, H., Ramaekers, S., Pilot, A. (2004). The design of authentic tasks that promote higher-order learning. Paper presented at the EARLI-SIG Higher Education/KIT conference. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.uu.nl/content/IVLOSpaperEARLI2004.pdf
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-Regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borkowski, J. G., Weaver, C. M., Smith, L. E., & Akai, C. E. (2004). Metacognitive theory and classroom practices. In J. Ee, A. Chang, & O. Tan (Eds.), Thinking about thinking: What educators need to know (pp. 88–107). Singapore: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Boud, D. (1991). Implementing student self-assessment (2nd ed.). Sydney: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  13. Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning was important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 14–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
  15. Broadfoot, P. (2008). Assessment for learners: Assessment literacy and the development of learning power. In A. Havnes & L. McDowell (Eds.), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (pp. 213–224). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Brookhart, S. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249.Google Scholar
  18. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Education Scotland. (n.d.) The Purpose of Education. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/thecurriculum/whatiscurriculumforexcellence/thepurposeofthecurriculum/
  20. Fan, L. H. (2010). Integrating new assessment strategies into mathematics classrooms: An exploratory study in Singapore primary and secondary school [Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.nie.edu.sg/files/oer/NIE_research_brief_10_003.pdf
  21. Fullan, M., Rolheiser, C., Mascall, B., Edge, K. (2002, May). Accomplishing large scale reform: A tri-level proposition. Paper presented at the second annual conference on sustainability of systemic reform. [Internet conference]. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/
  22. Goodrich-Andrade, H., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Havnes, A., & McDowell, L. (2008). Assessment, learners and teachers. In A. Havnes & L. McDowell (Eds.), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (pp. 209–212). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. J. (1999). The dance of interpretation. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 127–143). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Ministry of Education. (2009, September 17). Teachers—The Heart of Quality Education. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/09/teachers-the-heart-of-quality.php
  28. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2014) Desired outcomes of education. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/desired-outcomes/
  29. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psycholog, 11(2), 551–576. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.30.12200.Google Scholar
  31. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales de Psicología, 30(2), 450–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 806–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Reche, E. (2013). Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts effect on self-regulation, performance and self- efficacy in pre-service teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Panadero, E., & Romero, M. (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parkes, J. (2000). The interaction of assessment format and examinees’ perceptions of control. Educational Research, 42(2), 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Partnership for \(21^{\rm st}\) Century Skills. (2002). Learning for the 21st century; A report and MILE guide for 21st century skills. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/
  38. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVII). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  40. Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong and what’s right with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72–75.Google Scholar
  41. Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reitmeier, C. A., & Vrchota, D. A. (2009). Self-assessment of oral communication presentations in food science and nutrition. Journal of Food Science Education, 8(4), 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reynolds-Keefer, L. (2010). Rubric-referenced assessment in teacher preparation: An opportunity to learn by using. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 15(8). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=8
  45. Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development. American Psychologist, 50(10), 859–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sadler, D. R. (1983). Evaluation and the improvement of academic learning. Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications (3rd ed.). NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  51. Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment FOR student learning: Doing it right–using it well. Portland, OR: ETS Assessment Training Institute.Google Scholar
  52. Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, J. (2011). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning. \(6{\rm th}\) ed. Pearson.Google Scholar
  53. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wiliam, D. (April 2014). Formative assessment and contingency in the regulation of learning processes. Paper presented in a Symposium entitled Toward a theory of classroom assessment as the regulation of learning at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA, April 2014.Google Scholar
  55. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations