Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of a formative assessment script on how vocational students generate formative feedback to a peer’s or their own performance

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purposes of this study are threefold: It investigates effects of a formative assessment script (FAS) that was designed to support vocational students in generating feedback to (1) a peer’s and (2) their own performance. Effects of the FAS are investigated with respect to quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the peer and internal feedback generated by the students. Furthermore, this study examines (3) if generating peer feedback is beneficial for assessor’s generation of subsequent internal feedback. In a two-factorial quasi-experimental study, 75 vocational students firstly produced individual drafts for a typical technical planning task. Next, students either generated peer feedback (with vs. without FAS support) on a fictitious erroneous peer draft and subsequently on their own drafts or generated internal feedback only (with vs. without FAS support). Results yield beneficial effects of the FAS on generating peer feedback. Students, who were supported by the FAS-generated more comments on the peer draft, were more sensitive in detecting errors and missing information in the peer draft and generated more suggestions for improvement. With respect to assessors’ internal feedback generation, this study revealed mixed results. On the one hand, FAS-supported students generated more comments and ignored fewer erroneous elements in their own drafts. On the other hand, they neither detected more missing information nor generated more suggestions on how to improve their own drafts than students without FAS support. Unexpectedly, generating peer feedback prior to generating internal feedback had no effects on the quality of assessors’ subsequent internal feedback.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative feedback. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative feedback (pp. 90–105). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 375–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. T., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment, 367–393.

  • Brown, G. T. L., Andrade, H. L., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(4), 444–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. (2011). Are positive illusions about academic competence always adaptive, under all circumstances: new results and future directions. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2006). Peer assessment: judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather than marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching students to self-edit. TESOL journal, 4(4), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan, M. J. S. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland.

  • Gan, M. J. S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a wiki: product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 585–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring the peer assessment process: a multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3(4), 275–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: an investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: a re-analysis of assessor and assessee’s roles in technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: the benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2013). Designing and evaluating tutoring feedback strategies for digital learning environments on the basis of the interactive tutoring feedback model. Digital Education Review, 23(1), 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2017). Conditions and effects of feedback viewed through the lens of the interactive tutoring feedback model. In D. Carless, S. M. Bridges, C. K. Y. Chan, & R. Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 173–189). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative feedback and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, O., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2014). Development and evaluation of a Formative Assessment and Feedback (FAF) script to support generating feedback to a peer versus to one’s own performance. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. Lee, & L. D'Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, Volume 3 (pp. 1421–1422). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheirer, C. J., Ray, W. S., & Hare, N. (1976). The analysis of ranked data derived from completely randomized factorial designs. Biometrics, 32(2), 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, the Netherlands.

  • Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010a). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Pat-El, R. J., & Narciss, S. (2010b). Validation of a (peer) feedback perceptions questionnaire. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg University, Aalborg (pp. 378–86).

  • Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Kollar, I., Dimitriadis, Y., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., & Fischer, F. (2009). Computer-supported collaboration scripts. In Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 155–173). Springer Netherlands.

  • Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2016). A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Chair of Psychology of Learning and Instruction, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Olaf Peters, Hermann Körndle & Susanne Narciss

Authors
  1. Olaf Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hermann Körndle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Narciss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olaf Peters.

Additional information

Olaf Peters. Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Chair of Psychology of Learning and Instruction, Technische Universität Dresden. E-mail: olaf.peters@tu-dresden.de

Current themes of research:

□ Effects of generating peer feedback

□ Designing and evaluating tutorial feedback strategies

□ Smart teaching and learning with modern information technologies

□ Vocational education

Most relevant publications:

Peters, O., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2014). Development and Evaluation of a Formative Assessment and Feedback (FAF) Script to Support Generating Feedback to a Peer versus to One’s Own Performance. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. Lee, and L. D'Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, Volume 3 (pp. 1421–1422). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Prof. Dr. Hermann Körndle. Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Chair of Psychology of Learning and Instruction, Technische Universität Dresden. E-mail: hermann.koerndle@tu-dresden.de

Current themes of research:

□ Technology-enhanced learning and instruction

□ Design and investigation of interactive learning tasks

□ Competency-based teacher education and training

□ Vocational education and training in and with sociotechnical systems

Most relevant publications:

Kapp, F., Proske, A., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2015). Distributing vs. blocking learning questions in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 397–416.

Damnik, G., Proske, A., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2013). Informal Learning with Technology: The Effects of Self-- Constructing Externalizations. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(6), 431–440.

Narciss, S., Koerndle, H. & Proske, A. (2013). Challenges of investigating metacognitive tool use and effects in (rich) web---based learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (pp. 243–260). New York: Springer Science & Business Media, LLC. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_17.

Narciss, S., Proske, A. & Körndle, H. (2007). Promoting Self-regulated learning in Web-based Learning Environments. Computers and Human Behavior. 23, 1126–1144. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.006

Prof. Dr. Susanne Narciss. Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Chair of Psychology of Learning and Instruction, Technische Universität Dresden. E-mail: susanne.narciss@tu-dresden.de

Current themes of research:

□ Design and evaluation of interactive tutoring feedback strategies

□ Design and evaluation of interactive learning tasks

□ Smart teaching and learning with modern information technologies

□ Interplay of motivational and metacognitive factors in self-regulated learning

Most relevant publications:

Narciss, S. (2013). Designing and Evaluating Tutoring Feedback Strategies for Digital Learning Environments on the basis of the Interactive Tutoring Feedback Model. Digital Education Review, 23, 7–26.

Strijbos, J.---W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20, 291–303 doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008

Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. Van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educa¬tional Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Mahaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ausgezeichnet mit dem AECT-Distinguished Development Award 2007]

Appendices

Appendix A

Fig. 3
figure 3

Planning task consisting of the technical drawing of the workpiece and the working plan form

Full size image

Appendix B

Fig. 4
figure 4

Formative assessment script (FAS) for generating formative peer and internal feedback (version “Peer Feedback”)

Full size image

Appendix C

Table 5 Results of testing assumptions of normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) and homogeneity of variances between groups (Levene’s test)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peters, O., Körndle, H. & Narciss, S. Effects of a formative assessment script on how vocational students generate formative feedback to a peer’s or their own performance. Eur J Psychol Educ 33, 117–143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0344-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0344-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation