Effects of a formative assessment script on how vocational students generate formative feedback to a peer’s or their own performance

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 117-143

  Peters, Olaf ^a   Körndle, Hermann ^a   Narciss, Susanne ^a  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Feedback perception; Internal feedback; Peer assessment; Peer feedback; Planning; Self assessment; Vocational education

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028571193     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0344-y     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative feedback. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative feedback (pp. 90–105). Abingdon: Routledge.
2. Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 375–386.
3. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.
4. Brown, G. T., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment, 367–393.
5. Brown, G. T. L., Andrade, H. L., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(4), 444–457.
6. Butler, R. (2011). Are positive illusions about academic competence always adaptive, under all circumstances: new results and future directions. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 251–256.
7. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.
8. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.
9. Davies, P. (2006). Peer assessment: judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather than marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 69–82.
10. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.
11. Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.
12. Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching students to self-edit. TESOL journal, 4(4), 18–22.
13. Gan, M. J. S. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland.
14. Gan, M. J. S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878.
15. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a wiki: product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 585–594.
16. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring the peer assessment process: a multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 435–449.
17. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.
18. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
19. Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3(4), 275–310.
20. Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: an investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.
21. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
22. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.
23. Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: a re-analysis of assessor and assessee’s roles in technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376–384.
24. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.
25. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: the benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.
26. 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(1), 7–26.
27. Narciss, S. (2017). Conditions and effects of feedback viewed through the lens of the interactive tutoring feedback model. In D. Carless, S. M. Bridges, C. K. Y. Chan, & R. Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 173–189). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
28. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.
29. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative feedback and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
30. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.
31. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 20–31.
32. Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge.
33. Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591–614.
34. Peters, O., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2014). Development and evaluation of a Formative Assessment and Feedback (FAF) script to support generating feedback to a peer versus to one’s own performance. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. Lee, & L. D'Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, Volume 3 (pp. 1421–1422). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
35. Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289–303.
36. Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315.
37. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350.
38. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39. Scheirer, C. J., Ray, W. S., & Hare, N. (1976). The analysis of ranked data derived from completely randomized factorial designs. Biometrics, 32(2), 429–434.
40. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
41. Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
42. Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010a). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303.
43. Strijbos, J. W., Pat-El, R. J., & Narciss, S. (2010b). Validation of a (peer) feedback perceptions questionnaire. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg University, Aalborg (pp. 378–86).
44. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.
45. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
46. van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.
47. Weinberger, A., Kollar, I., Dimitriadis, Y., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., & Fischer, F. (2009). Computer-supported collaboration scripts. In Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 155–173). Springer Netherlands.
48. Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2016). A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16.