Skip to main content

Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge

Abstract

The present work describes an experience of educational innovation in a university context. Its aim was to determine the relationship between students’ frequency of use of online self-assessment with feedback and their final performance on the course, taking into account both learners’ motivation and perceived usefulness of these resources for their learning process. Furthermore, we studied the relationship between metacognitive variables and academic performance and/or execution of activities aimed at learning the course content. To this end we created self-assessment material with the Hot Potatoes educational program and assessed the degree to which students took advantage of the tool, their satisfaction with it and their perceived knowledge, using ad hoc questionnaires. The results indicate better academic performance in those students that use interactive self-assessment. It should be pointed out that even students with low motivation levels made use of this teaching tool. Finally, a relationship was found between metacognitive variables and students’ effort and performance. We discuss the need to include self-assessment in the curriculum, with a view to improving students’ metacognitive knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The system did not show scores obtained or time invested in the self-assessment exercises if the learner failed to finish all items in an exercise. Thus, the number of participants was lower in the respective analysis.

References

  1. Ausubel, N. H. (1983). Psicología educativa: Un punto de vista cognoscitivo. México: Trillas.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221–252. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1302_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Setting the stage for effective teaching. In J. Biggs & C. Tang (Eds.), Teaching for quality learning at University (3rd ed., pp. 31–59). England & NY: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical assessment. Research Evaluation, 8(9), http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9 Accessed 6 Aug 2008.

  7. Boud, D. (1991). Implementing student self-assessment. HERDSA green guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: HERDSA.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boud, D., & Brew, A. (1995). Developing a typology for learner self assessment practices. Research and development in Higher Education, 18, 130–135.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative use of assessment information. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In E. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Campione, J. C. (1987). Metacognitive components of instructional research with problems learners. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 117–140). Hillsdale: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carrasco, A., Gracia, E., & de la Iglesia, C. (2005). Las TIC en la construcción del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Dos experiencias docentes en Teoría Económica. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 36, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Challis, D. (2005). Committing to quality learning through adaptive online assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 519–527. doi:10.1080/02602930500187030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Collis, B., De-Boer, W., & Slotman, K. (2001). Feedback for web-based assignments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 306–313. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00185.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Falchicov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillslade, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary-school pupils. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 407–417.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Glenberg, A. M., Wlkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 579–602.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gómez Alvarez, L. (2006). Respeto por los estilos de aprendizaje y otros principios de práctica docente efectiva: Modelo para curso on-line centrado en el estudiante. Paper presented at II Congreso Internacional de Estilos de Aprendizaje, Chile.

  21. Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63–84). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Higgins, L., Flower, L., & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together: The role of critical reflection in student collaboration. Written Communication, 9(l), 48–84. doi:10.1177/0741088392009001002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Honkimaki, S., Tynjala, P., & Valkonen, S. (2004). University students’ study orientations, learning experiences and study success in innovative courses. Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 431–449. doi:10.1080/0307507042000236353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Imel, S. (2002). Metacognitive skills for adult learning. Trends and issues alert no 39. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kennedy, J. K., Sang, J. C. K., Wai-ming, F. Y., & Fok, P. K. (2006). Assessment for productive learning: Forms of assessment and their potential for enhancing learning. Paper presented at the 32 Annual Conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Singapore.

  26. Lowry, R. (2005). Computer-aided self assessment—an effective tool. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(4), 198–203.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280–296. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martínez, R. J., & Moreno, R. (2007). Validity of academic work indicators in the projected European Higher Area. Higher Education, 53, 739–747. doi:10.1007/s10734-005-4507-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marzano, R. J., Norford, J. S., Paynter, D. E., Pickering, D. J., & Gaddy, B. B. (2001). Handbook for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 209–220. doi:10.1080/0969594032000121289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan (National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning [NCRIPTL]).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moore, D., Lin-Agler, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2005). A source of metacomprehension inaccuracy. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, 26, 251–265. doi:10.1080/02702710590962578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nota, L., Sorei, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2005). Self-regulation and academia and resilience: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 198–251. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Tools for the teacher. In F. Lockwood & A. Gooley (Eds.), Issues and innovations in distance education (pp. 138–149). London: Bogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peat, M., & Franklin, S. (2002). Supporting student learning. The use of computer-based formative assessment modules. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 515–523. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pickard, M. J. (2007). The new Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview for family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25(1), 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 220. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Plous, S. (2000). Tips on creating and maintaining an educational World Wide Web site. Teaching of Psychology (Columbia, Mo.), 27, 63–70. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2701_13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Quinn, D., & Reid, I. (2003). Using innovative online quizzes to assist learning. http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw03/papers/quinn/paper.html. Accessed 6 Aug 2008.

  44. Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S. J. (2002). Improving student performance through computer-based assessment: Insights from recent research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 475–479. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Designing for metacognition—applying cognitive tutor principles to the tutoring of help seeking. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 125–140. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9010-0.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rosario, P., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Almeida, L., Soares, S., & Rubio, M. (2005). El aprendizaje escolar examinado desde la perspectiva del ‘Modelo 3P’ de J. Biggs. Psicothema, 17(1), 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rotger, B. (1990). Evaluación formativa. Madrid: Cincel.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 7–13. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schofield, N. J., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Position location on topographical maps: Effects of task factors, training and strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 35–60. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1201_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Scriven, M. S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In: R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, 1. Chicago: Rand McNally.

  52. Sherman, R. C. (1998). Using the World Wide Web to teach everyday applications of social psychology. Teaching of Psychology (Columbia, Mo.), 25, 212–216. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2503_15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: Towards transparency for student and for tutors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(9), 605–614. doi:10.1080/02602930120093922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 549–565. doi:10.1080/02602930301678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment-summative and formative—some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vadhan, V., & Stander, P. (1994). Metacognitive ability and test performance among college students. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 307–309.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Williams, P. E., & Hellman, C. M. (2004). Differences in self-regulation for online learning between first-and second-generation college students. Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 71–82. doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000010047.46814.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zimmerman, B. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zulma, M. (2006). Aprendizaje autorregulado: El lugar de la cognición, la metacognición y la motivación. Estudios Pedagógicos, 32(2), 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the University of the Basque Country (Grants for Innovative Educational Projects 24/2005 and 18/2006).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izaskun Ibabe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ibabe, I., Jauregizar, J. Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge. High Educ 59, 243–258 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9245-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Online self-assessment
  • Formative assessment
  • Metacognition
  • Self-regulation
  • Perceived learning
  • Academic performance
  • Motivation