The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
New Assessment Forms in Problem-based Learning: The value-added of the students' perspective
Abstract
To an increasing extent, teachers and students are leaving the well-known, traditional learning and assessment avenues and moving towards new learning environments and modes of assessment. However, the road from theory to practice seems to be a rocky one. This article presents the quantitative and qualitative data gathered from a research project which focused on different quality aspects of two new assessment forms in problem-based learning. A written examination was used to assess the extent to which students are able to define, analyse and solve novel, authentic problems. Peer assessment was introduced for students to report on collaborative work during the tutorial meeting, and during the study period that follows these weekly meetings. Students' perceptions are used as a tool for explaining the strengths and weaknesses of both instruments and the learning environment in which they are embedded. The article suggests that both assessment forms have acceptable qualities. The written examination seems to have an acceptable curricular, instructional and criterion validity. For the peer assessment, generalisability coefficients for both groups were over 0.75. Peer assessment seems to be accurate. Peer marks seem to correlate well with tutor marks and final examination scores. However, the students' learning outcomes, as measured by the examination, are lower than expected. Staff members experience the students' learning activities as disappointing. In the Louvain case, there are indications that the students cannot accurately reflect on their own functioning. In order to highlight plausible explanations, students' perceptions of the learning-assessment environment are analysed. In both cases, students perceive a gap between their working in the tutorial groups and the assessment. These results offer a valuable input for teachers to formulate concrete recommendations for optimising their educational and assessment practices.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf00138746 · Cited by 616
Cited by
Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562510600680582 · Cited by 1,034
Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500099102 · Cited by 782
Self-citationHow Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface
Kizilcec, R. F. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858402 · Cited by 615
Assessment revisited: a review of research in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., & Niklasson, L. (2016) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233 · Cited by 195
An inventory of peer assessment diversity
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903221444 · Cited by 160
Self-citationLin, G.-Y. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.010 · Cited by 111
Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in Higher Education: A study of undergraduate students
Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., Simão, A. M. V., & Barros, A. (2016) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.03.004 · Cited by 98
Brown, G. T. L., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2009) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.003 · Cited by 97
Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075071003759037 · Cited by 85
Self-citationDemiraslan Çevik, Y. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.056 · Cited by 42
Li, T., T. L. Brown, G., & Hawe, E. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2222232 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Segers, M., & Dochy, F.
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 327-343
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W2137683306
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.