Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Online formative assessments in a digital signal processing course: Effects of feedback type and content difficulty on students learning achievements

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effects of using online formative assessments on students’ learning achievements. Using a quasi-experimental study design with one control group (no formative assessments available), and two experimental groups receiving feedback in available online formative assessments (knowledge of the correct response – KCR, or elaborated feedback – EF), it was investigated how feedback type in combination with learning content complexity will affect students’ learning achievements when used in-vivo, in a digital signal processing university course. Data generated by the two experimental groups was additionally used to investigate differences in using online formative assessments based on the feedback type. Study findings suggest online formative assessments are a very efficient educational intervention for this domain. The acquired data suggests that students quickly recognized the value of the formative assessments and that more than 90% of students have used them extensively. Statistically significant improvements in learning achievements were observed in the KCR group compared to the control group (p < 0.01, Cohen’s d between 0.691 and 1.080, depending on the learning content complexity), and KCR group compared to the EF group (p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.877, in the case of most complex of the three learning contents used). No statistically significant differences were found in formative assessment usage between the two experimental groups, aside from the difference in the time between consecutive formative assessment attempts, indicating students did make use of the available feedback. Reported results are significant for demonstrating the potential of online formative assessments in achieving the desired learning outcomes in higher education, as well as for gaining insights into students’ habits of using them.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angus, S. D., & Watson, J. (2009). Does regular online testing enhance student learning in the numerical sciences? Robust evidence from a large data set. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthis, K., & Adams, L. (2012). Scaffolding relationships among online quiz parameters and classroom exam scores. Teaching of Psychology, 39(4), 284–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baartman, L. (2008). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 957–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bälter, O., Enström, E., & Klingenberg, B. (2013). The effect of short formative diagnostic web quizzes with minimal feedback. Computers & Education, 60(1), 234–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijol, V., Byrne-Dugan, C. J., & Hoenig, M. P. (2015). Medical student web-based formative assessment tool for renal pathology. Medical Education Online, 20, 26765. doi:10.3402/meo.v20.26765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brame, C. J., & Biel, R. (2015). Test-enhanced learning: the potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(2), es4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2004). The value of time limits on internet quizzes. Teaching of Psychology, 31(1), 62–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, T. (2000). The efficacy of a world-wide web mediated formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 193–200.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Carrillo-de-la-Peña, M. T., Baillès, E., Caseras, X., Martínez, A., Ortet, G., & Pérez, J. (2009). Formative assessment and academic achievement in pre-graduate students of health sciences. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ćukušić, M., Garača, Ž., & Jadrić, M. (2014). Online self-assessment and students’ success in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 72, 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, D. B., & Broida, J. (2004). Using web-based quizzing to improve exam performance: lessons learned. Teaching of Psychology, 31(3), 207–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • der Kleij, F. M. V., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 475–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, J. L. (2008). The use of formative online quizzes to enhance class preparation and scores on summative exams. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(4), 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einig, S. (2013). Supporting students’ learning: the use of formative online assessments. Accounting Education, 22(5), 425–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing (Doctoral thesis). New York, 1917.

  • Grimstad, K., & Grabe, M. (2004). Are online study questions beneficial? Teaching of Psychology, 31(2), 143–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. A., Adams, M., & Tardibuono, J. (1968). Gradient- and full-response feedback in computer-assisted instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 195–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henly, D. C. (2003). Use of web-based formative assessment to support student learning in a metabolism/nutrition unit. European Journal of Dental Education: Official Journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe, 7(3), 116–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, S., & Hernick, M. (2015). Improving student understanding of lipids concepts in a biochemistry course using test-enhanced learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 918–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. C., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (2009). The effect of online chapter quizzes on exam performance in an undergraduate social psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibble, J. (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., Johnson, T. R., Khalil, M. K., Nelson, L. D., Riggs, G. H., Borrero, J. L., & Payer, A. F. (2011). Insights gained from the analysis of performance and participation in online formative assessment. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 23(2), 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lameris, A. L., Hoenderop, J. G., Bindels, R. J., & Eijsvogels, T. M. (2015). The impact of formative testing on study behaviour and study performance of (bio)medical students: a smartphone application intervention study. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limniou, M., & Smith, M. (2014). The role of feedback in e-assessments for engineering education. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, G., & McKeown, P. (2013). Comparing online quizzes and take-home assignments as formative assessments in a 100-level economics course. New Zealand Economic Papers, 47(3), 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marden, N. Y., Ulman, L. G., Wilson, F. S., & Velan, G. M. (2013). Online feedback assessments in physiology: effects on students’ learning experiences and outcomes. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(2), 192–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: the effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2012). Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: an experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(1), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, P., & Maclean, G. (2013). Is activity in online quizzes correlated with higher exam marks? New Zealand Economic Papers, 47(3), 276–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, J. A., Espiritu, B. R., Hoyt, A. E., Ensminger, D. C., & Chandrasekhar, A. J. (2015). Associations between formative practice quizzes and summative examination outcomes in a medical anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 8(1), 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, N. K., & Barua, A. (2015). Effect of online formative assessment on summative performance in integrated musculoskeletal system module. BMC Medical Education, 15, 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. (1979). MCQ: an interactive computer program for multiple-choice self-testing. Biochemical Education, 7(3), 67–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2014). The assessment of a structured online formative assessment program: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 14, 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, R. P. (2012). The effect of testing on student achievement, 1910–2010. International Journal of Testing, 12(1), 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, K. D. (2016). Beyond engagement analytics: which online mixed-data factors predict student learning outcomes? Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9464-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velan, G. M., Jones, P., McNeil, H. P., & Kumar, R. K. (2008). Integrated online formative assessments in the biomedical sciences for medical students: benefits for learning. BMC Medical Education, 8, 52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, M., & Gibson, D. (2015). Technology enhanced assessment in complex collaborative settings. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 675–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Department of Electronic Systems and Information Processing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, Zagreb, Croatia

    J. Petrović, P. Pale & B. Jeren

Authors
  1. J. Petrović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Pale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Jeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Petrović.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petrović, J., Pale, P. & Jeren, B. Online formative assessments in a digital signal processing course: Effects of feedback type and content difficulty on students learning achievements. Educ Inf Technol 22, 3047–3061 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9571-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9571-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation