Can student-generated test materials support learning?

Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

G Model

JSEE-516; No. of Pages 14

Can student-generated test materials support learning?

Ricky Lam *

Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 5 September 2013

Received in revised form 6 February 2014

Accepted 7 February 2014

Keywords:

Formative assessment

Summative assessment

Student generation of test materials

Dialogic feedback

Higher education

A B S T R A C T

This paper aims to investigate students’ perspectives on the interplay between the formative and

summative functions of assessment. More specifically, it explores whether their learning can be

supported by a classroom activity informed by a formative strategy (i.e., student generation of test

materials) in a teacher education programme. Research methods included focus-group interviews,

classroom observations, student reflective journals, and text analysis of student-generated test papers,

and tutor feedback to these papers. Findings indicated that the formative strategy was generally well-

received as a practice to support learning for the summative evaluation, despite concerns about the

overall quality of some mock papers. Implications for building a positive link between formative and

summative assessment and promoting dialogic feedback processes in wider higher education classroom

contexts are discussed.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

jo ur n al ho mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . c om / s t u ed u c

Introduction

While there has been research on the benefits of formativeassessment, its broader application in close relation to summativeassessment at the university setting appears to be less documen-ted. Students are typically expected to have midterm tests, oralpresentations, and term papers as their coursework. Apart fromthese graded assessments, students have limited opportunity toreceive formative feedback from their tutors, let alone activeengagement in the assessment process which may help improvelearning. Ineffective use of formative assessment practices (e.g.,formative feedback) in higher education (HE) has been evident inthe assessment literature although tutors are cognizant of theirvirtues on student learning (cf. Taras, 2006; Nicol, 2010).Disproportionate focus on summative rather than formativeassessment also exacerbates the likelihood of adopting formativeassessment practices at the classroom level, since students tend toconsider formative assessment ‘‘less important’’ and onerous(White, 2007). Keeping this in mind, more has to be done tounderstand how undergraduates can benefit from the learningpotential of formative assessment in the HE context. Indeed, it isimperative to have further investigations of the relationshipbetween formative and summative assessment in an educationalsetting where the primacy of grade is predominant.

* Correspondence to: AAB 833, Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong

Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong. Tel.: +852 3411 5788;

fax: +852 3411 7894.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Please cite this article in press as: R. Lam. Can student-generated te(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.02.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.02.003

0191-491X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The paper describes a case study where a formative strategy –student-generated tests (hereafter ‘‘SGT’’) – was piloted and thenimplemented in one Hong Kong teacher training institution. SGToriginated from an idea of ‘‘formative use of summative tests’’,which refers to using either pre-test preparation or post-testfollow-up to support student learning as exemplified in the worksof Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, and Wiliam (2003) and Carless(2011). The aim of this study is to inform the research communityabout the role of SGT as a formative strategy to support learning inthe course under study, and how the findings illuminate therelationship between formative and summative assessment. Therationale for SGT is threefold. First, it promotes active participa-tion in the assessment process through frequent revision of thetest content. Second, this strategy can be integrated as part of thesummative assessment, since in reality, implementing formativeassessment alone seems to be challenging. Third, as argued byCarless (2007), SGT can provide students with timely andinformational feedback before they form a wrong conception ofthe subject knowledge learnt in the course. Although theapplication of SGT has been reported in previous studies (Foote,1998), the theoretical significance of this paper sheds new light onhow the tension between the functions of formative andsummative assessment can be resolved via its implementationwithin an undergraduate education programme where dialogicfeedback processes are supported. The implications of the findingsalso suggest that the overall course assessment practicesespecially those selected-response items (e.g., multiple-choicequestions) need to be redesigned in order to promote effectivelearning.

st materials support learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0191491X

www.elsevier.com/stueduc


R. Lam / Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx2

G Model


Framework for the study

Bridging the formative–summative assessment gap

The conceptual basis of SGT arises from one of the thorny issuesin the assessment literature – tensions between formative andsummative functions of assessment. The formative function ofassessment is to improve student learning, whereas its summativecounterpart performs the functions of certification and validation.Besides function, formative and summative assessment differs intheir nature, processes and task types. Formative assessment isnormally informal, continuous, interactive, small-scale, andclassroom-based (Torrance & Pryor, 1998). Its task types couldbe any learning tasks such as self- and peer assessment.Summative assessment is usually formal, high-stakes, and one-off by nature. It takes the form of tests, examinations, and gradedperformance assessments. Stobart (2008) argues that ‘‘The imageis still that formative assessment is ‘a good thing’, but oncepreparation for examinations starts, we need to get on with ‘thereal thing’’’ (p. 159). In Sadler’s (1989) seminal work, he contendsthat formative and summative assessments are two distinctiveprocesses, namely, to support learning versus to judge learning andhave different roles to play despite the fact that one inextricablyleads to the other. Echoing Sadler’s view, Black (1998) reveals thatthe summative function of assessment may inhibit the growth ofthe formative function, as preparing students for high-stakesassessments becomes a priority and leaves no room for formativeassessment. Wiliam and Thompson (2008) also underscores thatthe uses of assessment to serve both learning and gradingfunctions concurrently are essentially in tension, given that thesame assessment cannot serve both purposes sufficiently, espe-cially in an examination-oriented culture where teacher, student,parent attentions are primarily drawn to high-stakes examinationsand assessment outcomes.

Nonetheless, based upon extensive collaboration with schoolteachers in the UK, Black et al. (2003) reconceptualized theimportance of using formative and summative assessment tosupport each other in the classroom context (e.g., formativefeedback that improves learning and results in summativeassessment), because in teachers’ hectic reality, it is not practicalfor them to use formative and summative assessment separately,and from the evidence gathered from the teachers, they found theadvantages of using summative assessment for formative pur-poses, e.g., student self-evaluation of learning progress in relationto the summative assessment (Black et al., 2003; Brookhart, 2010;Harlen, 2005; Taras, 2001, 2003, 2005). As contended by Biggs(1998), it is recognized that ‘‘sensible educational models makeeffective use of both formative and summative assessment’’ (p.105). Harlen (2006) also points out that for formative assessmentto flourish, a productive link, which develops fruitful relationshipbetween formative and summative assessment, needs to besought. Hence, the call for adjusting summative assessment tomake it more compatible with formative assessment is needed,provided that effective integration of formative and summativeassessment is considered extremely challenging, especially inexamination-oriented contexts where the benefits of formativeassessment is usually neglected at the expense of summativeassessment (Black & Wiliam, 2005; Carless, 2011).

Using student-generated test questions to facilitate learning

In this paper, SGT is characterized as a formative strategyintended to enhance student learning before the summativeassessment (e.g., the midterm test). This strategy is one of thepotential realizations of integrating formative and summativefunctions of assessment productively, as summative assessment isno longer considered impeding formative assessment as in mosttest-driven educational settings. The theoretical rationale for this


strategy includes active student engagement in the assessmentprocess and promotion of deep learning through dynamic use ofpeer feedback that facilitates comprehensive understanding andinternalizing of specific test contents (Harlen & James, 1997;Havnes, Smith, Dysthe, & Ludvigsen, 2012). Similar to tutorfeedback that seeks clarifications and gives suggestions, interac-tions among test-writers’ (i.e., students who generated the testpaper) provision of answers and explanations and test-takers’ (i.e.,students who attempted the paper) questions for clarifications andtheir suggestions during SGT are considered a form of peerfeedback that promulgates deep learning and productive knowl-edge-building (Hawe & Dixon, 2014; Roscoe & Chi, 2007). Otherresearch in support of this test-paper construction strategy arguesthat students have more positive perceptions of assessmentthrough active participation; more chances to enhance theirunderstanding of subject knowledge learnt in the course; and morepossibilities to develop stronger self-regulatory cognitive strate-gies (Baerheim & Meland, 2003; Lam, 2013; Nicol, 2009; Papinczak,Babri, Peterson, Kippers, & Wilkinson, 2011; Wiliam, 2011).

In Foos, Mora, and Tkacz’s (1994) study, student participants inone US university showed the highest performance on thematerials being assessed while generating similar questions andanswers in preparation for the upcoming examination. Morerecently, Berry and Chew (2008) found that the use of student-generated questions and concept maps before the examinationbenefited the lowest performing students most in terms ofimproved examination performance although it was high-performing students who could construct conceptually deeperquestions in the study. Despite the benefits of this formativestrategy, Foote (1998) revealed that in her study, studentgeneration of higher order questions as a study strategy failedto show any positive effect on comprehension. Additionally,Papinczak et al. (2011) warned of student rote memorizing thoseself-generated questions and answers without engaging inunderstanding and reflecting upon them in advance of summativeassessment. The above studies were mainly conducted in anexperimental setting following psychometric research paradigm;however, it is equally significant to explore how students perceivethe learning and grading properties of assessment, and how SGTmay support learning in a naturalistic classroom environment.

Affording dialogic feedback through student-generated test questions

The other theoretical construct, underpinning how SGT maypromote effective learning for the summative evaluation, is thedynamic interplay between tutors’ and students’ engagement inthe feedback dialogue. It has been argued that in the traditionalparadigm of feedback process, one-way communication – tutorsgiving feedback and students receiving it – tends to become aneducational norm and such a process assumes that the latter wouldautomatically uptake and understand the feedback and takeremedial actions on their written work (Yang & Carless, 2012).Nonetheless, based upon research evidence, there is always amismatch between how tutors and students interpret whateffective feedback is and how it could be productively integratedinto the subsequent works for learning enhancement (Carless,2006; Havnes et al., 2012; Price, Handley, Millar, & O’Donovan,2010). Because of students’ and university tutors’ dissatisfactionwith the monologic characteristics of feedback mechanism in HE(Nicol, 2010), there is a pressing need to develop new conceptuali-zation of how the feedback process could help students promoteeffective and efficient uptake of tutor feedback for their futurelearning.

Research on feedback in HE points to a fact that students need tobecome active agents in the assessment processes in order togenerate feedback information from themselves and/or from otherresources including peers and the tutor for co-construction of new



R. Lam / Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

G Model


knowledge in various subject disciplines (Boud, 2007; Falchikov,2005; Havnes et al., 2012). Nicol (2010) argues that ‘‘feedbackshould be conceptualized as a dialogical and contingent two-wayprocess that involves co-ordinated teacher–student and peer-to-peer interaction as well as active learner engagement (p. 503).’’ Inthis study, SGT is partly developed from the framework of Nicol(2010) paper where throughout the process of constructing testitems and suggested answers, students have more opportunities tosustain the feedback dialogue either with themselves, peers, andthe tutor in order to consolidate and internalize the subjectknowledge learnt before the summative assessment (i.e., themidterm test).

While there are studies investigating how tutors constructeffective feedback for learning improvement, it is more crucial todevelop students’ self-regulatory capacities that make themunderstand criteria, standards and quality work independentlyin order to close the learning gap between their existing anddesired levels of performance in a context of dialogic feedback(Chen, 2008; Liu & Carless, 2006; Sadler, 1989; Taras, 2001). Self-regulatory capacities hereby refer to development of studentknowledge, strategies and motivational beliefs in monitoring theirlearning progress against the self-directed goals (Nicol &Macfarlene-Dick, 2006). It is believed that through cycles ofiterative feedback, students no longer take up the passive role asconsumers of assessments. Instead, they can steadily develop self-regulatory capacities in understanding the required standards andplanning how to meet those while constructing the mock testpapers and answers (Carless, Salter, Yang, & Lam, 2011).

In summary, the paper examines the relationship betweenformative and summative assessment from students’ perspectives,and the extent to which and how SGT helps them prepare for themidterm test. It argues that formative assessment can beproductively used with summative assessment to support studentlearning especially within an examination-driven context whereSGT, designed to help students study for the midterm test, canpromote consolidation of subject knowledge, improved awarenessof criteria and standards, and effective use of dialogic feedback(Carless, 2011; Kemper, 2009).

Research methods

In light of the arguments posited above, the current study aimsto address the following two research questions:

1. What are students’ perspectives of the relationship between SGTand the midterm test?

2. To what extent are students supported by SGT when preparingfor the midterm test?

Research design

The study followed a case study approach to explore how SGT as aformative strategy could support student learning for the summa-tive assessment (i.e., the midterm test). It adopted a qualitativeparadigm instead of a quantitative one typically found in theprevious studies that investigated the causal relationship betweenstudent generation of examination papers/answers and theirlearning gains by statistical evidence (e.g., Berry & Chew, 2008;Foos et al., 1994). In order to portray a comprehensive picture of howthe aforementioned formative strategy influenced student learningat the classroom level, multiple data sets including focus-groupinterviews, classroom observations, analysis of student-generatedtest papers/answers and their reflective journals were adopted. Theuse of multiple data sources could ensure the reliability of the studythrough triangulation of results generated across different research


methods to avoid bias from the participants, and was likely toenhance the ecological validity (Creswell, 2008), since the studyaims to examine students’ perspectives and experiences of how SGTwas tried out to help them prepare for the midterm test in the livedreality of HE classrooms.

Participants

Seventy-one final-year BEd students from two academic yearswere selected as informants for this study, all majoring in Englishlanguage education and they were 22–23 years old. The selectioncriteria included students’ levels of assessment knowledge and skillsand their willingness to generate test papers/answers for the learn-ing purpose. They were trained as primary-level English teachersupon graduation. Before the study, consents were sought from thestudents and ethical clearance from the author’s institution wasapproved. Students’ participation was voluntary and their assess-ment results would not be affected if they chose to withdraw fromthe study. Furthermore, a 3 hr training workshop on the logistics ofthe study and techniques of generating test materials was held.

SGT

The study took place in a 13-week course entitled Studies inDiscourse Analysis which aimed to develop student understandingof the theoretical basis of discourse analysis and effectiveapplication of discourse-related theories in English languageteaching. Three major assessments for the course included thestudent generation of test papers/answers (i.e., SGT held in Weeks2–7), the midterm test (Week 8) and the final term paper. The firstassessment task was formative by nature and the remaining two(i.e., midterm test and term paper) were summative. Inclusion ofSGT before the two summative tasks intended to help studentsmaster the course content more thoroughly, so that they couldmake use of this formative task to better prepare for the midtermtest (the summative assessment).

The following details the logistics of SGT in relation to themidterm test. A two-page A-4-sized student-generated test paperconcerning issues taught in the lectures (e.g., spoken and writtendiscourse) was constructed by individual groups (n = 6 in eachacademic year). Each group comprising 5–6 students wasrequested to construct test items in different formats for SGTbased upon the content of the preceding lecture. Students wereexpected to use a range of test items, namely, multiple-choice, trueor false, matching, reading comprehension, or short essays. Theyalso needed to produce the answer keys and/or marking schemefor short essays or related constructed-response items. Drafted testpapers with answers were submitted to the tutor for formativefeedback on Thursdays before being used in the lecture on thefollowing Mondays throughout Weeks 2–7. When the papers andanswers were approved and finalized, the participating group wasresponsible for hosting SGT by distributing the test paper, givingcoursemates clear instructions, monitoring while they wereattempting the paper, and explaining the suggested answers tothem whenever they had queries. Each group of students tookturns to host SGT once within Weeks 2–7, and for the other weeks,they served as test-takers to complete the paper set by their peers.

Data collection

Thirty students out of seventy-one from eight selected groupsof participants, who generated their test papers and answers wereinterviewed in Week 14 of Semester I, one week after the coursefinished in two consecutive academic years. Data collected overtwo successive years aimed to enhance reliability although thecharacteristics of each cohort of final-year BEd students were




G Model


supposed to be unique. Eight focus-group interviews were adoptedin order that the participants might have more dynamics andinteractions despite the possible risk of group conformity. Theseinterviews were conducted by the author. Notwithstanding thedual role played by the author (also the tutor), the analysis ofinterview data were processed long after the course grade wasreleased. Content of the interview protocol started with elicitingviews regarding students’ roles in the process of generating testpapers/answers, and the extent to which they developed a betterunderstanding of the course content namely, theories of discourseanalysis and its applications. It also focused on how studentsconsidered SGT in relation to the midterm test. Questionsincluding the usefulness of this formative strategy and its impacton student learning were raised. Each focus-group interview lastedfor 40–45 min and was audio-recorded for transcription.

When SGT took place during Weeks 2–7 in two semesters,classroom observations were arranged concurrently. In order tominimize distraction from video-recording, the author attemptedto capture the said event by taking field notes only. Additionally,each student was required to submit a reflective journal in Week 8to describe their experiences in SGT. At the end of the study, sixty-eight reflective journals were collected for analysis. Eight sets oftest papers and answers created by students and tutor commentsto the early versions of these documents were collated to addressthe issues raised in the two research questions. A sample of firstand revised drafts of SGT was shown in Appendices A and Brespectively.

Data analysis

Managing bias and subjectivity in data analysis is of importanceto guarantee trustworthiness for the study. In this regard, the timesequence of analyzing different data sets was observed. Forinstance, the author did the coding and categorization of the fieldnotes, observational data and textual data long before he handledthe interview and journal data in order to segregate his objectiveinterpretations from later students’ perspectives about theeffectiveness of the formative strategy. Parts of the interviewtranscriptions (about 30%) and the field notes (about 20%) werereturned to students for member checking. Systematic coding ofinterview transcriptions, student reflective journals and field noteswere manually done two times by the author and one researchassistant both individually and collectively to warrant acceptablelevels of intra-rater and inter-rater reliability respectively (Mer-riam, 2009). In case of disagreements, the author would discusswith the research assistant and revisit the data sets again untilconsensus was reached. Owing to the limitation of space, datacollected and analyzed from the second year of this study werereported in the next section.

Findings

To investigate students’ perspectives of the relationshipbetween SGT and the midterm test (Research Question 1), datacollected from the focus-group interviews, student reflectivejournals and classroom observations were analyzed. For interviewdata and journal entries, individual students were coded bynumbers, namely ‘‘Interview data, Student 4’’, and for classroomobservation data, student groups were coded by group numbers(e.g., Groups 2, 3, etc.). In the following, two emerging themes wereidentified and reported accordingly.

Enhanced motivation for studying midterm test

When asked how they felt about SGT adopted in the course, amajority of students revealed that it was the first time they


constructed a test paper and its answers. Originally, they thoughtthat SGT might occupy a lot of the instructional time and it shouldbe the job of tutors who set the quiz paper for students not viceversa. Nonetheless, near the end of the course, most interviewedstudents had enhanced motivation for generating the test papersfor their coursemates despite occasional difficulties in the processof item construction. One student said,

‘‘I usually do not study hard for midterms. However, inMichael’s class (tutor’s pseudonym), I am much more motivat-ed in thinking, creating and revising the test papers with mygroup mates. This pre-test activity can familiarize me with thetest syllabus more thoroughly before the midterm test.’’(Interview data, Student 9)

Some students regarded the formative strategy as a low-stakesactivity that promoted learning of discourse theories andcollaboration skills, since each group of students were requiredto have lots of interactions, namely, from conceptualization topublication of a test paper and the suggested answers for thetutorial during Weeks 2–7. Another student reported,

‘‘I do not feel stressed when working on the test paper. Indeed, Ibecome more motivated to do so, since I have moreopportunities to discuss relevant discourse theories with myfellow coursemates.’’ (Interview data, Student 4)

Additionally, students felt that construction of test papers/answers was an active pre-test revision strategy compared to tradi-tional approaches to revision where students were typically expec-ted to study for the midterm test and/or the final examinationpassively.

Despite the benefits of SGT, a few students admitted that theywere not serious enough in completing the test, because they werewell aware that the suggested answers would be provided towardsthe end of the tutorial. From one reflective journal, the studentpointed out that:

‘‘I am only eager to fill out the answers for selected-responseitems more than constructed-response ones, because the latteris sometimes challenging and takes up a lot of time so that wemay not finish the lecture on time.’’ (Journal entry, Student 12)

Another student expressed similar views in her reflectivejournal by stating that:

‘‘I am appreciative of the positive learning atmospheredemonstrated by my coursemates who are diligently complet-ing the test paper although I know some do not take itseriously.’’ (Journal entry, Student 8)

Classroom data indicated that test-takers and test-writers had alot of heated debates and dynamic interactions, especially whenthe test-writers from Groups 2, 5, and 6 from the second year of thestudy clarified and elaborated some answers deemed to beequivocal and controversial. These observational data couldpartially reflect students’ enhanced motivation to participate inthe assessment process and their willingness to engage in a largeracademic learning community.

Another interesting finding from the interview data was thatstudents expressed their preference for being test-writers ratherthan being test-takers in the study. Three students emphasizedthat:

‘‘Test-writers are more likely to benefit from the composingprocess of the mock paper than test-takers participating in theclass, because the former can develop a better understanding ofthe discourse theories and their applications, and need toconsider different levels of difficulties and various question typeswhen setting the paper.’’ (Interview data, Students 7, 8, and 9)




G Model


In other words, students had more opportunities to participatein the assessment process when taking up the role as test-writers,and also experienced a greater sense of satisfaction when theycould have made significant contributions to their own learning. Inanother reflective journal, one student noted that:

‘‘I really feel satisfied and motivated to set a mock midterm testfor my coursemates. I am much more involved in the coursethan any others that I have ever attended.’’ (Journal entry,Student 14)

The level of involvement in SGT can, indeed, determine theextent to which students are motivated to study for the midtermtest.

Integration of formative and summative assessment

When asked about the relationship between SGT and themidterm test, most students felt that the former served as ‘‘alearning tool’’ to prepare them for obtaining better results in thelatter. It was suggested that SGT was learning-focused compared tothe midterm test, and primarily emphasized student activeparticipation in the assessment process and use of dialogicfeedback that promoted deep learning of subject knowledgedelivered in the course. One student said,

‘‘While constructing the mock paper and suggested answers, Ihave learnt more about the discourse concepts throughinteracting with my peers and the tutor especially when wenegotiated which types of test items to be used, what topics tobe included in our mock paper, and how the paper could befurther improved based upon peer and tutor feedback.’’(Interview data, Student 2)

Another interviewed student added that SGT provided thecoursemates with opportunities to review what discourse theoriesthey might not fully understand and what subject content theyshould further study before the summative assessment. Data fromtwo reflective journals showed that the relationship between SGTand the midterm test were not mutually exclusive, provided thatthe formative task could be incorporated as parts of the summativeassessment for this study. As revealed in one journal entry, it saidthat:

‘‘The test-paper generation activity helps us to study for themidterm test more efficiently. I would say the functions of thesetwo classroom activities (one for learning and the other forevaluation) are interrelated.’’ (Journal entry, Student 9)

Despite the prospects of building a positive link betweensummative and formative assessment, some students remainedgrade-conscious and considered SGT time-consuming and notparticularly useful in preparing them for the forthcoming midtermtest. In an interview, one student expressed her discontent withSGT:

‘‘The grade of the midterm test determines our honoursclassification. I still think that we spent too much time onsetting the mock test items. I do not deny the usefulness of thisassessment task, but not every group can produce high-qualitypapers.’’ (Interview data, Student 10)

As revealed in their reflective journals, two students proposedSGT to be graded, so that other coursemates could be moremotivated in participating in this classroom event. This findingimplied that student participation in SGT was largely motivated byits grading function rather than its learning purpose. However, oneclassroom episode illustrated that even without grades, somestudents were still willing to discuss the schematic structures (i.e.,coda) of a narrative text when they were asked to identify in one


open-ended test item. The debate on which paragraph was thecoda of the genre continued until the lecture was over. Studententhusiasm for discussion of the test paper content was borne outthat their attention did not necessarily focus on the gradingfunction of assessment. Instead, some students preferred in-depthdiscussions about certain ambiguous discourse concepts with theirpeers. From students’ perspectives, it can be said, in answer toResearch Question 1, that SGT, implemented before the midtermtest, is likely to balance the competing functions of formative andsummative assessment, since the formative function tends to bemarginalized when adopted with its summative counterpart in aneducational context where performance (i.e., grades) rather thanmastery of learning is valued. It is hoped that after experiencingSGT, students could change their learning orientation from beinggrade-conscious to being genuinely interested in learning thesubject knowledge.

The ensuing section illustrates the extent to which the studentswere supported by SGT in preparing for the midterm test (ResearchQuestion 2). Three emerging themes from the multiple data setswere reported as follows.

Consolidation of subject knowledge

When asked in what ways SGT could help them study for themidterm test, most interviewed students felt that their under-standing of key concepts in discourse theories were furtherconsolidated by reading up relevant literature, revising the lecturenotes, being attentive in class, and doing research on the topicassigned to set the test paper. One student said,

‘‘The student-generated test paper activity makes our groupmore engaged and attentive in class, since we have tounderstand the topic thoroughly before we can set the testpaper and suggested answers.’’ (Interview data, Student 1)

Through participating in the test-paper construction, studentsbelieved that no matter whether they took up the role as test-writers or test-takers, they had more opportunities to review thediscourse theories for the midterm test. In the interview, onestudent stated that:

‘‘In this course, I develop a better understanding of the subjectknowledge learnt at the very early stage. For other courses, Iusually go over the lecture notes and references only a weekbefore the term paper is due.’’ (Interview data, Student 16)

It is clear that SGT did promote student learning of the subjectknowledge, given that they shared greater responsibilities in theassessment process.

The reflective journal data illustrated that some students foundit more effective to internalize the discourse concepts and theoriesthrough the hands-on experience than through sheer memoriza-tion, as they needed to apply those learnt concepts to constructspecific test items. In one student’s journal, she wrote that:

‘‘The test-paper generation activity provides me with a usefullearning opportunity to clear misunderstanding towardscertain discourse concepts before I take the midterm test.’’(Journal entry, Student 5)

The pre-emptive nature of SGT might deter students fromforming early misconceptions of the subject knowledge throughself-evaluating the mock test paper, and discussing with peers onhow to ensure the test items and suggested answers wereaccurately constructed. Another reflective journal similarly illus-trated that:

‘‘Test-paper construction does promote active learning of thediscourse theories although the activity is fairly cognitivelychallenging at first.’’ (Journal entry, Student 3)



Table 1Number of revisions made on test papers and suggested answers.

Group Number of

revisions made

on test paper

Number of

revisions made

on suggested

answers

Number of

face-to-face

conferences held

1 3 3 1

2 2 3 2

3 3 2 1

4 4 2 0

5 2 1 1

6 3 4 0


G Model


Indeed, it was not surprising that SGT overwhelmed studentscognitively, since the explanation of test questions/answers in thelecture could be seen as a peer teaching process (Roscoe & Chi,2007; Topping, 2005). This could be highlighted as a distinctivefeature of SGT in this study, wherein the cognitive learning processinvolved frequent use of content-specific metalanguage to justifythe test items. To this end, SGT could help deepen students’knowledge base on various discourse theories and support themmuch more fully for the midterm test.

Although SGT might be beneficial to student learning ofdiscourse analysis for language teaching, data from classroomobservations indicated that not every mock paper created by themwere effective in reviewing discourse theories learnt in the course.One classroom episode revealed that student reaction to test itemsset by Group 6 including those factual recalls (e.g., matching andshort-answer items) and text comprehension (e.g., fill-in-the-blank items) was disinteresting, as two students pointed out that:

‘‘We prefer analyzing a short spoken text with discoursetheories, because this kind of test item is more fun and checkswhether we can integrate the theories into practice.’’ (Interviewdata, Students 1 and 6)

After SGT, another student claimed that:

‘‘I do not think this mock paper prepared by Group 6 canconsolidate my subject knowledge learnt from the previouslecture, as the questions they set mainly emphasize memori-zation of facts rather than synthesis of discourse knowledge.’’(Interview data, Student 4)

It appears that SGT may support student learning to prepare forthe midterm test, provided that the test items are constructed-response ones, emphasizing the application of evaluation andsynthesis skills in context such as text analysis.

Exposure to dialogic feedback

In the interview, students were asked about how they made useof self, peer and tutor feedback in SGT. Some students pointed outthat they found tutor feedback constructive in upgrading thedrafted test papers although they did not deny the usefulness ofself-generated and peer feedback in the revising process. Somestudents agreed that SGT could encourage them to incorporateself-, peer, and tutor feedback into the mock test papers especiallyafter face-to-face discussions and negotiations. The provision ofdialogic feedback opportunities from multiple sources couldenhance active learning of specific discourse theories. For instance,one student said,

‘‘Michael (the tutor) gives us detailed feedback on how toimprove the format and content of the test paper. Hiscommentary mainly emphasizes clarifying unclear ideas andgiving suggestions. Based upon Michael’s feedback and groupdiscussion, we revised the paper and suggested answers forthree times.’’ (Interview data, Student 7)

As revealed in the reflective journal data, student preference for‘‘dialogic feedback’’ was unanimous, given that they believedfeedback was effective when it could be used to promote self-regulated learning (e.g., enhancement of self-regulatory skillsthrough the construction of test papers and uptake of discourseknowledge). One student noted that:

‘‘Through test item construction, my coursemates and Ibecome more conscious and autonomous in reviewing thediscourse theories. This kind of formative activity is likely toequip us with self-directed study and thinking skills.’’ (Journalentry, Student 12)


Considering this, dialogic feedback, embedded in SGT, had acrucial role to play in promoting effective learning of discourse-related knowledge as well as in helping students to betterunderstand what would be assessed in the midterm test. InAppendix B, a sample of revised SGT reflecting uptake of tutorfeedback has been illustrated.

The test paper analysis revealed that students generallyattempted to revise from one to four times for both test papersand suggested answers (see Table 1). Groups 4 and 6 chose not tohave face-to-face conferences with the tutor to discuss how toimprove the overall quality of their test papers, so that theytended to revise more than other groups only with tutor writtenfeedback (e.g., Group 4, 4 times for the test paper and Group 6, 4times for the suggested answers). The reasons for extra revisionsin these two groups might arise from a lack of opportunities toclarify those ambiguous test items with the tutor personally andstudent misunderstanding of certain tutor written feedbackregarding how to modify the content errors of the test paper.From Table 1, it can be argued that face-to-face conferences aredeemed to be significant in the construction of test papers andsuggested answers, as they encourage more task-specific dialo-gues between the tutor and students, and promote dialogicfeedback that facilitates successful text revision (e.g., fewerrounds of content-related revision) and consolidation of subjectknowledge.

From the coding of feedback types on student-generated testpapers and suggested answers, four major sources of tutorfeedback were identified including (1) clarifying, (2) explaining,(3) identifying, and (4) giving suggestions. Each feedback typerefers to one single instance of formative information given by thetutor within either one complete statement or question for textrevision. Examples of each feedback type were illustrated inTable 2. The highest number of feedback type provided by thetutor was giving suggestions, which amounted to 54 out of 162feedback points in total (33.3%), followed by others (e.g., praises,encouragement, and reminders) 35 out of 162 feedback points(21.6%) (see Table 2). Interestingly, students’ responses variedaccording to the feedback types, for example giving suggestions (62out of 118 feedback points, 52.5%) and clarifying (42 out of 118feedback points, 35.6%) were most popular, as opposed toexplaining (3.4%) and identifying (8.5%). This finding impliedthat tutor feedback serving the functions of giving suggestionsand clarifying was likely for students to act upon during revisionsof their test papers. These two types of tutor feedback are believedto be more interactive and revisable when used in the feedbackprocess.

Similarly, the observational data indicated that peer feedback,produced during the process of SGT including the test-writers’provision of answers and explanations and test-takers’ questions forclarification, could facilitate the noticing and uptake of discourseconcepts and theories that students might find difficult to master if



Table 2Student response to tutor feedback.

Type of tutor feedback Number of tutor feedback provided

on test papers and suggested answers

Number of revision changes made

in response to tutor feedback

1. Clarifying (e.g., Do you want to say pedagogical implications for this concluding

paragraph?)

30 (18.6%) 42 (35.6%)

2. Explaining (e.g., For this item, you could mention there is a pre-closing section before

the closing turn in the data set.)

18 (11.1%) 4 (3.4%)

3. Identifying (e.g., The wording of this test item seems to be ambiguous. You may

present your question in a much explicit manner.)

25 (15.4%) 10 (8.5%)

4. Giving suggestions (e.g., In order to make your task more challenging, add an extra

item or two as distractor to reduce the possibility of blind guessing.)

54 (33.3%) 62 (52.5%)

5. Others (e.g., praises, encouragement, reminders) 35 (21.6%) 0 (0.0%)

Total number of feedback points 162 118

Table 3An overview of student evaluation of SGT.

Benefits Possible challenges

Design Low-stakes and learning-

oriented; a pre-test preparation

activity; facilitating dynamic

interactions and understanding

of assessment criteria;

enhancing uptake of discourse

theories

Time-consuming to carry out

SGT; rather demanding to

control the quality of student-

generated test papers/

answers; specific training

needs to be provided

Process Active student participation in

the assessment process;

potential integration of

formative and summative

assessment; exposure to

multiple feedback sources with a

focus on dialogic feedback

Some students may not take it

seriously when acting as test-

takers; potential difficulties of

constructing high-quality test

items in relation to relevant

discourse theories (e.g.,

constructed-response items)

Impact Improved motivation for

studying for the midterm test;

promulgation of self-regulated

learning via self- and peer

assessment; enhanced

professionalism through

development of language

assessment knowledge and

skills, e.g., preference for being

test-writers

Some students remain grade-

conscious despite the

formative potential of SGT;

some still find it difficult to

act upon certain tutor

feedback types e.g.,

‘‘clarifying’’ and ‘‘giving

suggestions’’


G Model


studying with the conventional approach (e.g., memorization of testcontent). For example, when attempting Part C of Quiz 3 (seeAppendix B), a few students did not understand why Conversation 2was less effective than Conversation 1 in promoting languagelearning. Students from Group 3 (test-writers) then provided themwith a clear explanation that the teacher in Conversation 2 did notinclude an evaluative F-move to confirm whether the learners’responses were correct or not (an instance of dialogic peerfeedback used in this classroom episode). In sum, through SGT,students had ample exposure to dialogic feedback that mayenhance their knowledge base of discourse theories, and promoteactive engagement in self- and peer assessment when revising thepapers.

Growth of teaching professionalism

Another interesting theme, emerged from the data, was thatstudents perceived improved professionalism as pre-servicelanguage teachers after the exposure to SGT. In the interview,when asked about the usefulness of SGT, some students respondedthat this activity could enhance their professionalism as apractitioner in the field of English language teaching, since theywere seldom given a chance to set a full-length test paper, let alonein the academic context such as discourse analysis. One studentsaid that:

‘‘While I took a course called Curriculum and Assessment inYear 2, the tutor did not teach me how to set an authentic testpaper like the one in this course.’’ (Interview data, Student 14)

Another student remarked that:

‘‘Through setting mock test papers in this course, I gain moreinsights into how to generate a useful test which conforms tothe assessment principles including validity, reliability andpracticality.’’ (Interview data, Student 11)

Student positive attitudes towards SGT implied that they wereappreciative of the training workshop in which they learnt aboutrelevant assessment theories and had sufficient practice in settingthe test paper in the course.

As revealed in the reflective journal data, some students notedthat they became more assessment literate in terms of theories andpractices, as they had explicitly learnt about the theoreticalrationale of constructing a variety of assessment items includingmultiple-choice questions, matching, true or false and short essayquestions. One student reported that:

‘‘Without the experience of setting my own test paper, I wouldhave never known that there are so many philosophies behindhow a good assessment item is constructed.’’ (Journal entry,Student 5)


Another student added that:

‘‘Assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning, so thatteacher learning of assessment was particularly crucial to theirprofessional development especially when language teachersare typically assumed to assess their students both formativelyand summatively.’’ (Journal entry, Student 13)

Data from classroom observations showed that each hostinggroup did very well in clarifying the suggested answers for othercoursemates, and thus gave formative feedback when some haddifficulties in completing certain items in the test paper. Onestudent told the author, when she finished her turn to host SGT,stated:

‘‘I really benefit a lot from giving feedback to my fellowcoursemates especially when they have queries about thechallenging items. By doing so, I can better enhance myprofessionalism as a pre-service English teacher.’’ (Interviewdata, Student 8)

From the above, it is exciting to note that SGT can promotelanguage teacher professionalism apart from enhancing concep-tual knowledge of specific discourse theories. To outline thediscussion of the above themes, an overview of student evaluationof SGT concerning its benefits and possible challenges is describedin Table 3.




G Model


Discussion

To summarize the previous section, five emerging themesaddressing the two research questions were reported includingenhanced motivation for studying midterm test; integration offormative and summative assessment; consolidation of subjectknowledge; exposure to dialogic feedback; and growth ofteaching professionalism. Drawing upon these findings, twokey issues are worthy of discussions which could illuminate thelearning potential of student generation of test materials (i.e.,SGT). The first issue is the development of integrating formativeand summative assessment via SGT, and the second one isstudent active engagement in the feedback process that supportslearning.

While the functions of formative and summative assessmentare frequently interpreted as mutually exclusive, they can indeedplay complementary roles to promote productive learningespecially when formative assessment is strategically usedbefore and/or after summative assessment. As shown from theabove data, SGT, used as a pre-test preparation strategy, couldmotivate students’ learning of subject knowledge and helpinternalize relevant discourse theories for their future teachingespecially within a setting where the primacy of grade andtest performance is predominant. Although this study did notinclude any statistical measurement of learning gains afterSGT, student enhanced motivation and positive dispositionstowards uptake of subject knowledge attest to the initialdevelopment of a positive link between the formative assessmenttask (i.e., SGT) and its summative counterpart (i.e., the midtermtest). Bennett (2009, p. 5) suggests that it is counterproductiveto emphasize the dichotomous roles of formative and summa-tive assessment, since assessment tasks designed primarily toserve a summative purpose may also function formatively andvice versa.

In their work, Taras (2005) and Kennedy, Chan, Fok, and Yu(2008) contend that valorizing formative assessment oversummative assessment is unhelpful, given that frontline teachersare usually reluctant to separate the two owing to extra workloadand limited professional knowledge that supports the implemen-tation of formative assessment alone. Therefore, there is apractical need to integrate formative and summative assessmentby promoting the use of SGT or other pre-test preparation taskswherein students can make use of the formative feedback toimprove learning via summative assessment (Black et al., 2003;Carless, 2011; Harlen, 2005). The proposed integration offormative and summative assessment in the course furtherimplies that the programme administrator may consider revisit-ing the course assessment practices, since parts of the findingsshowed that students were discontented with selected-responseitems including fill-in-the-blanks, matching, multiple-choicequestions which only promoted lower order thinking skills, e.g.,factual recall.

The other issue arising from the data set is the usefulness offeedback process from dialogic perspectives. In studies of feedbackprocesses, there have been debates about the pros and cons ofdifferent feedback types, modes of delivery (written versusspoken) and manners of how students act upon tutor feedback(Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 2005; Taras,2001). Despite its potential benefits to learning improvement,feedback, especially from behaviourist (i.e., feedback as a reinfor-cing stimulus to behaviours) and cognitivist (i.e., the correctiveview of feedback as a ‘‘gift’’) perspectives, has still been consideredone-way communication mainly from university tutors to theirstudents near the end of an academic course (Askew & Lodge,2000; Price et al., 2010). Scholars have argued that if feedback hasto be effective for supporting student learning, a dialogic feedback


approach should be adopted in order that university-level studentsare encouraged to take an active part in negotiating and clarifyingwith peers and tutors concerning different interpretations offeedback (Carless, 2006; Nicol, 2010; Wiliam, 2011; Yang & Carless,2012). A case in point is that students from this study consideredSGT as a peer teaching process which provided them with adequatefeedback opportunities to promote interactive peer learning andto consolidate the mastery of subject knowledge throughoutthe course.

As shown in the findings, students preferred tutor feedbackthat could support them to think critically about their weaknessesand guide them to improve the self-generated test papers andanswers constructively (e.g., giving suggestions and makingclarifications). These two types of feedback are likely to requireprofessional exchanges between tutors and students and they areinteractive by nature. This finding also shows that the use ofdialogic feedback has a stronger likelihood to make uptake ofdiscourse theories more effectively. An implication here is thatSGT builds upon dynamic interactions from students, peers andtutors as instructional resources to generate dialogic feedbackthat promotes students’ active engagement with criteria andstandards to improve learning, and helps them become activeagents in the construction of subject knowledge (Havnes et al.,2012). Additionally, this kind of dialogic feedback can providestudents with instructional guidance concerning how to avoidmisinterpretations of certain discourse concepts before thesummative assessment.

Conclusion

In this paper, the author has reported a case study in whichstudent generation of test materials as a formative strategy wasexperimented in the HE setting. The study enriches our under-standing of how formative and summative assessment can beutilized simultaneously to facilitate learning through studentconstruction of test papers to prepare for the midterm test, andhow dialogic feedback processes could facilitate uptake of subjectknowledge as well as promote active engagement in theassessment process. The findings of the study further reveal apotential integration of seemingly competing functions of forma-tive and summative assessment within a larger examination-oriented culture, and how the role of learners’ agency mayinfluence teaching and learning in a setting where students areusually reactive in the assessment process.

Although the study draws upon a small sample of HEstudents, its aim is to illustrate how SGT can support studentlearning in a context of dialogic feedback processes rather thanto claim wider generalization. Having said that, the findings maystill be useful if tutors want to try out SGT in their teachingcontexts where the examination-driven culture is also predomi-nant. Compared with other implementations of the strategy, SGTin this study was distinctive by resolving the tension betweenthe summative and formative functions of assessment andfostering students’ self-regulatory learning capacities throughuse of multiple feedback sources. This uniqueness makes asignificant contribution to literature on assessment and feedbackin HE. One possible research agenda may involve tutors inconducting longitudinal action research projects on how thetest-paper construction activity could have been piloted andrenewed to enhance maximum learning gains of the subjectknowledge. The other avenue is to examine in what ways thisformative strategy could promulgate pre-service teachers’assessment knowledge and skills as reported in the last themefrom the findings, since mastery of assessment theories andpractices is part and parcel of sustainable professional develop-ment for language teachers.



Appendix A. First draft of student-generated test paper with tutor written feedback


G Model


Please cite this article in press as: R. Lam. Can student-generated test materials support learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation

(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.02.003



G Model






G Model





Appendix B. Revised draft of student-generated test paper


G Model






G Model






G Model


References

Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops – Linking feedback andlearning. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.

Baerheim, A., & Meland, E. (2003). Medical students proposing questions for their ownwritten final examination: Evaluation of an educational project. Medical Education,37, 734–738.

Bennett, R. E. (2009). A critical look at the meaning and basis of formative assessment (ETSRM-09-06). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Berry, J. W., & Chew, S. L. (2008). Improving learning through intervention of student-generated questions and concept maps. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 305–312.

Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A role for summative assessment?Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 103–110.

Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or foe? London, England: Falmer.Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning:

Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics

and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. Curriculum Journal, 16,249–261.

Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N.Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longerterm (pp. 14–28). London: Routledge.

Brookhart, S. (2010). Mixing it up: Combining sources of classroom achievementinformation for formative and summative purposes. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek(Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 279–296). New York: Routledge.

Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in HigherEducation, 31, 219–233.

Carless, D. (2007). Conceptualizing pre-emptive formative assessment. Assessment inEducation: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14, 171–184.

Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formativeassessment in Confucian-Heritage Settings. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedbackpractices. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 395–407.

Chen, Y. M. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinalcase study. Language Teaching Research, 12, 235–262.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quan-titative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Foos, P., Mora, J., & Tkacz, S. (1994). Student study techniques and the generation effect.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 567–576.

Foote, C. J. (1998). Student-generated higher order questioning as a study strategy.Journal of Educational Research, 92, 107–113.

Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning –Tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16, 207–223.

Harlen, W. (2006). On the relationship between assessment for formative and sum-mative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 61–80). London:Sage.

Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationshipsbetween formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles,Policy & Practice, 4, 365–379.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,77, 81–112.

Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment andfeedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 21–27.

Hawe, E. M., & Dixon, H. R. (2014). Building students’ evaluative and productiveexpertise in the writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 19, 66–79.

Kemper, D. (2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entireuniversity. Higher Education, 58, 1–13.


Kennedy, K. J., Chan, J. K. S., Fok, P. K., & Yu, W. M. (2008). Forms of assessment and theirpotential for enhancing learning: Conceptual and cultural issues. EducationalResearch for Policy & Practice, 7, 197–207.

Lam, R. (2013). Formative use of summative tests: Using test preparation to promoteperformance and self-regulation. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 69–78.

Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment.Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in thefirst year using learning technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Educa-tion, 34, 335–352.

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes inmass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 501–517.

Nicol, D., & Macfarlene-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulatedlearning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in HigherEducation, 31, 199–218.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2005). Biology students’ utilization of tutors’formative feedback: A qualitative interview study. Assessment and Evaluation inHigher Education, 30, 369–386.

Papinczak, T., Babri, A. S., Peterson, R., Kippers, V., & Wilkinson, D. (2011). Studentsgenerating questions for their own written examinations. Advances in HealthSciences Education, 16, 703–710.

Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort,but what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 277–289.

Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-buildingand knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review ofEducational Research, 77, 534–574.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The use and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge.Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative

assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessmentand Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 605–614.

Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessmentand Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 549–565.

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – Summative and formative – Some theoretical reflec-tions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 466–478.

Taras, M. (2006). Do unto others or not: Equity in feedback for undergraduates.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 365–376.

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning

and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.White, E. M. (2007). Assigning, responding, evaluating: A writing teacher’s guide (4th ed.).

Boston/New York: Bedford/St Martin’s.Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation,

37, 3–14.Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it

take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teachingand learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2012). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogicfeedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154.

Ricky Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Studies at HongKong Baptist University. His publications have appeared in ELT Journal, AssessingWriting, TESL Canada Journal, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, and TheAsia-Pacific Education Researcher. His research interests are assessment for learning,portfolio assessment, and second language writing assessment.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-491X(14)00008-X/sbref0010











































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154


Date post:	30-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ricky
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Can student-generated test materials support learning?

Documents