Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

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

Segers, Mien, Dochy, Filip·2001·Studies in Higher Education

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03075070120076291

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Segers, M., & Dochy, F.
Venue
Studies in Higher Education
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.