22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Redesigning for Meaningful Assessment in Higher Education: A Study of the Practices in Norway and Italy
Alexandra Lazareva1, Daniele Agostini2
1University of Agder, Norway; 2University of Trento, Italy
Presenting Author: Lazareva, Alexandra;
Agostini, Daniele
In the recent years, there has been much focus on so-called “student-active learning and teaching methods” (“studentaktive lærings- og undervisningsformer”) in Norway, which require higher education (HE) institutions to break away from one-way communication by the teacher and employ more practical methods such as cases, discussions, and participation in research (Meld. St. 16 (2020-2021)). The same is true for Italy, where the creation of Teaching Learning Centres and Digital Education Hubs is at the core of the NRRP (the Next Generation EU funded National Recovery and Resilience Plan) effort. This should be the major impulse towards a transformation in Italian’s HE teaching practice after several laws and guidelines that served as precursors such as "Reform of university and research" (Legge 30 dicembre 2018, n. 145), "Guidelines for the quality of university teaching" (Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca, 2019), "Guidelines for the evaluation of university teaching" (ANVUR, 2020) and "Report on the quality of university teaching" (ANVUR, 2021, periodically published).
Research has documented student-active learning methods not only leading to students’ improved learning outcomes (Komulainen et al., 2015), but also strengthening students’ soft skills such as collaboration, presentation, and assessment (Godager et al., 2022). The use of such learning methods is perceived by students as motivating and supporting in knowledge acquisition (Langsrud & Jørgensen, 2022). While many university educators employ or wish to employ various student-active methods in their teaching, the final grade students receive in the course is still often based on the result of the final high-stakes summative exam at the end of semester.
This format of examination often provides students with limited opportunities to holistically demonstrate the knowledge and skills they are supposed to have acquired by the end of the semester, which in its turn leads to students’ decreased motivation to engage in learning activities and increased focus on “what’s going to be in the exam”. Moreover, the concept of final exams is further problematized by emergent artificial intelligence (AI) technology which has been employed by higher education students worldwide for example for essay-writing. Currently, this led to some universities (e.g., in Australia) taking a “pause” and temporarily returning to traditional “pen and paper” exams while searching for a way to redesign student assessment.
To address this issue, we have chosen to employ the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996, 2014) which is based on the constructivist tradition and that serves as a framework for designing coherent teaching programs and curricula. The idea is to share with students in advance what will be required of them in terms of learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment modalities. The stress is on student engagement in their own learning process to set up a meaningful and integrated learning experience. To attain this goal, the assessment is integrated into this process rather than being left apart as a final and disconnected task (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004).
In this paper, our goal is to examine the current situation in Norway and Italy, discuss possible ways forward and address some of the challenges. The paper is guided by the following research questions (RQ): (1) What are the different types of student assessment involved at universities in Norway and Italy? Which are the most commonly used and which are the least? (2) What challenges do reported assessment modalities can pose, and what can possible solutions be? (3) What are the differences and similarities between the Norwegian and Italian universities in this respect? What can we learn from each other to advance in disseminating meaningful assessment practices?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo address the RQs, we will first provide a comprehensive overview of the examination forms used in one middle-sized university in Norway and Italy in 2022. We have limited our data collection to the departments of Business, Law and Social Sciences at both universities in order to have comparable subject matters. The data are retrieved from course descriptions (syllabi) publicly available online.
For example, at the Faculty of Business and Law at the university in Norway, 132 courses were included in the analysis. The overview demonstrates that the written school examination format (47,8%) was prevalent in 2022. This was followed by portfolio assessment (20,5%), term paper/project examination format (14,4%), and take-home examination (9,1%). (The remaining 8,2% were subjects where the final deliverable was a Bachelor or Master’s thesis.) Oral examinations were not used, with the exception of two subjects that had oral examination as part of portfolio assessment, and Master’s thesis subjects which required students to present their final thesis to the assessment committee. In most of the courses (93,2%), assessment came in the form of a grade on the scale from A (“outstanding”) to F (“fail”), however, some of the courses (4,5%) had “pass/fail” assessment. (For the remaining 2,3% this information was not clearly stated.) Final assessment was based both on individual and group work, especially in the portfolio and term paper/project examination formats. For example, a portfolio assessment could include group and/or individual assignments during the semester adding up to 40% of the final grade and a final exam constituting 60% of the final grade. At the Department of Economy and Management at the university in Italy, 246 courses were included in the analysis. The most used examination format in 2022 was the written one (52,3%). The second one is oral assessment (23,5%) and the third is portfolio examination (14,7%). The last 9,5% includes paper production and project presentation exams. The scale of assessment is from 0 to 30 points (18 being the minimum for success and “30 e lode” being flawless). Only the English language exam has a “pass/fail” assessment. There is only one course where the portfolio assessment does not also include a final written exam.
Second, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with educators (six in total) at both universities who have employed alternative examination forms (e.g., portfolio assessment).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn the interviews, we are aiming to explore educators' experiences with traditional and alternative assessment formats with the focus on such topics as: (1) their motivation behind alternative assessment practices, (2) organization required for alternative assessment, (3) students’ reception of alternative assessment, and (4) AI as a tool/resource to support student learning and assessment.
In Italy, as in Norway, the final written exam is still by far the most used assessment method. In Norway, this phenomenon has earlier been explained by such factors as institutional structures and culture, norms and traditions, as well as real and perceived barriers related to both time resources and university and national policy (Gray & Lazareva, 2022). Our findings from both the university in Norway and Italy demonstrate that the final examination format still plays the key role also in the courses employing the portfolio assessment method. The aim of our research is therefore to get a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. With this research we aim to contribute to better understanding of how assessment forms in HE can be redesigned to address the global societal changes and demands, such as the increased focus on student active engagement in learning and simultaneous involvement of emergent AI technologies.
ReferencesANVUR. (2020). Linee guida per la valutazione della didattica universitaria. Roma, IT.
ANVUR. (2021). Rapporto sulla qualità della didattica universitaria. Roma, IT.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5-22.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.
Gray, R., & Lazareva, A. (2022). When the past and future collide: Digital technologies and assessment in Norwegian higher education. In Hillen et al. (Eds.), Assessment theory, policy, and practice in higher education: Integrating feedback into student learning, pp. 39-58.
Godager, L. H., Sandve, S. R., & Fjellheim, S. (2022). Studentaktive læringsformer i høyere utdanning i emner med stort antall studenter. Nordic Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 28–40.
Komulainen, T. M., Lindstrøm, C., & Sandtrø, T. A. (2015). Erfaringer med studentaktive læringsformer i teknologirikt undervisningsrom. UNIPED, 38(4), 363–372.
Langsrud, E., & Jørgensen, K. (2022). Studentaktiv læring i juridiske emner. UNIPED, 45(3) 171–183.
Legge 30 dicembre 2018, n. 145. (2018). Riforma dell'Università e della Ricerca. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana.
Meld. St. 16 (2020-2021). Utdanning for omstilling – Økt arbeidslivsrelevans i høyere utdanning. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-16-20202021/id2838171/
Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca. (2019). Indirizzi per la qualità della didattica universitaria. Roma, IT.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Troubling Pedagogies through Research. Reading Research on Students’ Reflections as Reflective and Diffractive Processes
Antonia Beatrice Scholkmann1, Kathrin Otrel-Cass2
1Aalborg University, Denmark; 2Universität Graz, Austria
Presenting Author: Scholkmann, Antonia Beatrice;
Otrel-Cass, Kathrin
Reflecting and reflections today are being understood as a vital part of learning processes. Critically reflecting on one’s own experience not only is assumed to holding advantage in terms of consolidation and retention of knowledge; but it bears the potential for transformative and expansive learning through changing conceptualization and worldviews (for an overview cf. Rogers, 2001). Integrating reflections into pedagogical arrangements has been highlighted with respect to the development of competences, as becoming competent involves personal transformational processes and self-awareness (e.g., Mezirow, 1991). However, developing students’ reflexivity proves a challenging undertaking, since the entanglements of professional identities with personal trajectories can easily lead to frictions in the pedagogical process (Fladkjær & Otrel-Cass, 2017). To add insult to injury, teachers all too often pretend on being able to take a neutral stance when “facilitating” reflective activities and neglect their own entanglements and frictions.
In the present paper, we share a journey of understanding the intricate interplay between students’ reflections in a pedagogical activity, and our own entanglements with them, both as teachers facilitating these reflections, and as researchers struggling to interpret them. The context of this study was a project at a university built on the pedagogical foundations of Problem-based Learning (PBL). Despite of the well-elaborated benefits of PBL for learning and competence development, students struggle to reflect on their own professional identity, and to communicate their competences on the labor market. Under this focus, we explored new pedagogical approaches to reflections by engaging a group of 12 students in a series of reflective activities, and collected data while simultaneously revising our own pedagogy in a series of micro action-research cycles (Mills, 2014).
In this paper we will analyze, juxtapose and questions the processes we encountered under a reflective perspective to highlight what new understandings we gained. Being reflective as part of research has been described as a useful tool to disentangle complex material and personally embedded narratives (Fook, 2011; Hickson, 2016). However, reflections and reflexivity has also been critiqued lately as providing an all too cognitivist and therefore disembodied view on the pedagogical process (Hill, 2018) and for not providing ample conceptualizations for the entanglements and materiality of learning (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2017). Some researchers argue therefore, that research perspectives need to move away from a self-affirming reflexivity towards an “uncomfortable reflexivity” (Pillow, 2003, p. 188).
Over the course of the project, we embraced the critique expressed towards reflexivity and reflections as part of our research methodology, as we felt that new perspectives were needed to deepen our understandings of the entanglements between our participants, ourselves and the technology involved in the process. Inspired by research in the field of primary teacher education (Moxnes & Osgood, 2019; Moxnes & Osgood, 2018) we embraced the concept of diffractions introduced by Donna Haraway (2018/1997) and Karen Barad (2014; 2007) to trouble rather than to streamline pedagogies through a research-based positioning. However, diffraction should not be seen as a counter-concept to reflection (Hill, 2018). Instead, by “cutting together appart” (Barad, 2014, p. 168) concepts, Bozalek and Zembylas (2017) argue for an acknowledgement that the “‘entanglement’ of reflexivity and diffraction is one that includes continuities and breaks rather than a ‘story’ of one vs. the other” (p. 9). In our analysis we are troubling this with yet another entanglement, the intra-actions between ourselves as teachers and researchers. By analyzing these two processes as simultaneous and entangled, we dive into an understanding of research on pedagogical processes that is by itself pedagogical.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe are basing our elaborations on empirical material collected during the project, in which students were engaged over three semesters in total. The body of material comprises the reflective prompts offered to the students and the documented materials of their activities (physical and digital artifacts such as drawings, animated photos, websites etc.), and the pedagogical reflections and choices on the side of the research team, documented in field notes, reflective audiotapes and email-communication; additionally, videotaped and transcribed material from three workshops, two of them with the participating students only, and one with the students and external participants, the stakeholders of their education (e.g., labor market representatives).
Methodologically, we are following the example provided by Moxnes and Osgood (2018), who applied Haraway’s (197) and Barad’s (2007) ideas that “diffractive methodology is a critical practice for making differences” (Moxnes & Osgood 2018, p. 300) to understand reflective practice in early childhood education. Through what is called “diffractive reading” we are interpreting the material at hand with theory and sensitivity to the intra-action of time, space, matter and ourselves. Diffractive analysis, rooted in the notion of Haraway (2000), should be considered as “a metaphor and a strategy for making a difference in the world that breaks with self-reflection and its epistemological grounding” (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2017, p. 1). Following Bozalek and Zembylas (2017), our analysis is guided by understanding diffraction as “(..) a process of being attentive to how differences get made and what the effects of these differences are.” (p. 2).
Concretely, the analysis is based on thick descriptions of situations that created frictions in the flow of the process of facilitating the students. We are exploring these by defining the core, boundaries and dynamics in and by itself; however, as a practice of “world-making” (Juelskjær & Schwennesen, 2012, p. 12) , we are also and simultaneously questioning our own choices as researchers and pedagogues to define these situations based on beliefs about reflection and reflexivity. Preliminary, the following situations have emerged from the material:
(1) A situation in the first workshop in which an invitation to students to openly reflect on their own competences was understood as an instruction to follow;
(2) Struggles with maintaining momentum with student reflecting over their competence development in an online-tool;
(3) An uncomfortable situation in the workshop with labor marked representatives, who confronted a student about the relevance of their reflective activities.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAlthough our analysis is still on-going, we can preliminarily conclude that our diffractive reading of the pedagogical process of initiating and facilitating reflections allow for perspectives to emerge that were not visible to us before; specifically:
- Understanding and critiquing the concept of reflections and reflectivity as a pedagogical approach for students’ competence development;
- Disentangling (yet not dissolving) the situatedness of the pedagogical process and the research process.
Permeating both points, our analysis substantiates the critique of reflective pedagogy based on Hill (2018), who argues that this practice is creating the impression of an objective and representational world, where recurring themes and patterns can be expected to be produced by the students. The diffractive perspective sharpens points out differences and varieties in the reflective processes of the students here; moreover, by focusing on our own intra-actions, our role as facilitator-educators in enforcing specific notions of how reflections needed to be done became obvious. As “(r)esearch practices are entangled with ethics, accountability and responsibility” (Juelskjær et al., 2020, p. 2) the diffractive perspective allows also for a reading of everything deviant or sub-standard in the pedagogical process beyond classifying categories, by focusing on how these are intra-action as constituting differences and to what effect. By this, this analysis encourages higher education teachers to become a “diffractive practitioner” (Hill, 2018); by examining ourselves in relation to (all) practice we were engaged in (i.e., both the pedagogical and the research perspective); by understanding our own role in the world’s becoming in the sense that “the teacher is not viewed as a per-existing, distinct entity, but rather materially constituted through intra-action among bodies, both human and non-human” (Hill, 2018, p. 9); and by engaging in diffractive practices that are generative rather than descriptive.
ReferencesBarad, K. (2014). Diffracting Diffraction: Cutting Together-Apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623
Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Bozalek, V., & Zembylas, M. (2017). Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1201166
Fladkjær, H. F., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2017). A Cogenerative Dialogue. Reflecting on Education for Co-Creation. In T. Chemi & L. Krogh (Eds.), Co-Creation in Higher Education Students and Educators Preparing Creatively and Collaboratively to the Challenge of the Future (pp. 83–98). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-119-3
Fook, J. (2011). Developing Critical Reflection as a Research Method. In J. Higgs, A. Titchen, D. Horsfall, & D. Bridges (Eds.), Creative Spaces for Qualitative Researching (pp. 55–64). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-761-5_6
Haraway, D. J. (2018). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and technoscience (Second edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hickson, H. (2016). Becoming a critical narrativist: Using critical reflection and narrative inquiry as research methodology. Qualitative Social Work, 15(3), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325015617344
Hill, C. M. (2018). More-than-reflective practice: Becoming a diffractive practitioner. Teacher Learning and Professional Development, 2(1), 1–17.
Juelskjær, M., Plauborg, H., & Adrian, S. W. (2020). An introduction to agential realism. In M. Juelskjær, H. Plauborg, & S. W. Adrian (Eds.), Dialogues on agential realism: Engaging in worldings through research practice (pp. 10–21). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Juelskjær, M., & Schwennesen, N. (2012). Intra-active Entanglements – An Interview with Karen Barad. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v0i1-2.28068
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.
Mills, G. E. (2014). Understanding Action Research. In G. E. Mills (Ed.), Action research. A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed., pp. 2–23). Pearson.
Moxnes, A. R., & Osgood, J. (2018). Sticky stories from the classroom: From reflection to diffraction in Early Childhood Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(3), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949118766662
Moxnes, A. R., & Osgood, J. (2019). Storying Diffractive Pedagogy: Reconfiguring Groupwork in Early Childhood Teacher Education. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.3240
Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635
Rogers, R. R. (2001). Reflection in Higher Education: A Concept Analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 26(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010986404527
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Students’ Emotional Reactions to Certainty-based Marking for Diagnostic Self-assessment: First Challenge from a Multidisciplinary Glance
Ana Remesal1, Iria Sanmiguel1, Tomas Macsotay2, Judit Dominguez1, María José Corral1, Ernesto Suárez2
1Universidad de Barcelona, Spain; 2Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Presenting Author: Remesal, Ana
This paper presents preliminary results of a first exploratory study, with multidisciplinary (Psychology, Economics, Market Law, Art History and Teacher Training) and multilevel (various undergraduate and master courses) conditions. This multidisciplinary glance is of utmost importance in Higher Education (Alexander et al., 2011). Up to now, we have plenty of educational research on educational students. Research on psychology-students or teacher-students is insufficient to understand learning processes at all areas of HE, and certainly HE-instructors at other disciplines would benefit from inquiry on their own students’ behaviors and motivation. The time has arrived to move beyond our lecture room walls and inquiry how students at other faculties tackle their learning processes and cope with the challenges (Quinlan, 2015). In this study, two different Spanish universities participate.
We designed a concrete instructional plan which offers a systematic study support for students with the purpose of enhancing self-regulated learning. We applied a particular psychometric algorithm on a system of learning tests, specially designed for promoting metacognitive engagement (Bruttomesso et al., 2003; Leclercq, 1993). This algorithm does not only evaluate the correctness of students’ responses to multiple-choice items, but also the degree of certainty of their given response. Other authors call it certainty-based-marking (CBM) (Gardner-Medwin, 2008). CBM breaks the traditional marking scheme (in our country 0-10), since grades are adjusted to the degree of confidence or certainty declared by the student (low-middle-high). For example, a 10-item test –as we used in our study- generates a grading range from -60 to +30. That is: students need to learn how to reinterpret their own results and make sense of them. All sorts of emotional, motivational and metacognitive reactions happen (Remesal et al. 2022a) when using this strategy. In this paper we want to focus on the students’ very first reactions to that new evaluative algorithm, within an instructional plan where this testing system has an underlined formative purpose. We look at CBM-results in connection with emotional reactions (positive and negative / activating and de-activating emotions, following Pekrun (2006); calibration (relation between expectations and achievement (Dinsmore & Parkinson, 2013; Hadwin & Webster, 2013) and metacognitive thoughts. All three phenomena together interweave towards new possibilities of self-regulated learning behavior (or lack thereof!) (Barr & Burke, 2013, Remesal et al. 2022b).
The instructional system we designed and put to the test roots on a view of self-assessment as the basic tool for self-regulated learning (Panadero et al. 2016). In this study we want to evaluate the effectiveness of such instructional system to pedagogically support complex learning processes of students at different disciplinary areas and levels (bachelor – masters).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is based on a mixed method strategy. A large sample of students from the different participating centers and courses (n= 1,526) take part by responding to a series of learning tests specifically designed to accompany self-regulated study during a semester. The first three tests -related to ad hoc contents of each specific course- referred to progressive thematic units of the syllabus of each of the subjects. These three learning tests, are strategically placed along the academic term, to facilitate students’ metacognitive activation, as an opportunity for progressive diagnostic self-assessment. The last of the tests took up all the previous questions, as a self-assessment closure. That is, we generated a sequential database with four learning data points, allowing the contrast between the beginning and the end of the learning process, as well as its evolution. The learning tests used contain 10 multiple-choice questions with 4 answer options and were designed by the teacher responsible for each subject. The marking algorithm produces a range of scores from -60 to +30 points. Immediately after responding, the student receives automatic feedback with the grade and their given answers (whether right or wrong). Also, students received a special guide for interpreting their results within a quasi-quartile scheme: negative range (-60 to 0 points), first positive range (1-10), second positive range (11-20), third positive range (21-30). These grades had no certification effect in the courses, but a pure diagnostic and formative aim as a way to prevent negative reactions and emotional and/or cognitive blockages in students. After each of the answers to the learning test, students answer - voluntarily, without implications for the academic course - a questionnaire of reflection and evaluation of the experience, where emotions and calibration are gathered. Finally, a small selection of students participated in an individual interview.
In this paper we want to share results of the very first CBM-experience of all the participating students concerning differences at:
• Emotions: retrospective, in reaction to the experience, and prospective, in advancing the subsequent learning experiences in the course.
• Calibration: under-calibration, adequate calibration, and over-calibration;
In addition to the variables indicated for area and level of study, the following demographic variables are also considered: sex, age, family burden (having children or other relatives in care), formal workload (no work besides studies, half-day job, full-time job), with the understanding that the last two may affect the time available for personal study.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAt this time, data collection is still in progress and only preliminary results can be shown for those courses already closed during the first semester of the current academic year, referring to the area of teacher training in primary education (undergraduate) and secondary education (master's degree). Data from the second semester are still pending and will complete the contrast of disciplines (Psychology, Economics, Market Law, History of Arts) and the rest of the variables. Up to this moment we can report about a sample of 356 students, with a mean age of 25 years (S=6 years) with a range between 17 and 52 years. 64% are female, 36% male. Previous studies before accessing the current studies are: vocational education (4%), baccalaureate (10%), undergraduate (61%), master's degree (23%) and doctorate (2%). Forty-four percent do not work, 35% work part-time and 21% combine their studies with full-time work. Finally, 88% do not have family-care responsibilities, compared to 12% who do.
The first results for this subsample concerning emotional reactions show significant differences in the emotional experience -but varying effect size-, both when reporting retroactive -positive and negative- emotions (How do I feel about my results?: joy, pride, relief / sadness, shame, anger) (Phi = 0.184) and proactive -positive and negative- emotions (How do I feel when thinking about tackling the rest of the semester?: expectation, hope / fear, uneasiness, boredom, indifference) (Phi = 0.556). Thus, positive emotions in reaction to this first encounter with CBM testing are less strong than instructors would desire. Nevertheless, facing the new learning challenges more positive than negative prospective emotions grow.
Currently, we are expecting for the data collection phase to be completed during the second semester of this course, so that full final results can be offered at the conference.
ReferencesAlexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. L., Parkinson, M. M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Self-regulated learning in academic domains. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.
Barr, D. A., & Burke, J. R. (2013). Using confidence-based marking in a laboratory setting: A tool for student self-assessment and learning. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 27(1), 21-26.
Bruttomesso, D., Gagnayre, R., Leclercq, D., Crazzolara, D., Busata, E., d’Ivernois, J. F., Casigila, E., Tiengo, A., & Baritussio, A. (2003). The use of degrees of certainty to evaluate knowledge. Patient Education and Counseling, 51(1), 29-37.
Dinsmore, D.L. & Parkinson, M.M. (2013). What are confidence judgements made of? Students’ explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4-14.
Gardner-Medwin, A. (2008). Certainty-Based Marking: rewarding good judgment of what is or is not reliable. In: (Proceedings) Innovation 2008: The Real and the Ideal. London.
Hadwin, A.F. & Webster, E.A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: examination the nature of judgements of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37-47.
Leclercq, D. (1993). Validity, reliability, and acuity of self-assessment in educational testing. In Item banking: Interactive testing and self-assessment (pp. 114-131). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Strijbos, J-W. (2016). The future of Student self-assessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review (28) 803-830.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational psychology review, 18, 315-341.
Quinlan, K. M. (2015) ‘Adding feeling to discourses of teaching and learning in higher education’, Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, pp. 5-8.
Remesal, A., Álvarez-Brinquis, M., Carbó, M., El-Khayat, M., Fierro, J.D., Garcia-Mila, M., Gri, T., Jarque, M.J., Pérez-Clemente, G., Pérez-Sedano, E., & Vega, F. (2022a). Challenging the traditional grading scheme for metacognitive engagement at teacher education. Poster presented at SIG1+4. Cádiz 27-30/6-2022.
Remesal, A.; Pérez-Sedano, E.; El-Khayat, M.; Fierro, J.D. (2022b). Fostering metacognitive engagement with CBM for competence-based programs. Online paper presented at SIG16-Metacognition-2022. Frankfurt.
|
