Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 10–27 | Cite as

Making learning more visible through e-assessment: implications for feedback

  • Marc Lafuente Martínez
  • Ibis M. Álvarez Valdivia
  • Ana Remesal Ortiz
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the role of e-assessment in making the learning process more visible to the instructor, while revealing its impact on the adjustment of ensuing feedback. We carried out a qualitative analysis of two different cases at two different tertiary institutions. One case took place in a virtual mode, the other developed in blended conditions. Data sources were (1) the instructors’ own design of assessment practices, (2) semi-structured interviews to instructors and students, and (3) discursive written exchanges between participants in the virtual space at different stages of the assessment process. The design of activities which allow peer-to-peer communication to be tracked is the most crucial element for the development of a high level of learning transparency. Although substantial learning transparency does not automatically enhance the instructor’s feedback, it may result in a more comprehensive students’ needs analysis as well as a better adjusted and timely support. Practical recommendations regarding these results are considered.

Keywords

Formative assessment e-Learning Transparency Feedback Distance education Blended learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaumont, C., O’Doherty, M., & Shannon, L. (2011). Reconceptualising assessment feedback: A key to improving student learning? Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 671–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & McCormick, R. (2010). Reflections and new directions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, C., & Bippus, A. (2012). Underscoring the social nature of classrooms by examining the amount of virtual talk across online and blended college courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2012/Brooks_Bippus.pdf
  6. Caple, H., & Bogle, M. (2013). Making group assessment transparent: What wikis can contribute to collaborative projects. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(2), 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiou, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Tseng, J. C. (2009). An auto-scoring mechanism for evaluating problem-solving ability in a web-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 53(2), 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross, R., & O’Loughlin, K. (2013). Continuous assessment frameworks within university English Pathway Programs: Realizing formative assessment within high-stakes contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 584–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crossouard, B. (2010). Reforms to higher education assessment reporting: Opportunities and challenges. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University.Google Scholar
  12. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. García, A. S., García-Álvarez, M. T., & Moreno, B. (2014). Analysis of assessment opportunities of learning spaces: On-line versus face to face methodologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs, G., & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2007). The effects of programme assessment environments on student learning. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/themes/seminar/daugherty/docs/grahamgibbspaper.pdf
  16. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hyatt, D. F. (2005). ‘Yes, a very good point!’: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, R. E., & Cooke, L. (2006). A window into learning: Case studies of online group communication and collaboration. Alt-J: Research in Learning Technology, 14(3), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lafuente, M., Remesal, A., & Álvarez, I. M. (2014). Assisting learning in e-assessment: A closer look at educational supports. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lemanski, C. (2011). Access and assessment? Incentives for independent study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 565–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers & Education, 40(4), 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242–248.Google Scholar
  24. Marton, F. (1988). Describing and improving learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 53–82). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarthy, J. W., Smith, J. L., & DeLuca, D. (2010). Using online discussion boards with large and small groups to enhance learning of assistive technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(2), 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCracken, J., Cho, S., Sharif, A., Wilson, B., & Miller, J. (2012). Principled assessment strategy design for online courses and programs. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 107–110.Google Scholar
  27. McNamara, J., & Burton, K. (2010). Assessment of online discussion forums for law students. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(2). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol6/iss2/6
  28. Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10), 1–11.Google Scholar
  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. Noorbehbahani, F., & Kardan, A. A. (2011). The automatic assessment of free text answers using a modified BLEU algorithm. Computers & Education, 56(2), 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramírez, J. L., Juárez, M., & Remesal, A. (2012). Activity theory and e-course design: An experience in discrete mathematics for computer science. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 9(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Randolph, J. J. (2005). Free-marginal multirater kappa (multirater K [free]): An alternative to Fleiss’ fixed-marginal multirater Kappa. In Paper presented at the Joensuu University learning and instruction symposium 2005, October 14–15, in Joensuu, Finland.Google Scholar
  34. Reasons, S. G., Valadares, K., & Slavkin, M. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: Student outcomes in different course formats. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 9(1), 83–94.Google Scholar
  35. Stödberg, U. (2012). A research review of e-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuck, J. (2012). Feedback-giving as social practice: Teachers’ perspectives on feedback as institutional requirement, work and dialogue. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitelock, D. (2010). Activating assessment for learning: Are we on the way with Web 2.0? In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 319–342). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  38. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Lafuente Martínez
    • 1
  • Ibis M. Álvarez Valdivia
    • 1
  • Ana Remesal Ortiz
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational and Developmental Psychology Department, Psychology FacultyUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options