LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
This article presents a review of the literature over the past 10 years into the use of technological interventions that tutors might use to encourage students to engage with and action the feedback that they receive on their assessment tasks. The authors hypothesise that technology has the potential to enhance student engagement with feedback. During the literature review, a particular emphasis was placed on investigating how students might better use feedback when it is published online. This includes where an adaptive release technique is applied requiring students to submit an action plan based on their feedback to activate the release of their grade, and electronic generation of feedback using statement banks. Key journals were identified and a snowball technique was used to select relevant literature. The use of technology to support and enhance student learning and assessment is well documented in the literature, and effective feedback\ud practices are similarly well published. However, in terms of the use of technology to support and enhance feedback processes and practices (i.e. production, publication, delivery and students making use of feedback through technology), we found the literature to be limited.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education 5, no. 1: 7-74.
    • Bloxham, S., and P. Boyd. 2007. Developing effective assessment in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    • Boud, D., and N. Falchikov. 2006. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 4: 399-413.
    • Brown, S., J. Bull, and P. Race. 1999. Computer-assisted assessment in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
    • Bull, J., and C. McKenna. 2004. Blueprint for computer-assisted assessment. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
    • Burke, D. 2009. Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 1: 41-50.
    • Butler, R. 1988. Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation of interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology 58, no. 4: 1-14.
    • Carless, D. 2006. Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education 21, no. 2: 219-33.
    • Challis, D. 2005. Committing to quality learning through adaptive online assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30, no. 5: 519-27.
    • Chanock, K. 2000. Comments on essays: Do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education 5, no. 1: 95-105.
    • Charman, D. 1999. Issues and impacts of using computer-based assessments (CBAs) for formative assessment. In Computer assisted assessment in higher education, ed. S. Brown, J. Bull, and P. Race, 85-93. London: Kogan Page.
    • Conole, G., and B. Warburton. 2005. A review of computer-assisted assessment. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 13, no. 1: 17-31.
    • Crook, C., H. Gross, and R. Dymott. 2006. Assessment relationships in higher education: The tension of process and practice. British Educational Research Journal 32, no. 1: 95-114.
    • Crossouard, B., and J. Pryor. 2009. Using email for formative assessment with professional doctorate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 4: 377-88.
    • Denton, P. 2001a. Generating and e-mailing feedback to students using MS Office. In Proceedings of the 5th International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference, July 2-3, ed. M. Danson, 157-73. Loughborough: Learning and Teaching Development, Loughborough University.
    • Denton, P. 2001b. Generating coursework feedback for large groups of students using MS Excel and MS Word. University Chemistry Education 5, no. 1: 1-8.
    • Denton, P. 2003. Returning feedback to students via email using Electronic Feedback 9. Learning and Teaching in Action 2, no. 1. http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/issue4/denton. shtml.
    • Denton, P., J. Madden, M. Roberts, and P. Rowe. 2008. Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology 39, no. 3: 486-500.
    • Department for Education and Skills. 2003. The future of higher education. Cm 5735. London: The Stationery Office.
    • Draper, S. 2009. What are learners actually regulating when giving feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology 40, no. 2: 306-15.
    • Duncan, N. 2007. 'Feed-forward': Improving students' use of tutors' comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32, no. 3: 271-83.
    • Ecclestone, K., and J. Swann. 1999. Litigation and learning: Tensions in improving university lecturers' assessment practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 6, no. 3: 377-89.
    • Freeman, M., and J. McKenzie. 2002. SPARK, a confidential web-based template for selfand peer-assessment of student teamwork: Benefits of evaluating across different subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology 33, no. 5: 551-69.
    • Fulda, J.S. 2005. The ethical limitations of online grading systems. British Journal of Educational Technology 36, no. 3: 559-61.
    • Gibbs, G., and C. Simpson. 2004. Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3-31.
    • Gipps, C.V. 2005. What is the role for ICT-based assessment in universities? Studies in Higher Education 30, no. 2: 171-80.
    • Guardado, N., and L. Shi. 2007. ESL students' experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition 24, no. 4: 443-61.
    • Handley, K., and B. Cox. 2007. Beyond model answers: Learners' perceptions of self-assessment materials in e-learning applications. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 15, no. 1: 21-36.
    • Heinrich, E., J. Milne, A. Ramsay, and D. Morrison. 2009. Recommendations for the use of e-tools for improvements around assignment marking quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 4: 469-79.
    • Hepplestone, S., and R. Mather. 2007. Meeting rising student expectations of online assignment submission and online feedback. In Proceedings of the 11th International Computer-Assisted Assessment Conference, July 10-11, ed. Farzana Khandia, 269-75. Loughborough: Learning and Teaching Development, Loughborough University.
    • Higgins, R., P. Hartley, and A. Skelton. 2002. The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education 27, no. 1: 53-64.
    • Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2007. 2007 teaching quality information data. Bristol: HEFCE. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/nss/data/2007/.
    • Hornby, W. 2005. Dogs, stars, Rolls Royces and old double-decker buses: Efficiency and effectiveness in assessment. In: Enhancing practice: Reflections on assessment: Volume 1, 15-28. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
    • Hounsell, D. 2008. The trouble with feedback: New challenges, emerging strategies. TLA Interchange 2. http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/interchange/spring2008/hounsell2.htm.
    • Hounsell, D., and N. Entwistle. 2007. Learning and teaching at university: The influence of subjects and settings. Teaching and Learning Research Briefings no. 31. London: ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
    • Irons, A. 2008. Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. Abingdon: Routledge.
    • Li, L., X. Liu, and A.L. Steckelberg. 2010. Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology 41, no. 3: 525-36.
    • Loddington, S., K. Pond, N. Wilkinson, and P. Willmot. 2009. A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer moderated marking tool. British Journal of Educational Technology 40, no. 2: 329-41.
    • Maclellan, E. 2001. Assessment for learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26, no. 4: 307-18.
    • McDowell, L., K. Sambell, V. Bazin, R. Penlington, D. Wakelin, H. Wickes, and J. Smailes. 2005. Assessment for learning: Current practice exemplars from the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. Newcastle: Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, University of Northumbria.
    • Merry, S., and P. Orsmond. 2008. Students' attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education 11. http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ journal/vol11/beej-11-3.aspx.
    • Middleton, A. 2009. Beyond podcasting: Creative approaches to designing educational audio. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 17, no. 2: 143-55.
    • Miller, T. 2009. Formative computer-based assessment in higher education: The effectiveness of feedback in supporting student, learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 2: 181-92.
    • Mutch, A. 2003. Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education 4, no. 24: 24-38.
    • Nesbit, P.L., and S. Burton. 2006. Student justice perceptions following assignment feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 6: 655-70.
    • Nicol, D. 2007. Improving assessment after the task. Re-Engineering Assessment Practices in Scottish Education (REAP) online resources. http://www.reap.ac.uk/nss/nssAfter02. html.
    • Nicol, D. 2009. Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 3: 335-52.
    • Nicol, D.J., and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 199-218.
    • Peat, M., and S. Franklin. 2002. Supporting student learning: The use of computer-based formative assessment modules. British Journal of Educational Technology 33, no. 5: 515- 23.
    • Plimmer, B., and P. Mason. 2006. A pen-based paperless environment for annotating and marking student assignments. In Proceedings of Seventh Australian User Interface Conference (AUIC2006), January 16-19, ed. Wayne Piekarski, 37-44. Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society Inc.
    • Potts, D. 1992. Case study: You can't teach those things to rats. A case for neither grading nor failing students. Educational and Training Technology International 29, no. 4: 296- 309.
    • Poulous, A., and M.J. Mahony. 2007. Effectiveness of feedback: The students' perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33, no. 2: 143-54.
    • Price, M., and B. O'Donovan. 2008. Feedback - All that effort, but what is the effect? Paper presented at the EARLI/Northumbria Assessment Conference, August 27-29, in Potsdam, Germany.
    • Price, M., K. Handley, J. Millar, and B. O'Donovan. 2010. Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 3: 277-89.
    • Ribchester, C., D. France, and A. Wheeler. 2007. Podcasting: A tool for enhancing feedback? Paper presented at the 4th Education in a Changing Environment International Conference 2007, September 12-14, in Salford, UK.
    • Rodway-Dyer, S., E. Dunne, and M. Newcombe, M. 2009. Audio and screen visual feedback to support student learning. In Proceedings of the 16th ALT-C International Conference, September 8-10, ed. Hugh Davies and Linda Creanor, 61-9. Oxford: Association for Learning Technology.
    • Rotheram, B. 2009. Sounds good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback. JISCfunded project. http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/downloads.
    • Rowe, A.D., and L.N. Wood. 2007. What feedback do students want? Paper presented at the AARE 2007 International Educational Research Conference, November 25-29, in Fremantle, Australia.
    • Rust, C., B. O'Donovan, and M. Price. 2005. A social constructivist assessment process model: How the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30, no. 3: 231-40.
    • Sadler, D.R. 2010. Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 5: 535-50.
    • Tuzi, F. 2004. The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition 21, no. 2: 217-35.
    • Van den Boom, G., F. Paas, J.J.G. Van MerriĆ«nboer, and T. Van Gog. 2004. Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students' self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior 20, no. 4: 551-67.
    • Weaver, M.R. 2006. Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors' written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 3: 379-94.
    • Whitelock, D. 2009. Editorial: e-assessment: Developing new dialogues for the digital age. British Journal of Educational Technology 40, no. 2: 199-202.
    • Wojtas, O. 1998. Feedback? No, just give us the answers. Times Higher Education Supplement, September 25, 7.
    • Yorke, M. 2001. Formative assessment and its relevance to retention. Higher Education Research and Development 20, no. 2: 115-26.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article