research-article

Creating formative feedback spaces in large lectures

Authors:

Kristine Ludvigsen,

Bjarte FurnesAuthors Info & Claims

Computers & Education, Volume 88, Issue C

Pages 48 - 63

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.002

Published: 01 October 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Large lectures are the predominant way of teaching first-year students at universities in Norway. However, this forum for education is seldom discussed as a context for a formative feedback practice. The purpose of this sequential mixed methods study was to address whether and how a student-response system can open for a formative feedback practice in lectures and thereby support students' ability to monitor their own learning, as well as supply insight into how students engage with the feedback in their course work. The context for the study was large lectures (150-200 students) in a qualitative method course for first-year psychology students. Findings from the survey (n = 149) showed a positive correlation between the extent to which students report that they use clickers to monitor their own learning, and the extent to which they report that they used the feedback in their own course work. However, findings indicate that students valued the process of monitoring their own learning during the lectures to a greater extent than they actually used the feedback in their course work. Findings from interviews (n = 6) illustrated various ways students applied feedback in their course work. A majority of the students like to get feedback on their own understanding during lectures.The clickers and the questions played an important role in creating a space for reflection and self-assessment.Students emphasized the reflection questions as a space and an opportunity to get feedback, to explain their thoughts and monitor their own learning.Findings illustrated various ways students applied feedback in their course work.

References

[1]

H.L. Andrade, Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning, in: Handbook of formative assessment, Routledge, London, 2010.

[2]

K. Anthis, Is it the clicker, or is it the question? Untangling the effects of student response system use, Teaching of Psychology, 38 (2011) 189-193.

[3]

P. Bazeley, L. Kemp, Mosaics, triangles and DNA metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6 (2012) 55-72.

[4]

P. Black, R. McCormick, Reflections and new directions, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (2010) 493-499.

[5]

P. Black, D. Wiliam, Developing the theory of formative assessment, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 1 (2009) 5-31.

[6]

A. Blair, S. McGinty, Feedback-dialogues: exploring the student perspective, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (2013) 466-476.

[7]

D. Boud, E. Molloy, Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (2013) 698-712.

[8]

J.T. Boyle, D.J. Nicol, Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings, Research in Learning Technology, 11 (2003).

[9]

S. Kvale, S. Brinkmann, Inter views: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks California, 2009.

[10]

J. Cain, E.P. Black, J. Rohr, An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention and feedback, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73 (2009) 1-7.

[11]

J. Caldwell, Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips, Life Sciences Education, 6 (2007) 9-20.

[12]

D. Carless, D. Salter, M. Yang, J. Lam, Developing sustainable feedback practices, Studies in Higher Education, 36 (2011) 395-407.

[13]

I. Clark, Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated learning, Educational Psychology Review, 24 (2012) 205-249.

[14]

Design-Based Research Collective, T, Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32 (2003) 5-8.

[15]

D.L. Dinsmore, P.A. Alexander, S.M. Loughlin, Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning, Educational Psychology Review, 20 (2008) 391-409.

[16]

C. Evans, Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education, Review of Educational Research, 83 (2013) 70-120.

[17]

J. Fluckiger, Y. Vigil, Y. Tixier, R. Pasco, K. Danielson, Formative feedback: Involving students as partners in assessment to enhance learning, College Teaching, 58 (2010) 136-140.

[18]

G. Gibbs, How to do a research interview, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-_hYjAKww

[19]

J.C. Greene, V.J. Caracelli, W.F. Graham, Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (1989) 255-274.

[20]

J.H. Han, A. Finkelstein, Understanding the effects of professors' pedagogical development with clicker assessment and feedback technologies and the impact on students' engagement and learning in higher education, Computers & Education, 65 (2013) 64-76.

Digital Library

[21]

J. Hattie, M. Gan, Instruction based on feedback, in: Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 2011, pp. 249-271.

[22]

J. Hattie, H. Timperley, The power of feedback, Review of Educational Research, 1 (2007) 81-112.

[23]

M.C. James, S. Willoughby, Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: what you have not heard might surprise you!, American Journal of Physics, 79 (2011) 123-132.

[24]

R.B. Johnson, A.J. Onwuegbuzie, L.A. Turner, Toward a definition of mixed methods research, Journal of Mixed Methods, 2 (2007) 112-133.

[25]

A. Jonsson, Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education, Active Learning in Higher Education, 14 (2012) 63-76.

[26]

R.H. Kay, A. LeSage, Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature, Computers & Education, 53 (2009) 819-827.

Digital Library

[27]

A. Koriat, Metacognition and consciousness, in: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK, 2007, pp. 289-325.

[28]

R. Krumsvik, K. Ludvigsen, Formative assessment in plenary lectures, Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1 (2012) 34-56.

[29]

T. Kvernbekk, Til forelesningens forsvar, in: Humaniorastudier i pedagogikk, Abstrakt forlag AS, Oslo, 2011, pp. 203-226.

[30]

M.E. Lantz, The use of 'Clickers' in the classroom: teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty?, Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (2010) 556-561.

[31]

S. Leahy, C. Lyon, M. Thompson, D. Wiliam, Classroom assessment, minute by minute, day by day, Educational Leadership, 63 (2005) 19-24.

[32]

E.L. MacGeorge, S.R. Homan, J.B. Dunning, D. Elmore, G.D. Bodie, E. Evans, Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes, Educational Technology Research and Development, 56 (2008) 125-145.

[33]

J. Metcalfe, Metamemory: theory and data, in: The Oxford Handbook of Memory, Oxford University Press, London, UK, 2000, pp. 197-211.

[34]

Ministry of Education and Research, Do your duty - Claim your rights. Quality reform in higher education, Statens Forvaltningsteneste, Oslo, 2000-2001.

[35]

S. Mollborn, A. Hoekstra, "A meeting of minds" using clickers for critical thinking and discussion in large sociology classes, Teaching Sociology, 38 (2010) 18-27.

[36]

J. Morse, M. Ruggieri, K. Whelan-Berry, Clicking our way to class discussion, American Journal of Business Education, 3 (2010) 99-108.

[37]

C. Nelson, L. Hartling, S. Campbell, A.E. Oswald, The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide No. 21, Medical Teacher, 34 (2012) 386-405.

[38]

D. Nicol, Assessment for learner self-regulation: enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (2009) 335-352.

[39]

D.J. Nicol, D. Macfarlane-Dick, Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2006) 199-218.

[40]

D. Nicol, A. Thomson, C. Breslin, Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (2014) 102-122.

[41]

K.L. Nielsen, Student response systems in science and engineering education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2012.

[42]

D.D. Nulty, Peer and self-assessment in the first year of university, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36 (2011) 493-507.

[43]

J. Oigara, J. Keengwe, Students' perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning, Education and Information Technologies, 18 (2013) 15-28.

Digital Library

[44]

A.J. Onwuegbuzie, R.B. Johnson, The validity issue in mixed research, Research in the Schools, 13 (2006) 48-63.

[45]

P. Orsmond, S.J. Maw, J.R. Park, S. Gomez, A.C. Crook, Moving feedback forward: Theory to practice. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 2013.

[46]

N. Pachler, C. Daly, Y. Mor, H. Mellar, Formative e-assessment: practitioner cases, Computers & Education, 54 (2010) 715-721.

Digital Library

[47]

A. Poulos, M.J. Mahony, Effectiveness of feedback: the students' perspective, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (2008) 143-154.

[48]

S. Robinson, D. Pope, L. Holyoak, Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (2011) 1-13.

[49]

D.R. Sadler, Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science, 18 (1989) 119-144.

[50]

J. Schell, B. Lukoff, E. Mazur, Catalyzing learner engagement using cutting-edge classroom response systems in higher education, Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 6 (2013) 233-261.

[51]

V.J. Shute, Focus on formative feedback, Review of Educational Research, 78 (2008) 153-189.

[52]

U. Stödberg, A research review of e-assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (2012) 591-604.

[53]

C. Teddlie, A. Tashakkori, Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sage, Los Angeles, 2009.

[54]

S. Voelkel, D. Bennett, New uses for a familiar technology: introducing mobile phone polling in large classes, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51 (2014) 46-58.

[55]

B.J. Zimmerman, A.S. Labuhn, Self-regulation of learning: process approaches to personal development, in: APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1, American Psychology Association, Washington DC, 2012, pp. 399-425.

Cited By

Diaz PHrastinski SNorström P(2024)How using a response system in blended synchronous seminars encourages online and onsite student participationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-12665-429:15(19889-19911)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-024-12665-4
Hysaj AFarouqa GKhan SHiasat L(2023)Reducing Stress Through Formative Assessments: A Case of the Digital PlatformSocial Computing and Social Media10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_33(486-500)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_33
Engerer V(2021)Temporality revisited: Dynamicity issues in collaborative digital writing researchEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-020-10262-926:1(339-370)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-020-10262-9
Show More Cited By

Creating formative feedback spaces in large lectures
1. Applied computing
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs

Recommendations

Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures

Lecturing is often criticized for being a monological and student passive way of teaching. However, digital technology such as Student Response Systems (SRS) can be used to reconstruct the traditional lecturing format. During a series of five two-hour ...
Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature

As online and blended learning has become common place educational strategy in higher education, educators need to reconceptualise fundamental issues of teaching, learning and assessment in non traditional spaces. These issues include concepts such as ...
Implementation of a Mathematics Formative Assessment Online Tool Before and During Remote Learning
Artificial Intelligence in Education. Posters and Late Breaking Results, Workshops and Tutorials, Industry and Innovation Tracks, Practitioners’ and Doctoral Consortium
Abstract
ASSISTments is a free online learning tool for improving students’ mathematics achievement by providing immediate feedback and hints to students, detailed information on how students performed to teachers, and instructional suggestions for ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers & Education

Computers & Education Volume 88, Issue C

October 2015

408 pages

ISSN:0360-1315

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier Ltd.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2015

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Diaz PHrastinski SNorström P(2024)How using a response system in blended synchronous seminars encourages online and onsite student participationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-12665-429:15(19889-19911)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-024-12665-4
Hysaj AFarouqa GKhan SHiasat L(2023)Reducing Stress Through Formative Assessments: A Case of the Digital PlatformSocial Computing and Social Media10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_33(486-500)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_33
Engerer V(2021)Temporality revisited: Dynamicity issues in collaborative digital writing researchEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-020-10262-926:1(339-370)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-020-10262-9
Hao QTsikerdekis M(2020)How Automated Feedback is Delivered Matters: Formative Feedback and Knowledge Transfer2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028686(1-6)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028686
Egelandsdal KKrumsvik R(2017)Clickers and formative feedback at university lecturesEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x22:1(55-74)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x
Buil ICatalán SMartínez E(2016)Do clickers enhance learning? A control-value theory approachComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.009103:C(170-182)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.009
(2016)Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital competence in Norwegian teacher educationComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.01497:C(1-20)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.014
Maier UWolf NRandler C(2016)Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback typesComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.00295:C(85-98)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents