Top

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Published in:

04-04-2021 | Original research

Investigation of The Web-based Self-Assessment System Based on Assessment Analytics in Terms of Perceived Self-intervention

Author: Fatma Bayrak

Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Issue 3/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The self-assessment system was developed based on the assessment as learning (AaL) approach, in which learners take responsibility for their own learning and use feedback for self-intervention. The feedback as the system’s principal component was produced using assessment data in the system. It is essential for the assessment as learning that students construct their interventions to their learning processes by using assessment feedback. From this point, this study aimed to evaluate the web-based self-assessment system through the lens of student perceived self-intervention. The one-shot case study design (one-group post-test) model, one of weak experimental design, was used as a research design. The web-based self-assessment system was employed over a 10-week period to support face-to-face lessons. At the beginning of the implementation process, students taking the “Measurement and Evaluation in Education” lesson in the education faculty were informed about the system. After the implementation process, the perceived self-intervention scale was used to determine the students' perception. A total of 214 students (71%) took at least one test in the system and gained access to the feedback module. The high level of participation in a non-mandatory system may be considered a success. Learners appeared to have utilized feedback gained from the system in planning self-intervention and monitoring and evaluating the planned intervention's effectiveness.

next article MOOCs in STEM Education: Teacher Preparation and Views

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Reviewer comment: “The word “perceived" normally follows subjective comments (e.g. perceived effectiveness, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived importance), status (e.g. perceived happiness and perceived stress) or others (e.g. perceived risks and perceived threats). “Self-intervention” is an activity, which does not suit the word “perceived”.” Although the reviewer has a meaningful suggestion, since the name of the scale was used as it is in the manuscript in former articles, it is decided to keep the name.

Ali, N., Ahmed, L., & Rose, S. (2018). Identifying predictors of students’ perception of and engagement with assessment feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735609.CrossRef

Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into practice, 48(1), 12–19.CrossRef

Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. E., Abdullah, A., et al. (2020). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: a theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z.CrossRef

Bajzek, D., Brown, W., Lovett, M. & Rule, G. (2007). Inventing the Digital Dashboard for Learning. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1084–1092). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/25512/. Accessed 1 June 2019.

Bayrak, F. (2014). The effectiveness of perceived self intervention in web based self-assessment system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hacettepe, Ankara, Turkey.

Bayrak, F., & Yurdugül, H. (2016a). Web-tabanlı öz-değerlendirme sisteminde öğrenci uyarı indeksini temel alan öğrenme analitiği modülünün tasarlanması [Designing learning analytics module based on student caution index for web-based self-assessment system]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 6(2), 85–99.CrossRef

Bayrak, F., & Yurdugül, H. (2016b). Web-tabanlı öz-değerlendirme sisteminde öğrenenlerin öz-müdahale algisi ve test alma davranişlarinin başarı üzerine etkisi [The effect of self-intervention perception and test taking behaviour on success in web-based self-assessment system]. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 7(1), 221–236.CrossRef

Bennett, L. (2018). Students’ learning responses to receiving dashboard data. https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/14686625/Bennett_final_Chinese.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2019.

Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Journal Studies in Science Education, 21(1), 49–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560014.CrossRef

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.CrossRef

Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2740172.CrossRef

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728.CrossRef

Boud, D. (2013). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. . Routledge.CrossRef

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.CrossRef

Brath, R., & Peters, M. (2004). Dashboard design: Why design is important. http://cs.furman.edu/~pbatchelor/csc105/articles/TUN_DM_ONLINE.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2019.

Brew, A. (1999). Towards autonomous assessment: using self-assessment and peer assessment. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse assessment. (pp. 159–171). Buckingham.

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. . ASCD.

Brown, G., & Harris, L. (2013). Student Self-Assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment. (pp. 367–393). SAGE.CrossRef

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of educational research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245.CrossRef

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.CrossRef

Chatti, M. A., Dyckhoff, A. L., Schroeder, U., & Thüs, H. (2013). A reference model for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051815.CrossRef

Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6.CrossRef

Clow , D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK12) (pp. 134–138), Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 29–May 02, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330636

Clow, D. (2013). An overview of learning analytics. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(6), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827653.CrossRef

Cooper, A. (2015). Assessment Analytics. In Eunis Elearning task force workshop. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/bitstream/11366/559/1/12%20Adam%20Cooper%20EUNIS%202015%20ELTF%20Workshop.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2019.

Corrin, L., & de Barba, P. (2015). How do students interpret feedback delivered via dashboards?. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. ACM. pp. 430–431

Crisp, G. T. (2012). Integrative assessment: reframing assessment practice for current and future learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.494234.CrossRef

Dann, R. (2002). Promoting assessment as learning. . Routledge Falmer.

Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128.CrossRef

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional children, 52(3), 219–232.CrossRef

Deno, S. L. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.) Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.1-17). Guilford Press.

Djamasbi, S., & Loiacono, E. (2006). Gender feedback and decision making: How men and women differ on the use of computerized feedback?. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Acapulco, Mexico, August 2006, pp. 2993–3000.

DLAP (n.d.) Assessment of, for and as Learning. https://curriculum.gov.mt/en/Assessment/Assessment-of-Learning/Documents/assessment_of_for_as_learning.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2019.

Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935.CrossRef

Dutton, P. J., Bickerstaff, H. E., Rymer, J. M., Webb, M. E., Ballinger-Mills, D., Greenough, A., & Reynolds, P. A. (2017). Investigation of formative assessment of learning (INFORMAL): The performance indicator tool (PIT). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9307-2.CrossRef

Earl. (2006). Assessment as learning. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), The keys to effective schools educational reform as continuous improvement. (pp. 85–98). Corwin Press.

Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2008). Getting to the core of learning: Using assessment for self-monitoring and self-regulation. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking Assessment. (pp. 104–118). David Fulton Publishers.

Ellis, C. (2013). Broadening the scope and increasing the usefulness of learning analytics: The case for assessment analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 662–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12028.CrossRef

Ellis, C. (2017). The Importance of E-Portfolios for Effective Student-Facing Learning Analytics. In T. Chaudhuri & B. Cabau (Eds.), E-Portfolios in Higher Education, A Multidisciplinary Approach. (pp. 35–49). Springer.CrossRef

Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350.CrossRef

Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059004395.CrossRef

Few, S. (2006). Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data. . O’Reilly Media.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.CrossRef

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.CrossRef

Gravett, K., & Winstone, N. E. (2019). ‘Feedback interpreters’: The role of learning development professionals in facilitating university students’ engagement with feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1498076.CrossRef

Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction. (pp. 263–285). London: Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRef

Henderson, M., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P. (2019). Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(7), 1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807.CrossRef

Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Learning analytics. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of educational technology. (Vol. 2, pp. 447–451). Sage Publications.

Ifenthaler, D., & Widanapathirana, C. (2014). Development and validation of a learning analytics framework: Two case studies using support vector machines. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9226-4.CrossRef

Ilgaz, H., & Adanır, G. A. (2020). Providing online exams for online learners: Does it really matter for them? Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1255–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10020-6.CrossRef

Jacobs, J., & Rudis, B. (2014). Data-driven security: analysis, visualization and dashboards. . Wiley.

Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS Applied multivariate statistical techniques [SPSS Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri]. . Asil Yayın Dağıtım.

Kibble, J. D. (2007). Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: effects of incentives on student participation and performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(3), 253–260.CrossRef

Kibble, J. D. (2011). Voluntary participation in online formative quizzes is a sensitive predictor of student success. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(1), 95–96.CrossRef

Korkut Altuna, O. K., & Arslan, F. M. (2016). Impact of the number of scale points on data characteristics and respondents’ evaluations: An experimental design approach using 5-point and 7-point likert-type scales. Siyasal Journal Of Political Sciences., 55, 1–20.

Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Hatala, M., & Siemens, G. (2015). Content analytics: The definition, scope, and an overview of published research. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.) Handbook of Learning Analytics (pp 77–92). Society for Learning Analytics Research.

Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320096.CrossRef

Lal, P. (2014). Designing online learning strategies through analytics. In: F. J. García-Peñalvo & A. M. Seoane Pardo (Eds.), Online Tutor 2.0: Methodologies and Case Studies for Successful Learning: Methodologies and case studies for successful learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. pp. 1–15.

Li, X. (2018). Self-assessment as ‘assessment as learning’ in translator and interpreter education: Validity and washback. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1418581.CrossRef

Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002.CrossRef

McMillan, J. H. (Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Research, theory and practice. . Teacher’s College Press.

Monitoba (n.d.). Assessment and Evaluation. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/role.html

Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. (pp. 745–783). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Mottus, A., Kinshuk, G. S., & Chen, N.-S. (2015). Use of dashboards and visualization techniques to support teacher decision making. Lecture notes in educational technologyIn Huang R. Kinshuk (Ed.), Ubiquitous learning environments and technologies. (pp. 181–199). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef

Narciss, S. (2017). Conditions and effects of feedback viewed through the lens of the interactive tutoring feedback model. Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education. (pp. 173–189). Singapore: Springer.CrossRef

Nash, R. A., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Responsibility-sharing in the giving and receiving of assessment feedback. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01519.CrossRef

Nicol, D. (2020). The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314.CrossRef

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.CrossRef

Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan, C. Bryan, & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. (pp. 64–77). London: Routledge.

Nouira, A., Cheniti-Belcadhi, L., & Braham, R. (2017). An Ontological Model for Assessment Analytics. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2017) pp 243–251.

Nouira, A., Cheniti-Belcadhi, L., & Braham, R. (2018). An enhanced xAPI data model supporting assessment analytics. Procedia Computer Science, 126, 566–575.CrossRef

NSW Goverment (n.d.). Assessment for, as and of learning. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-curriculum/assessment/approaches. Accessed 1 April 2019.

O’Rourke, N., & Hatcher, L. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. . Sas Institute.

Palacios Hidalgo, F. J., Huertas Abril, C. A., & Gómez Parra, M. E. (2020). MOOCs: Origins, Concept and Didactic Applications: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2012–2019). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 853–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09433-6.CrossRef

Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2016). An assessment analytics framework (AAF) for enhancing students’ progress. In S. Caballé & R. Clarisó (Eds.), Formative assessment, learning data analytics and Gamification. (pp. 117–133). Academic Press.CrossRef

Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Exhibiting achievement behavior during computer-based testing: What temporal trace data and personality traits tell us? Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.036.CrossRef

Pardo, A. (2018). A feedback model for data-rich learning experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356905.CrossRef

Park, Y., & Jo, I. H. (2015). Development of the learning analytics dashboard to support students’ learning performance. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-021-01-0110.CrossRef

Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. . National Academy Press.

Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5.CrossRef

Roberts, L. D., Howell, J. A., & Seaman, K. (2017). Give me a customizable dashboard: Personalized learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9316-1.CrossRef

Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S (2015). Assessment as learning and empowerment: Towards sustainable learning in higher education. In: M. Peris-Ortiz & J. M. Merigó Lindahl (Eds.), Sustainable Learning in Higher Education Developing Competencies for the Global Marketplace. Springer. pp. 1–20.

Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104.CrossRef

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional science, 26(1–2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033.CrossRef

Segars, A. H. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, 25(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00051-5.CrossRef

Seifert, T., & Feliks, O. (2019). Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1487023.CrossRef

Seufert, S., Meier, C., Soellner, M., & Rietsche, R. (2019). A pedagogical perspective on big data and learning analytics: A conceptual model for digital learning support. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(4), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09399-5.CrossRef

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.CrossRef

Şahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2020). Learners’ needs in online learning environments and third generation learning management systems (LMS 3.0). Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09479-x.CrossRef

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x.CrossRef

Teasley, S. D. (2017). Student facing dashboards: One size fits all? Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9314-3.CrossRef

Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., & Giesbers, B. (2015). In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning analytics in a data-rich context. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.038.CrossRef

Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.017.CrossRef

Tormey, R., Hardebolle, C., Pinto, F., & Jermann, P. (2019). Designing for impact: a conceptual framework for learning analytics as self-assessment tools. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1680952.CrossRef

Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos, J. L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1500–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479363.CrossRef

Webb, M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Assessment as, for, and of twenty-first-century learning using information technology: An overview. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer.

Webb, M. E., Prasse, D., Phillips, M., Kadijevich, D. M., Angeli, C., Strijker, A., & Laugesen, H. (2018). Challenges for IT-enabled formative assessment of complex 21st century skills. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9379-7.CrossRef

Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). ‘It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it’: Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026–2041. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032.CrossRef

Winstone, N. E., Hepper, E. G., & Nash, R. A. (2019). Individual differences in self-reported use of assessment feedback: The mediating role of feedback beliefs. Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1693510.CrossRef

Van Horne, S., Curran, M., Smith, A., VanBuren, J., Zahrieh, D., Larsen, R., & Miller, R. (2018). Facilitating student success in introductory Chemistry with feedback in an online platform. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9341-0.CrossRef

Ventista, O. M. (2018). Self-assessment in massive open online courses. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018784950.CrossRef

Yiğitbaşıoğlu, O. M., & Velcu, O. (2012). A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 13(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002.CrossRef

Zeng, W., Huang, F., Yu, L., & Chen, S. (2018). Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning—a critical review of literature. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(3), 211–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9281-9.CrossRef

Title: Investigation of The Web-based Self-Assessment System Based on Assessment Analytics in Terms of Perceived Self-intervention
Author: Fatma Bayrak
Publication date: 04-04-2021
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Electronic ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09511-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

A Pragmatic Approach for Evaluating and Accrediting Digital Competence of Digital Profiles: A Case Study of Entrepreneurs and Remote Workers

Not Only the Intention to Complete: The Role of Action-Oriented Intentions in MOOC Completion

The Promises and Pitfalls of Self-regulated Learning Interventions in MOOCs

The Patterns of School Improvement in Digitally Innovative Schools

Towards an Institutional Blended Learning Adoption Model for Higher Education Institutions

Methodological Elements for the Implementation of Data Acquisition Systems as Support for Experimental Activity in the Physics Teaching

Premium Partners