Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, No.4, pp.187-202

A flexible approach to assessing students' learning outcomes taking into account working efforts of the teacher

Varakuta A. A. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, Russian Federation)
1 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University

Introduction. The article studies the effectiveness of student learning outcomes assessment. The purpose of the research is to identify the parameters of the evaluation procedure, which provide the possibility to manage its flexibility, taking into account working efforts of the teacher.
Materials and Methods. The research was conducted using the methodology of participant observation and study of products of students’ learning performance. When processing experimental data, methods of mathematical statistics was employed.
Results. The author has analyzed the approaches to formative assessment and found that flexible assessment characterized by providing the opportunity to choose the individual tempo, the intensity of the work, and the complexity of tasks and ensure the timeliness of feedback contributes to enhancing students’ motivation and development. It is noted that managing the flexibility of the evaluation procedure, taking into account working efforts of the teacher, is provided by the normalization of deadline for handing over works and the amount of editing. It is revealed that it is possible to reduce working efforts of the teacher without losing the flexibility of the assessment; in this case controlled parameters will be the deadline for handing over works and the amount of editing.
Conclusions. The author concludes that in order to ensure the effectiveness of evaluation it is necessary to manage the evaluation procedure at the level of the teacher and obtain the optimal ratio of the flexibility of evaluation and the teacher's working efforts.


Peer assessment; Flexible assessment; Feedback; Working efforts of the teacher; Self-assessment; Control parameter; Formative assessment; Evaluation effectiveness.

  1. Adachi Ch., Hong-Meng Tai J., Dawson Ph. Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 294–306. DOI:
  2. Al-Kadri H. M. From assessment cocktail to assessment symphony: The development of best assessment practices. Health Professions Education, 2015, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 58–64. DOI:
  3. Bakon S., Craft J., Christensen M., Wirihana L. Can active learning principles be applied to the bioscience assessments of nursing students? A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 2016, vol. 37, pp. 123–127. DOI:
  4. Beasley Sh. F., Farmer S., Ard  N., Nunn-Ellison K. Systematic plan of evaluation Part I: Assessment of end-of-program student learning outcomes. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 2018, vol. 13, issue 1, pp. 3–8.  DOI:
  5. Broadben J., Panadero E., Boud D. Implementing summative assessment with a formative flavour: a case study in a large class. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 307–322. DOI:
  6. Carvalho C., Santos J., Conboy J., Martins D. Teachers’ Feedback: Exploring differences in students’ perceptions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014, vol. 159, pp. 169–173. DOI:
  7. Cho K., Schunn Ch. D. Finding an optimal balance between agreement and performance in an online reciprocal peer evaluation system. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2018, vol. 56, pp. 94–101. DOI:
  8. Cutumisu M., Schwartz D. L. The impact of critical feedback choice on students' revision, performance, learning, and memory. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018, vol. 78, pp. 351–367. DOI:
  9. Fuentes-Pumarola C., Ballester-Ferrando D., Gelabert-Vilella S., Bosch-Farré C., Malagón-Aguilera M. C., Rascón-Hernán C., Bonmatí-Tomàs A., Fernandez-Peña R. Nursing student and professor perceptions and assessments of the achievement of practicum competencies: A mixed method approach. Nurse Education Today, 2016, vol. 45, pp. 199–205. DOI:
  10. Hansen G., Ringdal R. Formative assessment as a future step in maintaining the mastery-approach and performance-avoidance goal stability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2018, vol. 56, pp. 59–70.  DOI:
  11. Havnes A., Smith K., Dysthe O., Ludvigsen K. Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2012, vol. 38, issue 1, pp. 21–27. DOI:
  12. Hosein A., Harle J. The relationship between students’ prior mathematical attainment, knowledge and confidence on their self-assessment accuracy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2018, vol. 56, pp. 32–41. DOI:
  13. Hunt L. A., McGee P., Gutteridge R., Hughes M. Manipulating mentors' assessment decisions: Do underperforming student nurses use coercive strategies to influence mentors' practical assessment decisions? Nurse Education in Practice, 2016, vol. 20, pp. 154–162. DOI:
  14. Jónsson I. R., Smith K., Geirsdóttir R. Shared language of feedback and assessment. Perception of teachers and students in three Icelandic secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2018, vol. 56, pp. 52–58. DOI:
  15. Krawczyk M.  Do gender and physical attractiveness affect college grades?. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, issue 1, pp. 151–161. DOI:
  16. Lynam S., Cachia M. Students’ perceptions of the role of assessments at higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 223–234. DOI:
  17. Meusen-Beekman K. D., Brinke D. J., Boshuizen H. P. A. Effects of formative assessments to develop self-regulation among sixth grade students: Results from a randomized controlled intervention. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2016, vol. 51, pp. 126–136. DOI:
  18. Mutch A., Young Ch., Davey T., Fitzgerald L. A journey towards sustainable feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 248–259. DOI:
  19. Rideout C. A. Students’ choices and achievement in large undergraduate classes using a novel flexible assessment approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, issue 1, pp. 68–78. DOI:
  20. Rotsaert T., Panadero E., Estrada E., Schellens T. How do students perceive the educational value of peer assessment in relation to its social nature? A survey study in Flanders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2017, vol. 53, pp. 29–40. DOI:
  21. Ruiz-Primo M. A. Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2011, vol. 37, issue 1, pp. 15–24. DOI:
  22. VanSchenkhof M., Houseworth M., McCordc M., Lannin J. Peer evaluations within experiential pedagogy: Fairness, objectivity, retaliation safeguarding, constructive feedback, and experiential learning as part of peer assessment. International Journal of Management Education, 2018, vol. 16, issue 1, pp. 92–104.  DOI:
  23. Wiliam D. Studies in educational evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2011, vol. 37, issue 1, pp. 3–14. DOI:
  24. Artamonova E. V. Monitoring and evaluation practice in the context of reforming of the Russian vocational education: problems and prospects. Science Vector of Togliatti State University Series: Pedagogy, Psychology, 2017, no. 2, pp. 9–13. (In Russian) URL:
  25. Varakuta A. A. The use of ICT as a condition of effectiveness assessment of student's performance. Pedagogical Education in Russia, 2017, no. 8, pp. 33–37. (In Russian) URL:
  26. Gus’kova M. V. To the question of the conceptual apparatus of evaluation in education. Philosophy of Education, 2012, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 109–118. (In Russian) URL:
  27. Efremova N. F. The principles of independent evaluation system in higher education. Higher Education in Russia, 2015, no. 7, pp. 63–67. (In Russian) URL:
  28. Efremova N. F. Criterion requirements to the funds of the assessment instruments. Educational Measurement Journal, 2016, no. 1, pp. 25–31. (In Russian) URL:
  29. Efremova N. F. Standardization as a condition for ensuring quality of funds evaluation tools of universities. International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research, 2016, no. 2-1, pp. 66–70. (In Russian) URL:
  30. Efremova N. F. Evaluation as an information basis of training quality management. Fundamental Research, 2015, no. 2-7, pp. 1489–1493. (In Russian) URL:
  31. Zemlyanskaya E. N. New assessment forms of educational outcomes of students. Psychological-Educational Studies, 2015, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 103–114. (In Russian) URL:
  32. Zemlyanskaya E. N. Formative assessment (assessment for learning) educational achievements of students. Modern Foreign Psychology, 2016, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 50–58. (In Russian) URL:
  33. Ibragimov G. I., Ibragimova E. M. Competence assessment: Challenges and solutions. Higher Education in Russia, 2016, no. 1, pp. 43–52. (In Russian) URL:
  34. Martynenko O. O., Yakimova Z. V., Nikolaeva V. I. Methodological approaches to assessing graduates'' competencies. Higher Education in Russia, 2015, no. 12, pp. 35–45. (In Russian) URL:
  35. Semenova E. G., Stepanov A. G. Evaluation tools as quality competence of high schools graduates. Actual Problems of Economy and Management, 2015, no. 3, pp. 53–66. (In Russian) URL:
  36. Ulzitueva A. I., Lysikova T. S. On the problem of monitoring and evaluation of training future pre-school teachers. Scholarly Notes of Transbaikal State University. Series Vocational EducationTheory and Methods of Teaching, 2015, no. 6, pp. 40–45. (In Russian) URL:
Date of the publication 31.08.2018