Formative Assessment and Feedback Using Information Technology

  • Fabienne van der KleijEmail author
  • Lenore Adie
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


Formative assessment including feedback to students on their learning is widely recognized as an effective means to support student learning. Research has found that the potential of formative assessment in improving student learning is often not fully realized in classroom practice. IT provides a possible solution for overcoming some of the obstacles when implementing formative assessment. This chapter reviews various ways in which IT has been used in formative assessment, focusing specifically on digital learning environments, game-based assessment, classroom response systems, Web 2.0, and video feedback. The results suggest that using IT as a platform for feedback provides opportunity to individualize feedback, increase student engagement, collect learning evidence for all students, facilitate reflective processes, and support self-regulated learning. Reported potential challenges to the utilization of IT include time restrictions, limited response formats, technical difficulties, access to evidence of student learning for teachers, and teacher knowledge and skills. One key finding is that although innovations in technology have evolved considerably, many promising possibilities are not yet being exploited for the purpose of formative assessment. Most importantly, research demonstrates that not the technologies themselves, but the ways in which they are used impact on their formative potential. Bringing together IT and formative assessment may open up the potential for moving from convergent forms of feedback to more open, divergent feedback practices.


Feedback Formative assessment Classroom practice Technology Student learning 


  1. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J., Winters, F., Moos, D., & Greene, J. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412. Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with metacognitive tools. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 225–247). Amsterdam: Springer. Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. Scholar
  5. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. Scholar
  6. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20. Scholar
  7. Cayton-Hodges, G. A., Feng, G., & Pan, X. (2015). Tablet-based math assessment: What can we learn from math apps? Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 3–20.Google Scholar
  8. Cumming, J. J., & van der Kleij, F. M. (2016). Effective enactment of assessment for learning with students with diverse backgrounds in Australia. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 181–227). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. DeSorbo, A. L., Noble, J. M., Shaffer, M., Gerin, W., & Williams, O. A. (2013). The use of an audience response system in an elementary school-based health education program. Health Education & Behavior, 40, 531–535. Scholar
  10. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120. Scholar
  11. Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 106, 83–96. Scholar
  12. Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2008). Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 82–99. Scholar
  13. Fendler, L. (2011). Web 2.0 and the future of education research. In Education systems in historical, cultural, and sociological perspectives (pp. 125–141). Springer. Retrieved from
  14. Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assessment and writing: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 523–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. Scholar
  16. Heitink, M. C., van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P, Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62. doi:
  17. Irving, K. E., Pape, S. J., Owens, D. T., Abrahamson, L., Silver, D., & Sanalan, V. A. (2016). Classroom connectivity and algebra 1 achievement: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 35(2), 131–151. Retrieved from
  18. Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 382–392. Scholar
  19. Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53, 819–827. Scholar
  20. Kio, S. I. (2015). Feedback theory through the lens of social networking. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 135–152.Google Scholar
  21. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24–33. Scholar
  22. Kuo, C.-Y., & Wu, H.-K. (2013). Toward an integrated model for designing assessment systems: An analysis of the current status of computer-based assessments in science. Computers & Education, 68, 388–403. Scholar
  23. Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. D. (2012). Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers’ initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 523–539. Scholar
  24. Lenters, K., & Grant, K. (2016). Feedback loops: Assembling student editors, stories, and devices for multimodal peer feedback. Language Arts, 93, 185–199.Google Scholar
  25. McLaren, S. V. (2012). Assessment is for learning: Supporting feedback. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 227–245. Scholar
  26. Mun, W. K., Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). The impact of the use of response pad system on the learning of secondary school physics concepts: A Singapore quasi-experiment study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 848–860. Scholar
  27. Narciss, S. (2013). Designing and evaluating tutoring feedback strategies for digital learning environments on the basis of the Interactive Tutoring Feedback Model Digital Education Review, 23, 7–26. Retrieved from
  28. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16, 310–322. Scholar
  29. O’Loughlin, J., Ní Chroinín, D., & O’Grady, D. (2013). Digital video: The impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19, 165–182. Scholar
  30. Ostrow, K., & Heffernan, N. (2014). Testing the multimedia principle in the real world: A comparison of video vs. text feedback in authentic middle school math assignments. In Educational data mining 2014. Retrieved from
  31. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830. Scholar
  32. Polly, D., Rodgers, E., & Little, M. (2014). Leveraging interactive clickers as a tool for formative assessment. In D. Polly (Ed.), Cases on technology integration in mathematics education (pp. 330–350). Hershey: Information Science Reference doi:
  33. Pryor, J. (2015). Formative assessment: A success story? In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.), The Sage handbook of learning (pp. 207–218). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruday, S. (2011). Expanding the possibilities of discussion: A strategic approach to using online discussion boards in the middle and high school English classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 350–361.Google Scholar
  35. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Scholar
  36. Shirley, M. L., & Irving, K. E. (2015). Connected classroom technology facilitates multiple components of formative assessment practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 56–68. Scholar
  37. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. Scholar
  38. Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 503–524). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  39. Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Formative and stealth assessment. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 311–321). New York: Springer. Scholar
  40. Shute, V. J., Ke, F., & Wang, L. (2017). Assessment and adaptation in games. In P. Wouters & H. van Oostendorp (Eds.), Techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games (pp. 59–78). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stover, K., Yearta, L., & Harris, C. (2016). Formative assessment in the digital age: Blogging with third graders. Reading Teacher, 69(4), 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Timmers, C. F., Walraven, A., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2015). The effect of regulation feedback in a computer-based formative assessment on information problem solving. Computers & Education, 87, 1–9. Scholar
  43. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 615–631. Scholar
  44. van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 475–511. Scholar
  45. van der Kleij, F. M., Adie, L. E., & Cumming, J. J. (2017). Using video technology to enable student voice in assessment feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 1092–1105. Scholar
  46. Vital, F. (2011). Creating a positive learning environment with the use of clickers in a high school chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 470–473. Scholar
  47. Wang, T.-H. (2008). Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: Development and evaluation. Computers & Education, 51, 1247–1263. Scholar
  48. Wang, T.-H. (2011). Developing web-based assessment strategies for facilitating junior high school students to perform self-regulated learning in an e-Learning environment. Computers & Education, 57, 1801–1812. Scholar
  49. Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109. Scholar
  50. Yim, S., Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., & Lawrence, J. F. (2014). Cloud-based collaborative writing and the Common Core Standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58, 243–254. Scholar
  51. Yu, F.-Y., & Wu, C.-P. (2013). Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 332–341.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Sciences Institute AustraliaAustralian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Mary Webb
    • 1
  • Dirk Ifenthaler
    • 2
  1. 1.King's College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations