Advertisement

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)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Feedback Formative assessment Classroom practice Technology Student learning 

References

  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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1273-8CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198112460052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2008). Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 82–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9084-0CrossRefGoogle 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 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6091-827-8_9
  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.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487CrossRefGoogle 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002
  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 http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1095322.pdf
  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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9153-7CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00157.xCrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.002CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9344-xCrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9195-zCrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00868.xCrossRefGoogle 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 http://greav.ub.edu/der
  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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.003CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x13486050CrossRefGoogle 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 http://www.educationaldatamining.org/conferences/index.php/EDM/2014/paper/download/1450/1416
  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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2CrossRefGoogle 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: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6497-5.ch016
  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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9520-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_25CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.012CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095780CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12536CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed101160xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang, T.-H. (2008). Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: Development and evaluation. Computers & Education, 51, 1247–1263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.011CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.003CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004CrossRefGoogle 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.345CrossRefGoogle 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