A Formative Assessment Tool for Effective Feedback
In this study we present our developed formative
assessment tool for students' assignments. The tool enables lecturers
to define assignments for the course and assign each problem in each
assignment a list of criteria and weights by which the students' work
is evaluated. During assessment, the lecturers feed the scores for each
criterion with justifications. When the scores of the current
assignment are completely fed in, the tool automatically generates
reports for both students and lecturers. The students receive a report
by email including detailed description of their assessed work, their
relative score and their progress across the criteria along the course
timeline. This information is presented via charts generated
automatically by the tool based on the scores fed in. The lecturers
receive a report that includes summative (e.g., averages, standard
deviations) and detailed (e.g., histogram) data of the current
assignment. This information enables the lecturers to follow the class
achievements and adjust the learning process accordingly. The tool
was examined on two pilot groups of college students that study a
course in (1) Object-Oriented Programming (2) Plane Geometry.
Results reveal that most of the students were satisfied with the
assessment process and the reports produced by the tool. The
lecturers who used the tool were also satisfied with the reports and
their contribution to the learning process.
<p>[1] Ala-Mutka K. M. (2005). A Survey of Automated Assessment
Approaches for Programming Assignments, Computer Science
Education, 15:2, 83-102
[2] Aksu, H.H. (2008). A Study on the Determination of Secondary School
Mathematics Teachers' Views on Alternative Assessment.Humanity &
Social Sciences Journal, 3 (2), 89-96.
[3] Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulick, J.A., and Morgan, M.T. (1991). The
instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.Review of Educational
Research, 61 (2): 213-238.
[4] Black, P. &Wiliam, D. (2005). Developing a theory of formative
assessment. In: J. Gardner (Ed), Assessment and learning (pp. 81-100).
London,Sage.
[5] Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., &Lipow, M. (1976). Quantitative
evaluation of software quality.In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Software Engineering, pages 592-605. IEEE Computer
Society Press, October. Los. Alamitos, CA
[6] Carter, J., English, J., Ala-Mutka, K., Dick, M., Fone, W., Fuller,
&Sheard, J. (2003). How shall we assess this? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,
35(4), 107 – 123.
[7] Cheang, B., Kurnia, A., Lim, A., Oon, W.-C., 2003. On automated
grading of programming assignments in an academic
institution.Computer & Education. 41 (2), 121–131.
[8] Crooks, T. (2001). The Validity of Formative Assessments.British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of
Leeds.
[9] Douce, C., Livingstone, D. and Orwell, J. (2005). Automatic test-based
assessment of programming: a review. ACM Journal of Educational
Resources in Computing, 5(3):4
[10] Gulknecht-Gmeiner, M. (2005). Peer Review in Education, Report.
Leonardo da Vinci Project, Vienna (pp. 1-74)
http://www.aahe.org/teaching/Peer_Review.htm, accessed May 2008.
[11] Higgins, C. A., Gray, G., Symeonidis, P. and Tsintsifas, A. (2005).
Automated assessment and experiences of teaching programming.ACM
Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 5(3):5.
[12] Hogen, J. &Wiliam, D. (2006). Mathematics inside the black box:
assessment for learning in the Mathematics classroom. London: NFERNelson
[13] Howles, T. (2003). Fostering the growth of a software quality
culture.ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 45 – 47.
[14] James, R., McInnis, C. & Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing Learning in
Australian Universities. Victoria: Centre for the Study of Higher
Education, University of Melbourne.
[15] Joy, M., Griffiths, N. and Boyatt. R. (2005). The BOSS online
submission and assessment system.ACM Journal of Educational
Resources in Computing, 5(3):2.
[16] Jackson, D., & Usher, M. (1997). Grading Student programs using
ASSYST. Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE technical symposium on
Computer science education, USA, 335 – 339.
[17] Lavy, I. & Shriki, A. (2012). Engaging prospective teachers in the
assessment of geometrical proofs.In Tso, T.Y. (Ed.).Proceedings of the
36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, vol. 3, pp. 35-42. Taipei, Taiwan: PME.
[18] Ljungman, A.G. &Silén, C. (2008). Examination involving students as
peer examiners.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 33,
No.3, pp. 289 – 300.
[19] McTighe, J. & O'Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective
learning. Educational Leadership, 63,(3) 10-17
[20] Morris, D. (2003). Automatic Grading of Student’s Programming
Assignments: An Interactive Process and Suite of Programs. In
Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
S3F-1 – S3F-5.
[21] Saphier, J. (2005). Masters of Motivation, In Richard DuFour, Robert
Eaker, and Rebecca Du-Four, Eds.On Common Ground: the power of
professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.
[22] Slavin, R. E., Eric A. Hurley, & Chamberlain A.M. (2003).
“Cooperative Learning and Achievement.” In Handbook of Psychology,
Vol. 7: Educational Psychology, edited by W. M. Reynolds and G. J.
Miller, (pp. 177–98). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
[23] Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W. &, Pilot A. (2003). Peer assessment in
university teaching. An exploration of useful designs. The European
Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, pp. 17-20.
[24] Webb, D.C. (2009). Designing Professional Development for
Assessment.Educational Designer, 1 (2), 1-26.
[25] Wiggins, G. &McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design. New York:
Prentice Hall.
[26] William, D. & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating Assessment With
Instruction: What Will It Make It Work?, In C.A. Dwyer (Ed.) The
Future of Assessment: shaping teaching and learning. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</p>
<p>[1] Ala-Mutka K. M. (2005). A Survey of Automated Assessment
Approaches for Programming Assignments, Computer Science
Education, 15:2, 83-102
[2] Aksu, H.H. (2008). A Study on the Determination of Secondary School
Mathematics Teachers' Views on Alternative Assessment.Humanity &
Social Sciences Journal, 3 (2), 89-96.
[3] Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulick, J.A., and Morgan, M.T. (1991). The
instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.Review of Educational
Research, 61 (2): 213-238.
[4] Black, P. &Wiliam, D. (2005). Developing a theory of formative
assessment. In: J. Gardner (Ed), Assessment and learning (pp. 81-100).
London,Sage.
[5] Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., &Lipow, M. (1976). Quantitative
evaluation of software quality.In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Software Engineering, pages 592-605. IEEE Computer
Society Press, October. Los. Alamitos, CA
[6] Carter, J., English, J., Ala-Mutka, K., Dick, M., Fone, W., Fuller,
&Sheard, J. (2003). How shall we assess this? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,
35(4), 107 – 123.
[7] Cheang, B., Kurnia, A., Lim, A., Oon, W.-C., 2003. On automated
grading of programming assignments in an academic
institution.Computer & Education. 41 (2), 121–131.
[8] Crooks, T. (2001). The Validity of Formative Assessments.British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of
Leeds.
[9] Douce, C., Livingstone, D. and Orwell, J. (2005). Automatic test-based
assessment of programming: a review. ACM Journal of Educational
Resources in Computing, 5(3):4
[10] Gulknecht-Gmeiner, M. (2005). Peer Review in Education, Report.
Leonardo da Vinci Project, Vienna (pp. 1-74)
http://www.aahe.org/teaching/Peer_Review.htm, accessed May 2008.
[11] Higgins, C. A., Gray, G., Symeonidis, P. and Tsintsifas, A. (2005).
Automated assessment and experiences of teaching programming.ACM
Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 5(3):5.
[12] Hogen, J. &Wiliam, D. (2006). Mathematics inside the black box:
assessment for learning in the Mathematics classroom. London: NFERNelson
[13] Howles, T. (2003). Fostering the growth of a software quality
culture.ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 45 – 47.
[14] James, R., McInnis, C. & Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing Learning in
Australian Universities. Victoria: Centre for the Study of Higher
Education, University of Melbourne.
[15] Joy, M., Griffiths, N. and Boyatt. R. (2005). The BOSS online
submission and assessment system.ACM Journal of Educational
Resources in Computing, 5(3):2.
[16] Jackson, D., & Usher, M. (1997). Grading Student programs using
ASSYST. Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE technical symposium on
Computer science education, USA, 335 – 339.
[17] Lavy, I. & Shriki, A. (2012). Engaging prospective teachers in the
assessment of geometrical proofs.In Tso, T.Y. (Ed.).Proceedings of the
36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, vol. 3, pp. 35-42. Taipei, Taiwan: PME.
[18] Ljungman, A.G. &Silén, C. (2008). Examination involving students as
peer examiners.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 33,
No.3, pp. 289 – 300.
[19] McTighe, J. & O'Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective
learning. Educational Leadership, 63,(3) 10-17
[20] Morris, D. (2003). Automatic Grading of Student’s Programming
Assignments: An Interactive Process and Suite of Programs. In
Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
S3F-1 – S3F-5.
[21] Saphier, J. (2005). Masters of Motivation, In Richard DuFour, Robert
Eaker, and Rebecca Du-Four, Eds.On Common Ground: the power of
professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.
[22] Slavin, R. E., Eric A. Hurley, & Chamberlain A.M. (2003).
“Cooperative Learning and Achievement.” In Handbook of Psychology,
Vol. 7: Educational Psychology, edited by W. M. Reynolds and G. J.
Miller, (pp. 177–98). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
[23] Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W. &, Pilot A. (2003). Peer assessment in
university teaching. An exploration of useful designs. The European
Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, pp. 17-20.
[24] Webb, D.C. (2009). Designing Professional Development for
Assessment.Educational Designer, 1 (2), 1-26.
[25] Wiggins, G. &McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design. New York:
Prentice Hall.
[26] William, D. & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating Assessment With
Instruction: What Will It Make It Work?, In C.A. Dwyer (Ed.) The
Future of Assessment: shaping teaching and learning. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</p>
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:52711", author = "Rami Rashkovits and Ilana Lavy", title = "A Formative Assessment Tool for Effective Feedback", abstract = "In this study we present our developed formative
assessment tool for students' assignments. The tool enables lecturers
to define assignments for the course and assign each problem in each
assignment a list of criteria and weights by which the students' work
is evaluated. During assessment, the lecturers feed the scores for each
criterion with justifications. When the scores of the current
assignment are completely fed in, the tool automatically generates
reports for both students and lecturers. The students receive a report
by email including detailed description of their assessed work, their
relative score and their progress across the criteria along the course
timeline. This information is presented via charts generated
automatically by the tool based on the scores fed in. The lecturers
receive a report that includes summative (e.g., averages, standard
deviations) and detailed (e.g., histogram) data of the current
assignment. This information enables the lecturers to follow the class
achievements and adjust the learning process accordingly. The tool
was examined on two pilot groups of college students that study a
course in (1) Object-Oriented Programming (2) Plane Geometry.
Results reveal that most of the students were satisfied with the
assessment process and the reports produced by the tool. The
lecturers who used the tool were also satisfied with the reports and
their contribution to the learning process.
", keywords = "Computer-based formative assessment tool, science
education.", volume = "7", number = "7", pages = "1954-9", }
