Formative assessment and feedback for learning in higher education: A systematic review

Feedback is an integral part of education and there is a substantial body of trials exploring and confirming its effect on learning. This evidence base comes mostly from studies of compulsory school age children; there is very little evidence to support effective feedback practice at higher education, beyond the frameworks and strategies advocated by those claiming expertise in the area. This systematic review aims to address this gap. We review causal evidence from trials of feedback and formative assessment in higher education. Although the evidence base is currently limited, our results suggest that low stakes-quizzing is a particularly powerful approach and that there are benefits for forms of peer and tutor feedback, although these depend on implementation factors. There was mixed evidence for praise, grading and technology-based feedback. We organise our findings into several evidence-grounded categories and discuss the next steps for the field and evidence-informed feedback practice in universities

Science Vocabulary Acquisition: A Nonequivalent Control-Group Examination of Vodcasts and Fifth Grade Students

This study investigated the effect of using video podcasts (vodcasts) as a supplement to traditional science instruction in fifth grade students and those students who participated in traditional science instruction only. In this quantitative study, a quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test nonequivalent control-group design was conducted using a sample population of fifth grade students at Bailey Elementary. After approval, the fifth grade students completed a pre-test of a released version of the North Carolina READY Science End of Grade Assessment, which also served as the study’s post-test. Participants in the treatment group received supplemental science instruction using content specific vodcast viewing sessions, provided by the classroom teacher, in addition to traditional classroom instruction. Participants in the control group received traditional classroom instruction only. Upon completion of the vodcast viewing sessions, all participants completed a post-test. Data from the pre-test and the post-test was statistically analyzed using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The conclusion was that, after controlling for pre-test scores, the treatment group post-test mean was significantly different from the control group post-test mean, with indications that the post-test mean scores for those participants receiving traditional science instruction plus the supplemental vodcast viewing sessions were higher than the post-test mean scores for those only receiving traditional instruction with no vodcast viewing sessions