22 SES 07 C, Learning and Assessment
The main aim of this study was to analyse university students’ views of assessment’s role and meaning in their academic learning. Theoretical background was designed by means of concepts formative (assessment for learning) and summative (assessment of learning) assessment. Several views of alternative assessment methods were explained. Theoretical notions of feedback were presented in shedding light on the successful mechanisms to promote learning processes.
The key research questions were:
- How is the role of summative and formative assessment perceived by students?
- How satisfied students are with the feedback and feedforward activities during learning processes?
- How do the students see the nature of assessment as being mistake- or strength-based?
- How students make difference between low-quality and high-quality feedback in relation to their academic learning tasks?
- Are there relationships between background variables and assessment views?
Two sets of data were gathered: First, a statistically representative sample of the students of the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) was administered. All 13 fields of studies (dentistry, economics and business administration, education, forest sciences, health sciences, humanities, law, medicine, natural sciences, pharmacy, psychology, social sciences, theology) were properly represented in the sample. 385 students filled in the e-questionnaire (Dataset 1). Secondly, 613 UEF-students who were enrolled in the study modules (f = 26) that followed principles of flipped classroom also filled in the e-questionnaire as the pre-and post-test (Dataset 2). The questionnaire consisted of 10 Likert-scale items (totally disagree… totally agree) that covered nature of the experienced assessments (developmental-declarative, summative-formative, mistake- or strength-based, exam-orientation) for both sets of data. An open-ended question was included in the Dataset 2 to describe the quality of changes. Altogether 14 items focusing on the quality of feedback were presented (Likert scale 1-5) to the students of Dataset 1. A few background variables (faculty, gender, year of studies) were asked in both datasets. Data of the quantitative items of the survey were analysed by ordinary statistical methods (percentages, means, standard deviations, correlations, t-tests, one-way Anova).
According to the results, the main dominating assessment method was individual written exam (summative approach). Students had only limited experiences of more dialogical, participatory or process-oriented methods of assessment (formative approach). They did not find the scale ‘accepted-rejected’ as useful to their learning but preferred numerical scale 1-5 (poor-excellent). Regarding flipped classrooms, the changes from pre-test to the post test indicated that summative orientation changed towards more formative in the end of courses. Students reported that their university teachers used new versatile methods of assessment which were seen as more helpful for their academic learning processes. Relationships between background variables and assessment views will be discussed in detail in the presentation.
Bijol, V., Byrne-Dugan, C. & Hoenig, M. 2015. Medical student web-based formative assessment tool for renal pathology. Medical Education Online 20, 1-7. Black, P. 2015. Formative assessment – an optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22 (1), 161-177 Boud, D. & Molloy, E. 2013. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (6), 698-712. Brew, C., Riley, P. & Walta, C. 2009. Education students and their teachers: comparing views on participative assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (6), 641-657. Burke, D. 2009. Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (1), 41-50. Flores, Ò., del-Arco, I. & Silva, P. 2016. The flipped classroom model at the university: analysis based on professors’ and students’ assessment in the educational field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 13 (21), 1-12. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J. & Litjens, J. 2008. The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development 27 (1), 55-67. Irwin, B. & Hepplestone, S. 2012. Examining increased flexibility in assessment formats. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (7), 773-785. Khanova, J., Roth, Rodgers, J. & McLaughlin, J. 2015. Student experiences across multiple flipped courses in a single curriculum. Medical Education 49, 1038-1048. MacLellan, E. 2001. Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 26 (4), 307-318.
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.