Advertisement

Automated Feedback for Workplace Learning in Higher Education

  • Esther van der StappenEmail author
  • Liesbeth Baartman
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1014)

Abstract

To cope with changing demands from society, higher education institutes are developing adaptive curricula in which a suitable integration of workplace learning is an important factor. Automated feedback can be used as part of formative assessment strategies to enhance student learning in the workplace. However due to the complex and diverse nature of workplace learning processes, it is difficult to align automated feedback to the needs of the individual student. The main research question we aim to answer in this design-based study is: ‘How can we support higher education students’ reflective learning in the workplace by providing automated feedback while learning in the workplace?’. Iterative development yielded (1) a framework for automated feedback in workplace learning, (2) design principles and guidelines and (3) an application prototype implemented according to this framework and design knowledge. In the near future, we plan to evaluate and improve these tentative products in pilot studies.

Keywords

Automated feedback Formative assessment Technology-Enhanced Learning Technology-Enhanced Assessment Workplace learning Learning analytics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ellen Schuurink for her inspiration and support for this research, and Rogier Knoester and Roel Veldhuizen for their technical insights and efforts in developing the proof of concept.

References

  1. 1.
    Tynjälä, P., Slotte, V., Nieminen, J., et al.: From university to working life: graduates’ workplace skills in practice. In: Higher Education and Working Life: Collaborations, Confrontations and Challenges, pp. 73–88 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zitter, I., Hoeve, A., de Bruijn, E.: A design perspective on the school-work boundary: a hybrid curriculum model. Vocat. Learn. 9, 111–131 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9150-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Stappen, E., Zitter, I.: Exploring design principles for technology-enhanced workplace learning. In: 29th Bled eConference: Digital Economy, Bled, Slovenia, pp. 472–478 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruiz-Calleja, A., Prieto, L.P., Ley, T., Rodríguez-Triana, M.J., Dennerlein, S.: Learning analytics for professional and workplace learning: a literature review. In: Lavoué, É., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., Broisin, J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2017. LNCS, vol. 10474, pp. 164–178. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirkwood, A., Price, L.: Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learn. Media Technol. 39, 6–36 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Redecker, C., Johannessen, Ø.: Changing assessment - towards a new assessment paradigm using ICT. Eur. J. Educ. 48, 79–96 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krause, U.-M., Stark, R., Mandl, H.: The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learn. Instr. 19, 158–170 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2008.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Attali, Y., Powers, D.: Effect of immediate feedback and revision on psychometric properties of open-ended GRE® subject test items. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2008, i–23 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02107.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware, P.D., Warschauer, M.: Electronic feedback and second language writing. In: Hyland, K., Hyland, F. (eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, pp. 105–122. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whitelock, D., Twiner, A., Richardson, J.T.E., et al.: OpenEssayist: a supply and demand learning analytics tool for drafting academic essays. In: Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2015), pp. 208–212. ACM, Poughkeepsie (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ala-Mutka, K.M.: A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15, 83–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Billett, S.: Workplace participatory practices: conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. J. Work. Learn. 16, 312–324 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410550295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eraut, M.: Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 70(Pt 1), 113–136 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Billett, S.: Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement. J. Work. Learn. 13, 209–214 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tynjälä, P.: Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educ. Res. Rev. 3, 130–154 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Billett, S.: Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 34, 827–843 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802706561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nieuwenhuis, L., Hoeve, A., Nijman, D.-J., van Vlokhoven, H.: Pedagogisch-didactische vormgeving van werkplekleren in het initieel beroepsonderwijs: een internationale reviewstudie (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tynjälä, P.: Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: a literature review. Vocat. Learn. 6, 11–36 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gulikers, J., Baartman, L.: Doelgericht professionaliseren: formatieve toetspraktijken met effect! Wat DOET de docent in de klas? (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiliam, D.: What is assessment for learning? Stud. Educ. Eval. 37, 3–14 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2011.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bennett, R.E.: Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 18, 5–25 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadler, D.R.: Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 5, 77–84 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sluijsmans, D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., van der Vleuten, C.: Toetsen met leerwaarde: Een reviewstudie naar de effectieve kenmerken van formatief toetsen. Den Haag (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hattie, J., Timperley, H.: The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81–112 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shavelson, R.J., Young, D.B., Ayala, C.C., et al.: On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: a collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Appl. Meas. Educ. 21, 295–314 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van der Kleij, F.M., Vermeulen, J.A., Schildkamp, K., Eggen, T.J.H.M.: Integrating data-based decision making, Assessment for Learning and diagnostic testing in formative assessment. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 22, 324–343 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.999024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lai, M.K., Schildkamp, K.: Data-based decision making: an overview. In: Schildkamp, K., Lai, M., Earl, L. (eds.) Data-Based Decision Making in Education - Challenges and Opportunities. SIEL, vol. 17, pp. 9–21. Springer, Dordrecht (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4816-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nicol, D., MacFarlane-Dick, D.: Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ. 31, 199–218 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pintrich, P.R., Zusho, A.: Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In: Smart, J.C., Tierney, W.G. (eds.) The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective, pp. 731–810. Agathon Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boud, D.: Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Stud. Contin. Educ. 22, 151–167 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van der Stappen, E., Zitter, I.: Design propositions for technology-enhanced workplace learning. In: Proceedings of EAPRIL, Hämeenlinna, Finland, pp. 37–51 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., van Aken, J.E.: Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organ. Stud. 29, 393–413 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Siemens, G., Long, P.: Penetrating the fog: analytics in learning and education. Educ. Rev. 46, 30–32 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clow, D.: The learning analytics cycle: closing the loop effectively. In: 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge – LAK 2012, p. 134 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action, 1st edn. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pammer, V., Krogstie, B., Prilla, M.: Let’s talk about reflection at work. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 9, 151–168 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krogstie, Birgit R., Prilla, M., Pammer, V.: Understanding and supporting reflective learning processes in the workplace: the CSRL model. In: Hernández-Leo, D., Ley, T., Klamma, R., Harrer, A. (eds.) EC-TEL 2013. LNCS, vol. 8095, pp. 151–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40814-4_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D.: Reflection, turning experience into learning. Routledge, Abingdon (1985)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boyd, E.M., Fales, A.W.: Reflective learning. J. Humanist Psychol. 23, 99–117 (1983).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167883232011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kori, K., Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., Mäeots, M.: Supporting reflection in technology-enhanced learning. Educ. Res. Rev. 11, 45–55 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2013.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen, N.-S., Kinshuk, W.C.-W., Liu, C.-C.: Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on learner’s quality of reflection in an online learning environment. Comput. Educ. 56, 53–64 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2010.08.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chen, N.-S., Wei, C.-W., Wu, K.-T., Uden, L.: Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Comput. Educ. 52, 283–291 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2008.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hsieh, S.-W., Jang, Y.-R., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, N.-S.: Effects of teaching and learning styles on students’ reflection levels for ubiquitous learning. Comput. Educ. 57, 1194–1201 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2011.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Leijen, Ä., Valtna, K., Leijen, D.A.J., Pedaste, M.: How to determine the quality of students’ reflections? Stud. High. Educ. 37, 203–217 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.504814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    van den Akker, J., Bannan, B., Kelly, A.E., et al.: An introduction to educational design research. In: Plomp, T., Nieveen, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seminar Conducted at the East China Normal University. SLO (Netherlands institute for curriculum development), Shanghai, China (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    HU Institute for ICT: GitHub Repository Prototype App. In: GitHub (2018). https://github.com/HUInstituteForICT/workplacelearning
  48. 48.
    Duke, S., Appleton, J.: The use of reflection in a palliative care programme: a quantitative study of the development of reflective skills over an academic year. J. Adv. Nurs. 32, 1557–1568 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01604.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Scott, S.G.: Enhancing reflection skills through learning portfolios: an empirical test. J. Manag. Educ. 34, 430–457 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre for Learning and InnovationHU University of Applied Sciences UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations