Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formative assessment in an online learning environment to support flexible on-the-job learning in complex professional domains

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes a blueprint for an online learning environment that is based on prominent instructional design and assessment theories for supporting learning in complex domains. The core of this environment consists of formative assessment tasks (i.e., assessment for learning) that center on professional situations. For each professional situation, three levels of situational complexity are defined, and within each of these three levels, tasks are offered that differ in the degree of support offered to the learner. This environment can support (beginning) professionals in complex domains in gaining insight into the available repertoire of behavior in professional situations, as well as into the quality and effectiveness of that behavior (assessment criteria), while simultaneously helping them to develop insight into the standards that their own behavior should (eventually) match.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arter, J. (1996). Using assessment as a tool for learning. In R. Blum & J. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (pp. 1–6). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). An NCME instructional module on: Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 36–45. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00230.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff and educational demands. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 5–15. doi:10.1080/0260293960210101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum & F. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 3–29). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 101–111. doi:10.1080/03075079012331377621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byström, K., & Järvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing & Management, 31, 191–213. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(94)00041-Z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13, 40–52. doi:10.2307/258353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., Feldon, D. F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K. A., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd rev. ed., pp. 577–593). New York: Erlbaum/Routledge.

  • Cooke, N. J. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41, 801–849. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1994.1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Croock, M. B. M., Paas, F., Schlanbusch, H., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). ADAPTIT: Tools for training design and evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 47–58. doi:10.1007/BF02504984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierick, S., & Dochy, F. (2001). New lines in edumetrics: New forms of assessment lead to new assessment criteria. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 307–329. doi:10.1016/S0191-491X(01)00032-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 279–298. doi:10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86211-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goes, M., Dresen, M., & Van der Klink, M. (2005). Zonder leraren geen meesterlijke ontwikkeling: Het uitwerken van kenmerkende beroepssituaties [Professional development of teachers: Elaborating characteristic professional situations]. Working paper Ruud de Moor Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands.

  • Hummel, H. G. K., Paas, F., & Koper, E. J. R. (2004). Cueing for transfer in multimedia programmes: Process worksheets versus worked-out examples. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 387–397. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00098.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivero, F., John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2004). Seeing is believing: Using videopapers to transform teachers’ professional knowledge and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 2, 179–191. doi:10.1080/03057640410001700552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by using self- peer- and co-assessment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 293–319. doi:10.1023/A:1009932704458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Prins, F. J., & Martens, R. (2006). A framework for integrated performance assessment in e-learning. Learning Environments Research, 9, 45–66. doi:10.1007/s10984-005-9003-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–295. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551–567. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16, 154–164. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18, 211–222. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ingen, S., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Schildwacht, R., & Knarren, J. (2007). Formatieve assessments voor docenten: Een evaluatierapport [Formative assessments for teachers: An evaluation report]. Working paper, Ruud de Moor Center, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands.

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–64. doi:10.1007/BF02504993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Jelsma, O., & Paas, F. (1992). Training for reflective expertise: A four-component instructional design model for training complex cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 23–43. doi:10.1007/BF02297047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 85–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the Project Team Assessment RdMC in the realization of this environment. In particular, they would like to thank Marieke Dresen and Jo Knarren, for their contributions to the discussions that led to the development of the online learning environment as it is described here, and Sonja van Ingen, for her contributions to the small-scale user evaluation described here.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Frans J. Prins

    Present address: Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ruud de Moor Center for the Professionalization of Teachers, and Educational Technology Expertise Center, Open University of the Netherlands, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Tamara van Gog, Dominique M. A. Sluijsmans, Desirée Joosten-ten Brinke & Frans J. Prins

Authors
  1. Tamara van Gog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominique M. A. Sluijsmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Desirée Joosten-ten Brinke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frans J. Prins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamara van Gog.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Gog, T., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., Joosten-ten Brinke, D. et al. Formative assessment in an online learning environment to support flexible on-the-job learning in complex professional domains. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 311–324 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9099-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9099-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation