This document discusses research on assessment in distance education, web-based learning, and e-learning. It summarizes that:
- Studies took place in several countries and involved undergraduate, graduate, and PhD students as well as staff.
- Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected through various methods like surveys, interviews, and tests and analyzed using basic statistical analysis and coding themes.
- Findings, discussion of findings, conclusions, implications, and limitations are presented but not described in detail.
- References are provided citing research on the use of online and offline formative assessment.
3. Methods
• Studies took place in Australia, Spain,
New Zeland, Branford, United Kingdom,
United States, Netherlands and England.
• Participants included undergraduate,
graduate and PhD students as well as
supervisors, tutors and staff ranging in
numbers from 15 to 1600.
4. Methods (con’t)
• Data, both qualitative and quantitative,
was collected using pre and post tests,
surveys, discussion groups, interviews,
focus groups, case studies and
questionnaires.
• Data was processes using a variety of
basic statistical methods of analysis
including Likert scale, t-tests as well as
coding for themes.
16. References
Costa, D., Mullan, B.A, Kothe, E.J., Butow, P., (2009). A web
based formative assessment tool for masters students: A
pilot study. Computers & Education, 54 (2010), 1248–
1253.
Barbera, E., (2009). Mutual feedback in e-portfolio assessment:
an approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 40 (2), 342–357.
Heinrich, E., Milne, J., & Moore, M. (2009). An investigation
into e-tool use for formative assignment assessment –
status and recommendations. Educational Technology &
Society, 12 (4), 176–192.
Dermo, J., (2009) e-Assessment and the student learning
experience: A survey of student perceptions of e-
assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40
(2), 203–214.
17. References con’t
Johnson-Glenberg, M., (2010). Embedded formative e-
assessment: who benefits, who falters. Educational
Media International, 47 (2), 153–171.
Martens, R., & Hermans., (1999). Internet based formative prior
knowledge assessment. European Journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning, 26(3), 245-258.
Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar., H (2010). Formative e-
assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education,
54 715–721.
Peat, M., & Franklin, S., (2003) Has student learning been
improved by the use of online and offline formative
assessment opportunities? Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 19 (1), 87-99.
18. References con’t
Gog, T., Sluijsmans, D., Brinke, D., & Prins, F., (2010).
Formative assessment in an online learning environment
to support flexible on-the-job learning in complex
professional domains. Education Technology Research and
Development, 58, 311-324.
Soler, J., Boada, I., Prados, Poch, J., & Fabregat., R (2010). A
Formative Assessment Tool for Conceptual Database
Design Using UML Class Diagram. International Journal
of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5 (3), 27–33.
Byrnes & Ellis, (2006). The prevalence and characteristics of
online assessment in Australian universities. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 104-125
Walker, D., Topping, K., & Rodrigues, S., (2008). Student
reflections on formative e-assessment: expectations and
perceptions. Learning, Media and Technology, 33 (3),
221-234.
19. References con’t
Cooner, T., (2010). Creating opportunities for students in large
cohorts to reflect in and on practice: Lessons learnt from
a formative evaluation. British Journal of Education
Technology, 41(2), 271–286.
Heinze, A., & Heinze, B., (2009) Blended e-learning skeleton
of conversation: Improving formative assessment in
undergraduate dissertation supervision. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 40 (2), 294–305
Peat, M., & Franklin, S., (2002) Supported student learning: The
use of computer based formative assessment modules.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (5), 515-
523.