Skip to main content

Advertisement

Investigation of The Web-based Self-Assessment System Based on Assessment Analytics in Terms of Perceived Self-intervention

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The self-assessment system was developed based on the assessment as learning (AaL) approach, in which learners take responsibility for their own learning and use feedback for self-intervention. The feedback as the system’s principal component was produced using assessment data in the system. It is essential for the assessment as learning that students construct their interventions to their learning processes by using assessment feedback. From this point, this study aimed to evaluate the web-based self-assessment system through the lens of student perceived self-intervention. The one-shot case study design (one-group post-test) model, one of weak experimental design, was used as a research design. The web-based self-assessment system was employed over a 10-week period to support face-to-face lessons. At the beginning of the implementation process, students taking the “Measurement and Evaluation in Education” lesson in the education faculty were informed about the system. After the implementation process, the perceived self-intervention scale was used to determine the students' perception. A total of 214 students (71%) took at least one test in the system and gained access to the feedback module. The high level of participation in a non-mandatory system may be considered a success. Learners appeared to have utilized feedback gained from the system in planning self-intervention and monitoring and evaluating the planned intervention's effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Reviewer comment: “The word “perceived" normally follows subjective comments (e.g. perceived effectiveness, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived importance), status (e.g. perceived happiness and perceived stress) or others (e.g. perceived risks and perceived threats). “Self-intervention” is an activity, which does not suit the word “perceived”.” Although the reviewer has a meaningful suggestion, since the name of the scale was used as it is in the manuscript in former articles, it is decided to keep the name.

References

  • Ali, N., Ahmed, L., & Rose, S. (2018). Identifying predictors of students’ perception of and engagement with assessment feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into practice, 48(1), 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. E., Abdullah, A., et al. (2020). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: a theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajzek, D., Brown, W., Lovett, M. & Rule, G. (2007). Inventing the Digital Dashboard for Learning. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1084–1092). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/25512/. Accessed 1 June 2019.

  • Bayrak, F. (2014). The effectiveness of perceived self intervention in web based self-assessment system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hacettepe, Ankara, Turkey.

  • Bayrak, F., & Yurdugül, H. (2016a). Web-tabanlı öz-değerlendirme sisteminde öğrenci uyarı indeksini temel alan öğrenme analitiği modülünün tasarlanması [Designing learning analytics module based on student caution index for web-based self-assessment system]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 6(2), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayrak, F., & Yurdugül, H. (2016b). Web-tabanlı öz-değerlendirme sisteminde öğrenenlerin öz-müdahale algisi ve test alma davranişlarinin başarı üzerine etkisi [The effect of self-intervention perception and test taking behaviour on success in web-based self-assessment system]. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 7(1), 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, L. (2018). Students’ learning responses to receiving dashboard data. https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/14686625/Bennett_final_Chinese.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2019.

  • Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Journal Studies in Science Education, 21(1), 49–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2740172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2013). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. . Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brath, R., & Peters, M. (2004). Dashboard design: Why design is important. http://cs.furman.edu/~pbatchelor/csc105/articles/TUN_DM_ONLINE.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2019.

  • Brew, A. (1999). Towards autonomous assessment: using self-assessment and peer assessment. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse assessment. (pp. 159–171). Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. . ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., & Harris, L. (2013). Student Self-Assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment. (pp. 367–393). SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of educational research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatti, M. A., Dyckhoff, A. L., Schroeder, U., & Thüs, H. (2013). A reference model for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clow , D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK12) (pp. 134–138), Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 29–May 02, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330636

  • Clow, D. (2013). An overview of learning analytics. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(6), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. (2015). Assessment Analytics. In Eunis Elearning task force workshop. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/bitstream/11366/559/1/12%20Adam%20Cooper%20EUNIS%202015%20ELTF%20Workshop.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2019.

  • Corrin, L., & de Barba, P. (2015). How do students interpret feedback delivered via dashboards?. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. ACM. pp. 430–431

  • Crisp, G. T. (2012). Integrative assessment: reframing assessment practice for current and future learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.494234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dann, R. (2002). Promoting assessment as learning. . Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional children, 52(3), 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.) Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.1-17). Guilford Press.

  • Djamasbi, S., & Loiacono, E. (2006). Gender feedback and decision making: How men and women differ on the use of computerized feedback?. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Acapulco, Mexico, August 2006, pp. 2993–3000.

  • DLAP (n.d.) Assessment of, for and as Learning. https://curriculum.gov.mt/en/Assessment/Assessment-of-Learning/Documents/assessment_of_for_as_learning.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2019.

  • Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, P. J., Bickerstaff, H. E., Rymer, J. M., Webb, M. E., Ballinger-Mills, D., Greenough, A., & Reynolds, P. A. (2017). Investigation of formative assessment of learning (INFORMAL): The performance indicator tool (PIT). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9307-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earl. (2006). Assessment as learning. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), The keys to effective schools educational reform as continuous improvement. (pp. 85–98). Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2008). Getting to the core of learning: Using assessment for self-monitoring and self-regulation. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking Assessment. (pp. 104–118). David Fulton Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. (2013). Broadening the scope and increasing the usefulness of learning analytics: The case for assessment analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 662–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. (2017). The Importance of E-Portfolios for Effective Student-Facing Learning Analytics. In T. Chaudhuri & B. Cabau (Eds.), E-Portfolios in Higher Education, A Multidisciplinary Approach. (pp. 35–49). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059004395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Few, S. (2006). Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data. . O’Reilly Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravett, K., & Winstone, N. E. (2019). ‘Feedback interpreters’: The role of learning development professionals in facilitating university students’ engagement with feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1498076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction. (pp. 263–285). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P. (2019). Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(7), 1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Learning analytics. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of educational technology. (Vol. 2, pp. 447–451). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D., & Widanapathirana, C. (2014). Development and validation of a learning analytics framework: Two case studies using support vector machines. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9226-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgaz, H., & Adanır, G. A. (2020). Providing online exams for online learners: Does it really matter for them? Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1255–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10020-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J., & Rudis, B. (2014). Data-driven security: analysis, visualization and dashboards. . Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS Applied multivariate statistical techniques [SPSS Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri]. . Asil Yayın Dağıtım.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibble, J. D. (2007). Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: effects of incentives on student participation and performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(3), 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibble, J. D. (2011). Voluntary participation in online formative quizzes is a sensitive predictor of student success. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(1), 95–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkut Altuna, O. K., & Arslan, F. M. (2016). Impact of the number of scale points on data characteristics and respondents’ evaluations: An experimental design approach using 5-point and 7-point likert-type scales. Siyasal Journal Of Political Sciences., 55, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Hatala, M., & Siemens, G. (2015). Content analytics: The definition, scope, and an overview of published research. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.) Handbook of Learning Analytics (pp 77–92). Society for Learning Analytics Research.

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal, P. (2014). Designing online learning strategies through analytics. In: F. J. García-Peñalvo & A. M. Seoane Pardo (Eds.), Online Tutor 2.0: Methodologies and Case Studies for Successful Learning: Methodologies and case studies for successful learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. pp. 1–15.

  • Li, X. (2018). Self-assessment as ‘assessment as learning’ in translator and interpreter education: Validity and washback. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1418581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H. (Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Research, theory and practice. . Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monitoba (n.d.). Assessment and Evaluation. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/role.html

  • Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. (pp. 745–783). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mottus, A., Kinshuk, G. S., & Chen, N.-S. (2015). Use of dashboards and visualization techniques to support teacher decision making. Lecture notes in educational technologyIn Huang R. Kinshuk (Ed.), Ubiquitous learning environments and technologies. (pp. 181–199). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2017). Conditions and effects of feedback viewed through the lens of the interactive tutoring feedback model. Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education. (pp. 173–189). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, R. A., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Responsibility-sharing in the giving and receiving of assessment feedback. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. (2020). The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan, C. Bryan, & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. (pp. 64–77). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouira, A., Cheniti-Belcadhi, L., & Braham, R. (2017). An Ontological Model for Assessment Analytics. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2017) pp 243–251.

  • Nouira, A., Cheniti-Belcadhi, L., & Braham, R. (2018). An enhanced xAPI data model supporting assessment analytics. Procedia Computer Science, 126, 566–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSW Goverment (n.d.). Assessment for, as and of learning. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-curriculum/assessment/approaches. Accessed 1 April 2019.

  • O’Rourke, N., & Hatcher, L. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. . Sas Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palacios Hidalgo, F. J., Huertas Abril, C. A., & Gómez Parra, M. E. (2020). MOOCs: Origins, Concept and Didactic Applications: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2012–2019). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 853–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09433-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2016). An assessment analytics framework (AAF) for enhancing students’ progress. In S. Caballé & R. Clarisó (Eds.), Formative assessment, learning data analytics and Gamification. (pp. 117–133). Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Exhibiting achievement behavior during computer-based testing: What temporal trace data and personality traits tell us? Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, A. (2018). A feedback model for data-rich learning experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y., & Jo, I. H. (2015). Development of the learning analytics dashboard to support students’ learning performance. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-021-01-0110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. . National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. D., Howell, J. A., & Seaman, K. (2017). Give me a customizable dashboard: Personalized learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9316-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S (2015). Assessment as learning and empowerment: Towards sustainable learning in higher education. In: M. Peris-Ortiz & J. M. Merigó Lindahl (Eds.), Sustainable Learning in Higher Education Developing Competencies for the Global Marketplace. Springer. pp. 1–20.

  • Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional science, 26(1–2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segars, A. H. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, 25(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00051-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, T., & Feliks, O. (2019). Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1487023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, S., Meier, C., Soellner, M., & Rietsche, R. (2019). A pedagogical perspective on big data and learning analytics: A conceptual model for digital learning support. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(4), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09399-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2020). Learners’ needs in online learning environments and third generation learning management systems (LMS 3.0). Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09479-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taras, M. (2005). Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D. (2017). Student facing dashboards: One size fits all? Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9314-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., & Giesbers, B. (2015). In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning analytics in a data-rich context. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tormey, R., Hardebolle, C., Pinto, F., & Jermann, P. (2019). Designing for impact: a conceptual framework for learning analytics as self-assessment tools. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1680952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos, J. L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1500–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Assessment as, for, and of twenty-first-century learning using information technology: An overview. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, M. E., Prasse, D., Phillips, M., Kadijevich, D. M., Angeli, C., Strijker, A., & Laugesen, H. (2018). Challenges for IT-enabled formative assessment of complex 21st century skills. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9379-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). ‘It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it’: Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026–2041. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstone, N. E., Hepper, E. G., & Nash, R. A. (2019). Individual differences in self-reported use of assessment feedback: The mediating role of feedback beliefs. Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1693510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Horne, S., Curran, M., Smith, A., VanBuren, J., Zahrieh, D., Larsen, R., & Miller, R. (2018). Facilitating student success in introductory Chemistry with feedback in an online platform. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9341-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ventista, O. M. (2018). Self-assessment in massive open online courses. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018784950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiğitbaşıoğlu, O. M., & Velcu, O. (2012). A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 13(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, W., Huang, F., Yu, L., & Chen, S. (2018). Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning—a critical review of literature. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(3), 211–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9281-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Hacettepe University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit [Project Number: 013 A 704 003-261].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatma Bayrak.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bayrak, F. Investigation of The Web-based Self-Assessment System Based on Assessment Analytics in Terms of Perceived Self-intervention. Tech Know Learn 27, 639–662 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09511-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09511-8

Keywords