Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 187–202
© Varakuta A. A., 2018
UDC: 
378+338

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

Varakuta A. A. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation)
1 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 6139
Abstract: 

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.

Keywords: 

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

97.902 Formative Assessment | Written Feedback | Rubric

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?src=s&origin=cto&ctoId=CTODS_1...

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

For citation:
Varakuta A. A. A flexible approach to assessing students' learning outcomes taking into account working efforts of the teacher. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 187–202. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1804.12
References: 
  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: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.008
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.030
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2017.09.003
  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: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1343455
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.351
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.001
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.029
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.013
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.005
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.10.008
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.08.007
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.003
  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: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1307320
  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:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1329928
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.008
  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: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1332154
  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: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1294144
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.003
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003
  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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.003
  23. Wiliam D. Studies in educational evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2011, vol. 37, issue 1, pp. 3–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29344099
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29898421
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17851123
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24002989
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26463474
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25470446
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23183965
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24844440
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=28127465
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24993105
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24993071
  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: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24167015
  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 Education, Theory and Methods of Teaching, 2015, no. 6, pp. 40–45. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24991699
Date of the publication 31.08.2018