Learning from Assessments and Feedback, A Teacher and Student Perspective.

Abstract

This research is done in an educational organization of a master education. The goal of the research is to find out how students can learn from summative feedback and authentic judging and how assessors can learn how to deliver sustainable feedback and authentic judgments. The research question is 'What is the effect of education of lecturers in making sustainable judgments and delivering sustainable summative feedback on the satisfaction of students to continue their learning development? Sub questions: 1. What is the effect of graders in grading summative assessments? 2. What is the effect of education of lecturers in making sustainable judgments so that the satisfaction of students improves? 3. What is the effect of education of lecturers in delivering sustainable feedback so that the satisfaction of students improves? 4. What is the effect of education of students in receiving sustainable summative feedback so that the satisfaction of students improves? The research design is a combination of a quasi experimental design and quantitative and qualitative research of assessor judgments and delivering summative feedback. In this study It is obvious that judging and delivering sustainable feedback flourish in an environment of professional judging and open dialogues between lecturers, assessors and students. Learning processes of students are of common responsibility of the whole organization and not of a single assessor or lecturer. A system of quality management can support that development to a culture op professional assessing. A. Further research in other educational organizations may bring more insight in judging and feedback outcomes. In this study a validated questionnaire for student satisfaction is being designed, based upon criteria of authentic judging and sustainable feedback features. In this research five grading styles of asessors can be determined Low and consistent judging (m≤ 5,94) and small scatter (sd< 0,68). B. Under average and alternate judging (m 6,0 < 6,5) and large scatter (sd> 1,0). C. Under average and consistent judging (m 6,0 < 6,5) and moderate scatter (sd 0,68 ≤ 1,0). D. High average and alternate judging (m 6,5 < 7,0) and large scatter (sd> 1,0). E. High average judging (m 6,5 < 7,0) and moderate scatter (sd 0,68 ≤ 1,0).