Skip to main content
Search for Articles:
Acta Pedagogia Asiana
Submit Your Manuscript to APGA
Apply for APGA Editor/Reviewer
Share
Open Access Review

Implementation of Formative Assessment in Engineering Education

by Eva Sanchez-Lopez 1 , Joseph Kasongo 2 , Andres Filipe Gonzalez-Sanchez 3 , Ahmed Mostrady 4
1 School of Philosophy and Pedagogy, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Av. Universitaria, Quito 170129, Ecuador
2 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Lubumbashi, Kinsasha, Democratic Republic of the Congo
3 Faculty of Education, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
4 School of Education, State University of Zanzibar, Vuga Rd, Zanzibar, Tanzania

SUBMITTED: 15 November 2022; ACCEPTED: 08 January 2023; PUBLISHED: 10 January 2023

Submission to final decision takes 53 days.

View PDF Full-Text
Download PDF
Article Metrics
Acta Pedagogia Asia 2023, 2 (1), 43-53
https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v2i1.154
Get rights and content
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Abstract

Abstract
Formative assessment is an assessment of student learning that aims to improve students' skills or understanding of certain course themes. Formative evaluations are often conducted in class, can be conducted anonymously, and are typically much more focused on certain abilities or knowledge. This article presents a comprehensive literature analysis on formative assessment in engineering education. As an integrated narrative review, this study's methodology included a systematic search, review, and writing of the literature in order to synthesize the important themes and conclusions of research in this field. The authors selected and reviewed the available literature using qualitative thematic criteria, focusing on the relationship between formative assessment and students' attitudes, FA and self-regulation skills, online formative evaluation, validity, reliability, and dishonesty of assessment, and engagement with critical learning processes. An increase in student involvement and centrality in the process as primary actors, as well as the building of a learning community, are among the cited benefits. According to the primary results, effective online formative assessment can generate a student- and assessment-centered emphasis through formative feedback and enhanced learner engagement with significant learning experiences. In the context of online formative assessment, it has been discovered that ongoing authentic assessment activities and interactive formative feedback are vital for overcoming validity and reliability concerns.
Previous article
Next article

Keywords: Formative assessment; online assessment; self-regulation skills; learning experiences; critical learning

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License
© 2023 Eva Sanchez-Lopez, Joseph Kasongo, Andres Filipe Gonzalez-Sanchez, Ahmed Mostrady. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Share and Cite

ACS Styles
APA Styles
Sanchez-Lopez, E. ., Kasongo, J. ., Gonzalez-Sanchez, A. F. ., & Mostrady, A. (2023). Implementation of Formative Assessment in Engineering Education . Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 2(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v2i1.154
MLA Styles
Find Other Styles

Bengtsson, L. (2010). Take-Home Exams in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 9, 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040267.

Bores-García, D.; Hortigüela-Alcalá, D.; González-Calvo, G.; Barba-Martín, R. (2020). Peer Assessment in Physical Education: A Systematic Review of the Last Five Years. Sustainability 12, 9233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219233.

Sudakova, N.; Savina, T.; Masalimova, A.; Mikhaylovsky, M.; Karandeeva, L.; Zhdanov, S. (2022). Online Formative Assessment in Higher Education: Bibliometric Analysis. Education Sciences, 12, 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030209.

Kocadere, S.A.; Ozgen, D. (2012). Assessment of Basic Design Course in Terms of Constructivist Learning Theory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.128.

Ghahari, S.; Sedaghat, M. (2018). Optimal feedback structure and interactional pattern in formative peer practices: Students' beliefs. System, 74, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.003.

Ghiatău, R.; Diac, G. (2011). Versavia Curelaru,Interaction between summative and formative in higher education assessment: students’ perception. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 220-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.065.

Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003.

Sharko, M.; Sharma, M.M.; Benda, N.C.; Chan, M.; Wilsterman, E.; Liu, L.G.; Demetres, M.; Delgado, D.; Ancker, J.S. (2022). Strategies to optimize comprehension of numerical medication instructions: A systematic review and concept map. Patient Education and Counseling, 105, 1888-1903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.01.018.

Trif, L,; Popescu, T. (2013). The Reflective Diary, an Effective Professional Training Instrument for Future Teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1070-1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.332.

Gotwals, Q.W.; Cisterna, D. (2022). Formative assessment practice progressions for teacher preparation: A framework and illustrative case. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103601.

Moons, F.; Vandervieren, E.; Colpaert, J. (2022). Atomic, reusable feedback: a semi-automated solution for assessing handwritten tasks? A crossover experiment with mathematics teachers. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100086.

Xie, Q.; Cui, Y. (2021). Preservice teachers’ implementation of formative assessment in English writing class: Mentoring matters. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101019. ,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101019.

Romero, E.; García, L.; Ceamanos, J. (2021). Moodle and Socrative quizzes as formative aids on theory teaching in a chemical engineering subject. Education for Chemical Engineers, 36, 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.03.001.

Beneroso, D.; Robinson, J. (2021). A tool for assessing and providing personalised formative feedback at scale within a second in engineering courses. Education for Chemical Engineers, 36, 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.02.002.

Meusen-Beekman, K.D.; Brinke, D.J.; Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2016). Effects of formative assessments to develop self-regulation among sixth grade students: Results from a randomized controlled intervention. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.008.

Valitova, E.. Starodubtsev, V.; Goryanova, L. (2015). Formative Personalisation of Students’ Self-determination and Employability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 739-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.706.

Selseng, L.; Follevåg, B.; Aaslund, H. (2021). How People with Lived Experiences of Substance Use Understand and Experience User Involvement in Substance Use Care: A Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 10219. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910219.

He, J.; Wang, J.; Zhong, H.; Guan, C. (2022). The Effectiveness of Multi-Component Interventions on the Positive and Negative Aspects of Well-Being among Informal Caregivers of People with Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,19, 6973. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19126973.

Molin, F.; de Bruin, A.; Haelermans, C. (2022). A conceptual framework to understand learning through formative assessments with student response systems: The role of prompts and diagnostic cues. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 6, 100323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100323.

Likic, R.; Bielen, L.; Erdeljic, V.; Ausperger, K.M.; Aumiler, M.R.; Juricic, D.; Francetic, I. (2015). Zagreb medical students’ attitudes towards formative assessments of their knowledge of prescribing. Clinical Therapeutics, 37, e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.05.025.

Gezer, T.; Wang, C.; Polly, A.; Martin, C.; Pugalee, D.; Lambert, R. (2021). The Relationship between Formative Assessment and Summative Assessment in Primary Grade Mathematics Classrooms. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13, 673–685.

Nikou, S.; Economides, A. (2021). A Framework for Mobile-Assisted Formative Assessment to Promote Students’ Self-Determination. Future Internet, 13, 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13050116.

Ozan, C.; Kıncal, R.Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 85–118. http://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.1.0216.

Granberg, C.; Palm, T.; Palmberg, B. (2021). A case study of a formative assessment practice and the effects on students’ self-regulated learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100955.

Xiao, Y.; Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: How formative assessment supports students' self-regulation in English language learning. System, 81, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.004.

De Brún, A.; Rogers, L.; Drury, A.; Gilmore, B. (2022). Evaluation of a formative peer assessment in research methods teaching using an online platform: A mixed methods pre-post study. Nurse Education Today, 108, 105166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105166.

Broadbent, J.; Sharman, S.; Panadero, E.; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2021). How does self-regulated learning influence formative assessment and summative grade? Comparing online and blended learners. The Internet and Higher Education, 50, 100805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100805.

Alexander, B.; Owen, S.; Thames, C.B. (2020), Exploring differences and relationships between online formative and summative assessments in Mississippi career and technical education. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15, 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-06-2020-0037.

Chen, Z.; Jianli, J.; Hu, K. (2021). Formative Assessment as an Online Instruction Intervention: Student Engagement, Outcomes, and Perceptions. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdet.20210101.oa1.

Fernando, W. (2018). Show me your true colours: Scaffolding formative academic literacy assessment through an online learning platform. Assessing Writing, 36, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.005.

Fernando, W. (2020). Moodle quizzes and their usability for formative assessment of academic writing. Assessing Writing, 46, 100485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100485.

Morris, S.P.; Seymour, K.; Limmer, H. (2019). Research protocol: Evaluating the impact of Eedi formative assessment online platform (formerly Diagnostic Questions or DQ) on attainment in mathematics at GCSE and teacher workload. International Journal of Educational Research, 3, 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.007.

Holden, O.L.; Norris, M.E.; Kuhlmeier, V.A. (2021) Academic Integrity in Online Assessment: A Research Review. Frontiers in Education, 6, 639814. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.639814.

Guangul, F.M.; Suhail, A.H.; Khalit, M.I.; Khidhir, N.A. (2020). Challenges of remote assessment in higher education in the context of COVID-19: a case study of Middle East College. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32, 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09340-w.

Chiang, F.K.; Zhu, D.; Yu, W. (2022). A systematic review of academic dishonesty in online learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38, 907– 928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12656.

Mate, K., Weidenhofer, J. (2021). Considerations and strategies for effective online assessment with a focus on the biomedical sciences. FASEB Bioadvances, 4, 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1096/fba.2021-00075.

Comer, D.; Lenaghan, J. (2013). Enhancing Discussions in the Asynchronous Online Classroom The Lack of Face-to-Face Interaction Does Not Lessen the Lesson. Journal of Management Education. 37, 261-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912442384.

Zen, Z.; Reflianto, S.; Ariani, F. (2022). Academic achievement: the effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement. Heliyon, 8, e11509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11509.

Wang, J.; Tigelaar, D.E.H.; Luo, J.; Admiraal, W. (2022). Teacher beliefs, classroom process quality, and student engagement in the smart classroom learning environment: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 183, 104501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104501.

Buchele, S. (2020). Evaluating the link between attendance and performance in higher education: The role of classroom engagement dimensions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46, 132-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1754330.

Chiu, T.K. (2021). Student engagement in K-12 online learning amid COVID-19: A qualitative approach from a self-determination theory perspective. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1926289.

Ahn, I.; Patrick, H.; Chiu, M.M.; Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Measuring teacher practices that support student motivation: Examining the factor structure of the teacher as social context questionnaire using multilevel factor analyses. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37, 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918791655.

Article Metrics

For more information on the journal statistics, click here.
Article ID 154
Views
493
Downloads
488