Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:19:24 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
09 SES 06 B: Assessment for Learning, Feedback and Pedagogical Practices
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Paper Enhancing the Quality of Written Tasks Through Peer-review and Peer feedback by Implementing Collaborative Problem-Solving Approaches in Secondary Education Nazarbayev Intellectual School In Turkestan, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:Improving the quality of students’ written work is a key priority in secondary education systems worldwide, including Kazakhstan, where recent educational reforms emphasise learner-centred pedagogy, formative assessment, and the development of higher-order thinking skills. Despite these reforms, many secondary school students continue to experience difficulties with structuring written texts, developing arguments, and engaging critically with feedback. This study explores how peer-review and peer-feedback practices, when supported by collaborative problem-solving approaches, can enhance the quality of written tasks in Kazakhstani secondary education. The main research question guiding this study is: How does the implementation of collaborative problem-solving approaches within peer-review and peer-feedback practices affect the quality of students’ written tasks in secondary schools in Kazakhstan? The study further examines how students interpret and use peer feedback during collaborative activities and which dimensions of writing quality - such as coherence, argumentation, and clarity - are most influenced by these practices. The research is grounded in a socio-constructivist theoretical framework, drawing on Vygotsky’s theory of social interaction and learning, which has particular relevance in post-Soviet and Central Asian educational contexts. Learning is conceptualised as a socially mediated process in which knowledge is co-constructed through dialogue and shared problem-solving. In addition, theories of collaborative learning and formative assessment underpin the study, viewing peer feedback as a dialogic process that supports self-regulation, reflection, and deeper engagement with writing tasks. Collaborative problem-solving is framed as a pedagogical strategy that structures peer interaction and enhances the quality and usefulness of feedback exchanges. Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative analysis of student-written texts and peer-feedback interactions with quantitative measures of changes in writing quality over time. Data are collected from secondary schools in Kazakhstan, providing insight into how collaborative peer-review practices operate within multilingual classrooms and exam-oriented educational settings. By situating the findings from Kazakhstan within broader international research on peer feedback and collaborative learning, this study contributes to comparative discussions on writing pedagogy and formative assessment. The results offer transferable insights for European and international educators seeking to implement collaborative approaches that improve writing quality and foster active learner participation across diverse educational contexts. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a mixed-methods research design to examine the impact of collaborative problem-solving approaches on the effectiveness of peer-review and peer-feedback practices in enhancing the quality of written tasks in secondary education in Kazakhstan. A mixed-methods approach allows for a comprehensive analysis by combining measurable changes in writing quality with in-depth insights into students’ and teachers’ experiences. The research is conducted in secondary schools in Kazakhstan, involving students aged approximately 12-14 years. A quasi-experimental design is used, with an intervention group implementing structured peer-review activities supported by collaborative problem-solving tasks, and a comparison group following more traditional teacher-led feedback practices. Data sources and research instruments include: 1. Student written texts, collected before and after the intervention, to measure changes in writing quality. Texts are analysed using an analytic writing rubric focusing on coherence, structure, argumentation, language use, and task fulfilment. 2. Peer-feedback artefacts, including written comments and collaborative task outputs, to examine the nature and quality of feedback provided during peer-review processes. 3. Classroom observations, guided by an observation protocol, to document student interaction, collaboration patterns, and engagement during peer-review and problem-solving activities. 4. Student questionnaires, administered pre- and post-intervention, to capture students’ perceptions of peer feedback, collaboration, and their confidence in writing. 5. Semi-structured teacher interviews, conducted after the intervention, to explore teachers’ perspectives on the feasibility, challenges, and pedagogical value of collaborative peer-review practices. Quantitative data from writing assessments and questionnaires are analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics to identify changes over time and differences between groups. Qualitative data from observations, peer-feedback artefacts, and interviews are analysed thematically to identify recurring patterns and explanatory factors. This methodological approach enables a nuanced understanding of how collaborative problem-solving enhances peer-feedback processes in Kazakhstani secondary classrooms, while generating findings that are relevant to international discussions on writing instruction and formative assessment. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to demonstrate that integrating collaborative problem-solving approaches into peer-review and peer-feedback practices leads to measurable improvements in the quality of students’ written tasks in secondary education. In particular, improvements are anticipated in areas such as text coherence, organisation, clarity of argumentation, and the effective use of evidence, as students engage more deeply with both giving and receiving feedback. It is expected that structured collaborative problem-solving activities will enhance the quality and usefulness of peer feedback, shifting it from surface-level comments (e.g. grammar or spelling) toward more substantive feedback addressing content, structure, and reasoning. Through dialogue and shared responsibility, students are likely to develop greater awareness of writing criteria and increased capacity for self-regulation and revision. From a pedagogical perspective, the findings are expected to indicate that students become more active and confident participants in the writing process. Engagement in collaborative peer-review is anticipated to support the development of transversal skills, including communication, critical thinking, and collaboration, which are increasingly emphasised in Kazakhstani educational reforms and international competency frameworks. Teacher perceptions are expected to highlight both the feasibility and challenges of implementing collaborative peer-feedback practices in exam-oriented and multilingual classroom contexts. While time constraints and students’ initial reluctance to critique peers may emerge as challenges, teachers are likely to recognise the long-term benefits of these approaches for student autonomy and learning quality. At a broader level, the study is expected to contribute to international and European debates on formative assessment and writing pedagogy by providing empirical evidence from a Central Asian context that is underrepresented in educational research. The findings aim to demonstrate the transferability of collaborative peer-feedback approaches across different educational systems, offering practical insights for educators and policymakers seeking to enhance writing instruction through learner-centred and collaborative practices. References Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81 - 112. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199 - 218. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249 - 276. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20 - 27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing: Improving student writing through peer review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73 - 84. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365 - 379. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. OECD Publishing. 09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Ignite Talk From Checklist to Collaborative Problem Solving: Supporting Evaluative Judgement in Upper-Secondary ESL Writing 1: Nazarbayev Intellectual schools, Kazakhstan; 2: JOO High School Aktau, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:Peer feedback is widely recognised as an effective practice in ESL writing, with research showing its potential to improve writing quality, learner engagement, and metacognitive awareness (Rollinson, 2005; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). More recent work highlights peer feedback as a key mechanism for developing evaluative judgement, understood as learners’ ability to make informed, criteria-based judgements about the quality of their own and others’ work (Tai et al., 2018; Usher, 2020). This capacity is increasingly seen as central to learner autonomy and lifelong learning and is strongly reflected in current European and international assessment reforms. Despite this shift, classroom research continues to report persistent challenges in peer feedback practices. ESL learners often struggle to interpret assessment criteria independently, provide feedback beyond surface-level comments, and use peer input to make meaningful revision decisions (Xie et al., 2024). These difficulties appear across contexts but are especially visible in upper-secondary ESL classrooms, where genre-specific writing demands and high-stakes assessment pressures require students to apply criteria accurately and justify their decisions. While collaborative and technology-supported peer feedback approaches have helped address some social barriers, collaboration is often treated as a general classroom condition rather than a structured cognitive process (Alshuraidah & Storch, 2019; Wood, 2021). In contrast, Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) frames peer feedback as a process of shared judgement-making and regulated decision-taking, focusing on how students interpret criteria, negotiate quality, and justify evaluative decisions. This study examines whether CPS-adapted peer feedback supports the development of evaluative judgement more effectively than traditional checklist-based peer feedback in Grade 11 ESL writing classrooms. CPS is treated as a mediating process that requires students to make criteria explicit, justify feedback using rubric-based language, and decide how to act on peer input. These processes are supported through structured prompts and revision decision logs in which students explain whether feedback is accepted or rejected and why. By making these decisions visible, the study aims to clarify how CPS-based peer feedback supports evaluative judgement in practice. The study addresses three research questions: The study draws on three interconnected theoretical perspectives. Evaluative judgement is viewed as a learnable capability developed through repeated engagement with criteria and decision-making (Tai et al., 2018; Usher, 2020). Black and Wiliam’s (2009) formative assessment framework positions learners as active agents in feedback processes, with justification and revision decisions treated as indicators of learning. CPS (Care & Griffin, 2014; OECD, 2017) provides the analytical lens, embedding participation, perspective taking, social regulation, task regulation, and knowledge building into structured peer feedback activities. Aligned with European and international priorities on assessment quality and learner autonomy, the study offers insights relevant to multilingual upper-secondary classrooms operating under criterion-referenced and high-stakes assessment conditions.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts a classroom-based quasi-experimental action research design conducted with 138 Grade 11 students at NIS Shymkent-Karatau, a selective secondary school. All participants are preparing for the external summative assessment (ESA) at the end of May, which places the intervention within an authentic high-stakes assessment context. Participants were distributed across two intact classes, with Condition A (traditional checklist-based peer feedback) including 25 students and Condition B (CPS-adapted peer feedback) including 113 students. The study is conducted collaboratively by five ESL teachers at NIS Shymkent-Karatau, who jointly plan, implement, and reflect on the peer feedback intervention as part of ongoing classroom practice. One participating ESL teacher is from a private secondary school in Aktau, contributing an additional comparative professional perspective without introducing a separate student sample. Two intact classes participated in a genre-based essay-writing unit and were assigned to different peer feedback conditions. Baseline writing proficiency and evaluative judgement indicators were collected prior to the intervention to establish group comparability. Condition A employed traditional checklist-based peer feedback, while Condition B implemented a CPS-adapted peer feedback model structured around the five CPS strands. Class-level assignment was used due to timetabling constraints, and baseline measures were therefore used to statistically control for pre-existing differences between the groups. Students in the CPS-adapted condition received explicit training through modelling, guided practice, and calibration activities to support consistent interpretation of assessment criteria and feedback justification practices. Peer feedback was implemented in two feedback cycles, both focused on a single essay genre aligned with ESA requirements. This design allows students to apply, reflect on, and refine evaluative judgements within a stable genre context. Data sources included writing artefacts, peer feedback artefacts, revision decision logs, surveys, and reflective responses, enabling methodological triangulation. Each feedback cycle generated a complete set of peer comments and revision decision logs, allowing comparison of changes in feedback justification quality and revision decision-making across the two cycles. Quantitative analysis focuses on changes in evaluative judgement indicators and writing outcomes, with statistical controls applied where baseline differences are identified. Given the unequal group sizes, analyses will employ ANCOVA or equivalent regression-based models, using baseline writing proficiency and baseline evaluative judgement indicators as covariates. Qualitative analysis employs thematic coding, using CPS strands as sensitising categories. To enhance analytical transparency and reliability, a subset of artefacts will be double-coded by a second researcher, with discrepancies discussed to refine the coding scheme. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to show that CPS-adapted peer feedback supports a stronger development of evaluative judgement in Grade 11 ESL writing than traditional checklist-based peer feedback. Students who take part in structured collaborative problem solving are likely to demonstrate clearer understanding of assessment criteria, more accurate justification of feedback, and more purposeful decisions when revising their writing. Beyond improvements in writing quality, the findings are expected to point to a shift from rule-following peer review to more agentic evaluative behaviour. This change is expected to be visible in students’ revision decision logs, where feedback is accepted or rejected with clear reasons, in more frequent use of rubric-aligned justification language across the two feedback cycles, and in increased confidence reported by students in surveys and reflective responses. At a theoretical level, the study contributes by showing how evaluative judgement can be observed and analysed through CPS-aligned classroom practices, rather than treated as an abstract outcome. At a pedagogical level, it proposes a practical, classroom-based model of formative peer assessment that aligns with European and international assessment priorities. Several limitations are acknowledged. The study uses intact classes without random assignment, is conducted in a selective school under high-stakes ESA conditions, and is limited in duration. These factors restrict strong causal claims and limit immediate transferability to lower-stakes or non-selective contexts. Future research should therefore examine the model over longer periods, across different writing genres, and in a wider range of school settings. References Alshuraidah, A., & Storch, N. (2019). Investigating the role of collaborative feedback in ESL writing classes. System, 81, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.001 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 Bonsu, E. (2022). Students’ perceptions of collaborative peer feedback in ESL writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(2), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1302.15 Care, E., & Griffin, P. (2014). Assessment of collaborative problem solving in education environments. Applied Measurement in Education, 27(3), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2014.925628 Grami, G. M. A. (2012). Online collaborative writing for ESL learners using blogs and peer feedback. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n10p43 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Maatouk, Z., & Payant, C. (2020). Scaffolding peer feedback in ESL writing: A collaborative approach. TESOL Journal, 11(4), e00541. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.541 Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003 Swingler, M., Williams, J., & Northedge, A. (2019). Peer review and the development of evaluative judgement in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(4), 562–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1525604 Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356902 Tang, G. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80172-4 Usher, M. (2020). Developing evaluative judgement: A critical review of theory and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 698–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667951 Wood, J. (2021). Technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback in ESL writing communities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 933–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1703955 Xie, Q., Yu, S., & Chen, Y. (2024). Challenges in peer feedback and evaluative judgement development in ESL writing. System, 117, 102938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102938 09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Paper Developing Student Agency by Confronting Them with Their Preconceptions and Misconceptions 1: University of Bergen, Norway; 2: Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Norway Presenting Author:Investigating student misconceptions and alternative representations is a longstanding and important concern in science education (Resbiantoro & Setiani, 2022). These misconceptions, particularly early in the learning process, often reflect persistent ontological commitments that are difficult to shift (Chi, 2005). Their identification and remediation are not only central to conceptual development, but also offers a valuable lens into learners’ sense-making processes (DiSessa, 1993). This study investigates how confronting learners with their own misconceptions, visually and explicitly, can foster epistemic agency and support conceptual change. It draws from conceptual change theory (Posner et al., 1982) as well as affective and metacognitive models of learning (Duit & Treagust, 2003), situating cognitive conflict within a broader perspective that includes emotional discomfort, uncertainty tolerance, and learner empowerment. While traditional approaches to conceptual change often remain invisible or instructor-led, this study leverages an interactive tool to make learners’ knowledge structures explicit and manipulable by themselves. Building on work in science education and learning analytics (Viberg et al., 2018), I propose a new method that transforms learner explanations into network graphs, capturing not just isolated misconceptions but structural patterns of understanding. These conceptual networks are then projected onto a disciplinary reference map constructed by experts, enabling a precise visual comparison. The resulting discrepancies reveal which concepts are misused, missing, or incorrectly related. Importantly, this confrontation is not framed as evaluative, but as exploratory. Learners are encouraged to reflect on the visual feedback, consider possible revisions, and negotiate meaning. This process aims to support the emergence of epistemic agency (Elgin, 2013), operationalised as the learner’s capacity to reflect, take ownership of, and revise their own understanding. In doing so, this study shifts the focus from “fixing” misconceptions to recognising them as productive entry points for the development of conceptual understanding. This study therefore addresses three intertwined goals: (1) to develop new methods for identifying and visualising learners’ conceptual structures; (2) to study how learners respond when confronted with these structures; and (3) to explore how this process can support not only conceptual change but also a more agentic relationship to learning in the natural sciences. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study combines network-based analysis of knowledge with qualitative interviews and observational protocols. At its core is a newly developed web interface that enables learners to interact with their own conceptual structures in a 3D environment (Sherbetjian, 2026). This interface visualises graph networks derived from written or oral explanations of cloud physics, a multidisciplinary topic rich in abstract scientific processes and common misconceptions (Weihs, 2026). Concept networks are constructed using a method presented by Weihs et al. (2025), in which nodes represent scientific concepts and directed edges represent causal, temporal, or logical relations inferred from learner explanations. These learner networks are then compared with a validated disciplinary reference graph built from several expert inputs. Using visual overlays, the interface highlights missing links, conceptual inconsistencies, and peripheral versus central ideas. Network metrics (e.g., degree, betweenness, eigenvector centrality) help identify influential or problematic nodes, including those that often serve as misconception anchors. Learners are invited to explore these visualisations during individual sessions, in which they can zoom, rotate, and interrogate nodes and connections. During these sessions, a concurrent think-aloud protocol (Cowan, 2017) is used to capture learner responses, reflections, and emotional reactions. These sessions are followed by semi-structured interviews that provide additional insight into learners’ evolving understanding and their perception of the tool. By linking graph-based diagnostics with learner introspection, this methodology makes it possible to study not only what learners know, but how they engage with representations of their own knowledge. The combination of network-based quantitative and reflective qualitative data offers a multimodal picture of conceptual change in action. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study is expected to yield several interrelated findings. First, it will provide empirical evidence for how network-based concept visualisations can reveal the structure of learner understanding in complex scientific domains. These structural insights can offer a more nuanced diagnosis of learning difficulties than conventional assessments. Second, by confronting learners with their own conceptual networks and inviting reflective engagement, the study investigates how this approach can foster epistemic agency. Preliminary data suggest that learners respond not only with surprise or discomfort, but often with curiosity and a desire to revise and clarify their thinking. This supports theoretical models of conceptual change that emphasise the learner’s active role in navigating cognitive conflict (Chi, 2005; Duit & Treagust, 2003). Third, the findings will inform pedagogical practices in science education, particularly the design of tools that integrate diagnostic feedback with opportunities for learner control. By making misconceptions visible and interactive, such tools can shift the classroom discourse from correction to inquiry. Ultimately, the project contributes to a growing body of research that uses network analysis to study conceptual development, and extends it by embedding these methods in learner-active environments designed to cultivate agency, instead of the historical focus on epistemological accuracy. In doing so, it bridges the gap between learning analytics, science education, and the design of transformative learning experiences. References Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199. Cowan, J. (2017). The potential of cognitive think-aloud protocols for educational action-research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 219–232. DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. Elgin, C. Z. (2013). Epistemic agency. Theory and Research in Education, 11(2), 135–152. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. Resbiantoro, G., & Setiani, R. (2022). A Review of Misconception in Physics: The Diagnosis, Causes, and Remediation. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2), 403–427. Sherbetjian, S. (2026). 3D Visualisations of Complex Graph Networks on a Web Platform. Bachelor thesis. Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts. Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 98–110. Weihs, J.-P., Gjerde, V., & Drange, H. (2025). From Novice to Expert in Cloud Physics: A Graph-Based Analysis of Learner Conceptual Understanding. Weihs, J.-P. (2026). Investigating Understanding, Knowledge, and Conceptual Difficulties Using Graph Network Analysis: A Study of Learners and Epistemologies in Cloud Physics. PhD thesis. University of Bergen. Weihs, J.-P. (2026). Investigating understanding, knowledge, and conceptual difficulties using graph network analysis: A study of learners and epistemologies in cloud physics. PhD thesis. University of Bergen. | ||