Computer-Assisted Method Based on Continuous Feedback to Improve the Academic Achievements of Engineering Students

  • Ana González-MarcosEmail author
  • Fernando Alba-Elías
  • Joaquín Ordieres-Meré
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 865)


This paper presents a computer-assisted method specifically designed to incorporate formative assessment into classroom practice. It is based on the following five key strategies. First, different written materials are provided to students to help clarify goals and success criteria. Second, students are involved in real-world engineering projects that are oriented to learning about project management. Thus, they adopt an active role during the learning process. Third, different types of feedback are implemented and provided several times during the project development in order to allow students to use the feedback to close their performance gap. Fourth, each student is assessed by all the other students of the project interacting with the student in question, i.e., peer-assessment is activated. Fifth, self-assessment is also considered. Data analysis from a specific academic course suggest that the proposed method has a positive impact on the academic achievements of engineering students.


Assessment Feedback Project management Higher education 



The authors wish to recognise the financial support of the University of La Rioja through grant EGI16/11.


  1. 1.
    Andersson, C., Palm, T.: The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: a study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learn. Instr. 49, 92–102 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrade, H., Du, Y.: Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 32(2), 159–181 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett, R.E.: Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ.: Princ. Policy Pract. 18, 5–25 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., Pilot, A.: Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 31(3), 341–356 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, P., Wiliam, D.: Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ.: Princ. Policy Pract. 5(1), 7–74 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Black, P., Wiliam, D.: Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 21(1), 5–13 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bodner, G.M., Orgill, M.: Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boud, D.: Enhancing Learning Through Self-assessment. Kogan Page, London (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brookhart, S.M., Moss, C.M., Long, B.A.: Teacher inquiry into formative assessment practices in remedial reading classrooms. Assess. Educ.: Princ. Policy Pract. 17(1), 41–58 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caupin, G., Knoepfel, H., Koch, G., Pannenbcker, K., Perez-Polo, F., Seabury, C.: IPMA Competence Baseline, version 3. International Project Management Association (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Council: Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training, ‘ET 2020’. Official Journal of the European Union (2009/C 119/02) (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falchikov, N.: Learning Together. RoutledgeFalmer, London (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Gennip, N.A., Segers, M.S., Tillema, H.H.: Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: the role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 280–290 (2010). Unravelling Peer AssessmentCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibbs, G., Simpson, C.: Conditions under which assessment supports students learning. Learn. Teach. High. Educ. 1, 3–31 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K.: Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 304–315 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gikandi, J.W., Morrow, D., Davis, N.E.: Online formative assessment in higher education: a review of the literature. Comput. Educ. 57(4), 2333–2351 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    González-Marcos, A., Alba-Elías, F., Navaridas-Nalda, F., Ordieres-Meré, J.: Student evaluation of a virtual experience for project management learning: an empirical study for learning improvement. Comput. Educ. 102, 172–187 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    González-Marcos, A., Alba-Elías, F., Ordieres-Meré, J.: An analytical method for measuring competence in project management. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47(6), 1324–1329 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    González-Marcos, A., Alba-Elías, F., Ordieres-Meré, J.: An online assessment and feedback approach in project management learning. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU 2017, vol. 2, pp. 69–77 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLellan, H.: Situated Learning Perspectives. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller, C.M.L., Parlett, M.R.: Up to the Mark: A Study of the Examination Game. Society for Research into Higher Education, London (1974)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nicol, D.J., Macfarlane-Dick, D.: Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ. 31(2), 199–218 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Office of Government Commerce: Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2(™). Office of Government Commerce (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., Huertas, J.A.: Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts: effects on first year university students’ self-regulation and performance. Infancia y Aprendizaje 37(1), 149–183 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ross, J.: The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 11(10), 1–13 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sadler, D.R.: Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assess. Educ. 5(1), 77–84 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seidel, T.: Implementing competence assessment in university education. A comment on using the collegiate learning assessment as a prototype. Empir. Res. Vocat. Educ. Train. 4(1), 91–94 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shute, V.J.: Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78228173(1), 153–189 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Snyder, B.R.: The Hidden Curriculum. MIT Press, Cambridge (1971)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strudwick, R., Day, J.: Developing effective assignment feedback for an interprofessional learning module-an action research project. Nurse Educ. Today 35(9), 974–980 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tenório, T., Bittencourt, I.I., Isotani, S., Silva, A.P.: Does peer assessment in on-line learning environments work? A systematic review of the literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 94–107 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Topping, K.: Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Educ. Res. 68(3), 249–276 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., van Merrinboer, J.: Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 270–279 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana González-Marcos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fernando Alba-Elías
    • 1
  • Joaquín Ordieres-Meré
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversidad de La RiojaLogroñoSpain
  2. 2.PMQ Research Group, ETSIIUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations