ISSN 2456-2653
Contact us
Social Science and Humanities Journal
ISSN 2456-2653
Submit Paper
server-injected
ArticlesOpen Access

Students’ Perception of Receiving Immediate Assessment Feedback Towards Self-efficacy in Learning: Basis for Implementing Technology-Assisted Assessment Strategy

DOI: 10.18535/sshj.v8i06.1146· Pages: 3825-3834· Vol. 8, No. 06, (2024)· Published: June 15, 2024
PDF
Views: 409 PDF downloads: 145

Abstract

This study has investigated the students’ perception on receiving immediate feedback on students’ self-efficacy in their learning. Students generally reported high self-efficacy (average score of 3.58), with strengths in areas like adapting learning strategies and overcoming challenges. Nevertheless, there were exceptions to this case. Some students experienced test anxiety and had no certainty that they fully understood the test given which suggests a need for things like relaxation techniques for test anxiety and metacognitive skill development that would enable students to reflect upon their own learning processes. To sum up, attention should be given to every student’s needs in any study of this kind. From all angles of self-efficacy, educators can modify instruction and create a supportive environment to increase student’s self-confidence more than ever before. Also worth noting is that technology-based assessments accompanied by immediate feedback can help improve the understanding of the learning process among students and in general boost their self-efficacy in life.

Keywords

Self-efficacyImmediate feedbackAssessmentTechnology-Assisted Strategy

References

  1. Baird, J.-A., Hopfenbeck, T. N., Newton, P., Stobart, G., & Steen-Utheim, A. T. (2014). State of the Field Review Assessment and Learning. Norwegian Knowledge Center for Education. (13)Google Scholar ↗
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 191-224. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-98423-000Google Scholar ↗
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman Publications.Google Scholar ↗
  4. Bangert, D., Kulik, J. A., & Kullik, C.-L. C. (2003). Effects of feedback interventions on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 381-431. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543061002213DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  5. Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to give effective feedback to all your students. ASCD.Google Scholar ↗
  6. Butler, R. (1987). Why is it important to believe we can learn? Educational Psychologist, 22(3), 131-134. https://academic.oup.com/function/article/4/6/zqad049/7259148Google Scholar ↗
  7. Çekiç, A., & Bakla, A. (2021). A review of digital formative assessment tools: Features and future directions. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(3). 1459-1485.Google Scholar ↗
  8. Chen, D. (2023). Use Of Technology-Based Assessments: A Systematic Review. Retrieved from ERIC - Education Resources Information Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED631217.pdfGoogle Scholar ↗
  9. Cimafranca, J. R. G., & Tamayo, L. (2019). Using ZipGrade Application in TLE Teachers’ Reports Compliance. Ascendens Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(2K), 1–7Google Scholar ↗
  10. Cortez, M. K. M., Singca, M. D., & Banaag, M. G. E. (2023). Use of ZipGrade: A revolutionary tool for grade 7 teachers in checking students’ long tests and unit tests. International Journal of Scientific Research, 12(8), 1–7Google Scholar ↗
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar ↗
  12. Dihoff, R. E., G. M. Brosvic, and M. L. Epstein. 2003. The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention effect revisited. The Psychological Record 53 (4): 533–48. doi: 10.1007/BF03395451DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  13. Dionson, A. C. (2023). Streamlining Grading Processes: A Study on the Efficacy of Microsoft Excel as a Tool for Minimizing Teacher Workload and Shortening Test Paper Checking Time (6th ed.). International Journal of Social Science and Human Research. DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i11-47, Impact factor- 6.686DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  14. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schooling and adolescent development in the middle grades: The balance of challenge and support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 899-909.Google Scholar ↗
  15. Epstein, M.L., Lazarus, A.D., Calvano, T.B., Matthews, K.A., Hendel, R.A., Epstein, B.B., Brosvic, G.M., (2002). Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique Promotes Learning and Corrects Inaccurate First Responses. Retrived from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03395423DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  16. Estarez A.R., Cheng M.A., Libunao S.P., Manalastas R.S., (2023): Teacher’s Experience in Using Zipgrade as Assessment Tool. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science. E-ISSN: 2582-5208Google Scholar ↗
  17. Ferguson, P. A. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of the impact of using technology for assessment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(3), 347-371. https://edtech.worlded.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/TechEvaluationSbk2002.pdfGoogle Scholar ↗
  18. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar ↗
  19. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2015). Educational research: An introduction (10th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar ↗
  20. Ismail, M. A. A., Ahmad, A., Mohammad, J. A. M., Fakri, N. M. R. M., Nor, M. Z. M., & Pa, M. N. M. (2019). Using Kahoot! as a formative assessment tool in medical education: A phenomenological study. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1658-zDOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  21. Lipnevich, A.A., Panadero, E. (2021). A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions. (n.d.). Frontiers.Google Scholar ↗
  22. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.720195/fullDOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  23. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to competing methodologies (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar ↗
  24. Mukhtar, M. I., & Ahmad, J. (2015). Assessment for Learning: Practice in TVET. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204(November 2014), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.124DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  25. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: The role of feedback in year 10 mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 149-166. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-56135-012Google Scholar ↗
  26. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar ↗
  27. R Core Team (2023). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.3) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org. (R packages retrieved from CRAN snapshot 2024-01-09).Google Scholar ↗
  28. Razzaq, A., et al. (2020). The impact of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning on students' academic achievement: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 10(1), 142-153. (Note: Consider replacing this reference with one that directly addresses immediate assessment feedback and self-efficacy if available)Google Scholar ↗
  29. Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-140.Google Scholar ↗
  30. Santosa, B., & Dwi, S. (2018). Work-based assessment at vocational high school in Indonesia. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2018.3011DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  31. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Student engagement in mathematics and science: A self-efficacy perspective. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(1), 3-30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334449548_Relationships_between_self-efficacy_beliefs_engagement_and_academic_performance_in_math_lessonsGoogle Scholar ↗
  32. Sewagegn, A., & Diale, T. (2019). The impact of teacher feedback on student self-efficacy and academic performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7(2), 189-202.Google Scholar ↗
  33. Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive consequences of peer review. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(1), 43-62. http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/effects_of_voice_and_peer_opinions_on_responses_to_inequity.pdfGoogle Scholar ↗
  34. Shum, S. B.-L., Lin, C.-Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2023). Examining the relationship between feedback literacy, feedback self-efficacy, and teacher feedback practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 130, 101618. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/feedback-literacyGoogle Scholar ↗
  35. Shum, S.B., Lim, L.A., Boud, D., Bearman, M., Dawson, P. (2023). A comparative analysis of the skilled use of automated feedback tools through the lens of teacher feedback literacy.Google Scholar ↗
  36. Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Assessment for learning: A handbook for educators. Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar ↗
  37. Sudarwanto, T., & Sulistyowati, R. (2019). The Effect of Pedagogic Competence, Professional Competence, Social Competence, and Teachers’ Personal Competence on Teachers’ Performance in Marketing Program. 2019, 982–987. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i11.4065DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  38. Sudha, R., & Janardan, P. (2014). Item AnalysisGoogle Scholar ↗
  39. Suhendara, Surjonob, H. D., Slamet, P. H., & Priyanto. (2020). The effectiveness of the ZipGrade-assisted learning outcomes assessment analysis in promoting Indonesian vocational teachers' competence. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(5).Google Scholar ↗
  40. The jamovi project (2024). jamovi. (Version 2.5) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.Google Scholar ↗
  41. Ukwumaka, K.O., Ukongkwen, G. I., Iroushu, U. E. (2022). Effects of immediate feedback on senior secondary school students achievement in essay writing in lokoja education zone. Retrieved from Al-Hikmah Journal of Arts & Social Sciences Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368840944_EFFECTS_OF_IMMEDIATE_FEEDBACK_ON_SENIOR_SECONDARY_SCHOOL_STUDENTS_ACHIEVEMENT_IN_ESSAY_WRITING_IN_LOKOJA_EDUCATION_ZONEGoogle Scholar ↗
  42. VanLehn, K. (2006). The role of student modeling in intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 267-306. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228375106_Student_Modeling_in_an_Intelligent_Tutoring_SystemGoogle Scholar ↗
  43. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11(3–4), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652993DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  44. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1989). Formative assessment and classroom learning. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 52-57. https://www.ascd.org/books/formative-assessment-strategies-for-every-classroom-an-ascd-action-tool-2nd-edition?variant=111005Google Scholar ↗
  45. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Educational Assessment, 5(1), 9-34.Google Scholar ↗
  46. Wynne, H., Caroline G., Patricia, D., and Desmond, N. (1992). Assessment and the improvement of education. The Curriculum Journal, 3:3, 215-230, DOI: 10.1080/0958517920030302DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
Author details
Mark Kevin Astrero
Communication Arts-English Teacher University of La Salette, Incorporated High School
✉ Corresponding Author
ORCID ↗
👤 View Profile →🔗 Is this you? Claim this publication