Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:09:31.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Contexts and Sources of Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2018

Edited by
Anastasiya A. Lipnevich  and
Jeffrey K. Smith
Anastasiya A. Lipnevich
Affiliation:
Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York
Jeffrey K. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback , pp. 333 - 516
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater® V. 2. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(3).Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69–93.Google Scholar
Barry, S. (2012). A video recording and viewing protocol for student group presentations: Assisting self-assessment through a Wiki environment. Computers & Education, 59(3), 855–860.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, 92(1), 81–90.Google Scholar
Burrows, S., & Shortis, M. (2011). An evaluation of semi-automated, collaborative marking and feedback systems: Academic staff perspectives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1135–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Lu, C., Chodorow, M., Braden-Harder, L., & Harris, M. D. (1998, August). Automated scoring using a hybrid feature identification technique. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1 (pp. 206–210). Montreal: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cann, A. (2014). Engaging students with audio feedback. Bioscience Education, 22(1), 31–41.Google Scholar
Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). The utility of article and preposition error correction systems for English language learners: Feedback and assessment. Language Testing, 27(3), 419–436.Google Scholar
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coll, C., Rochera, M. J., de Gispert, I., & Barriga, F. D. (2013). Distribution of feedback among teacher and students in online collaborative learning in small groups. Digital Education Review, 23, 27–45.Google Scholar
Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., … & Park, J. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education, 58(1), 386–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deneen, C. C., Brown, G. T. L., & Carless, D. (2017). Students’ conceptions of eportfolios as assessment and technology. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–10. Online prepublication, retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1281752.Google Scholar
Deneen, C. C., & Shroff, R. (2014). Understanding successes and difficulties in program-level eportfolios: A case study of two professional degree programs. Review of Higher Education and Self-Learning, 7(24), 145–160.Google Scholar
Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 5(1).Google Scholar
Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1).Google Scholar
Gomez, S., Andersson, H., Park, J., Maw, S., Crook, A., & Orsmond, P. (2013). A digital ecosystems model of assessment feedback on student learning. Higher Education Studies, 3(2), 41–51.Google Scholar
Harrison, C. J., Könings, K. D., Molyneux, A., Schuwirth, L. W., Wass, V., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2013). Web‐based feedback after summative assessment: How do students engage? Medical Education, 47(7), 734–744.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.Google Scholar
Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2014). Technology enhanced feedback on assessment. In Australian Computers in Education Conference, Adelaide, SA, September 30–October 3, 2014 (pp. 1–11). Retrieved from http://acec2014.acce.edu.au/session/technology- enhanced- feedback-assessment.Google Scholar
Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
Hennessy, C., & Forrester, G. (2014). Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 777–789.Google Scholar
Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117–127.Google Scholar
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.Google Scholar
Huang, H. T. D., & Hung, S. T. A. (2013). Exploring the utility of a video‐based online EFL discussion forum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E90–E94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, B., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2013). Engaging students with feedback through adaptive release. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(1), 51–61.Google Scholar
Jackson, M., & Marks, L. (2016). Improving the effectiveness of feedback by use of assessed reflections and withholding of grades. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 532–547.Google Scholar
Jordan, S. (2012). Student engagement with assessment and feedback: Some lessons from short-answer free-text e-assessment questions. Computers & Education, 58(2), 818–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, S. (2013). E-assessment: Past, present and future. New Directions, 9(1), 87–106.Google Scholar
Jordan, S., & Mitchell, T. (2009). e‐Assessment for learning? The potential of short answer free text questions with tailored feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 371–385.Google Scholar
Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149–159.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2008). Response to assessment feedback: The effects of grades, praise, and source of information. ETS Research Report Series, 2008(1).Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4), 319.Google Scholar
Marriott, P., & Teoh, L. K. (2012). Using screencasts to enhance assessment feedback: Students’ perceptions and preferences. Accounting Education, 21(6), 583–598.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2015). Evaluating written, audio and video feedback in higher education summative assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 153–169.Google Scholar
Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers & Education, 71, 56–76.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. (2007). E-assessment by design: Using multiple‐choice tests to good effect. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(1), 53–64.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. J., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment in terms of the seven principles of good feedback practice. In Bryan, C. and Clegg, K. (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 64–77). London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Nino, M., & Evans, M. A. (2015). Fostering 21st-century skills in constructivist engineering classrooms with digital game-based learning. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 10(3), 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, H. J., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., & Thorpe, L. (2012). A role for technology in enhancing students’ engagement with feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8), 963–973.Google Scholar
Phillips, M., Henderson, M., & Ryan, T. (2016). Multimodal feedback is not always clearer, more useful or satisfying. In Barker, S., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., & Colvin, C. (Eds.), Show me the learning: Proceedings ASCILITE 2016 Adelaide (pp. 512–522).Google Scholar
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Shermis, M. D., Burstein, J., & Bursky, S. A. (2013). Introduction to automated essay evaluation. In Shermis, M. D., Burstein, J., & Bursky, S. A. (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 1–15). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shroff, R. H., & Deneen, C. C. (2011). Assessing online textual feedback to support student intrinsic motivation using a collaborative text-based dialogue system: A qualitative study. International Journal on E-Learning, 10(1), 87–104.Google Scholar
Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive e-learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 105–114.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer Games and Instruction, 55(2), 503–524.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J., & Ke, F. (2012). Games, learning, and assessment. In Assessment in game-based learning (pp. 43–58). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Timmers, C. F., Braber-Van Den Broek, J., & Van Den Berg, S. M. (2013). Motivational beliefs, student effort, and feedback behaviour in computer-based formative assessment. Computers & Education, 60(1), 25–31.Google Scholar
Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157–180.Google Scholar
West, J., & Turner, W. (2016). Enhancing the assessment experience: Improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 400–410.Google Scholar
Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434.Google Scholar

References

All, A., Castellar, E. P. N., & Van Looy, J. (2016). Assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning: Best practices. Computers & Education, 92 –93, 90–103.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355–365.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1974). A propositional theory of recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 2(3), 406–412.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., Corbett, A. T., & Lewis, M. W. (1990). Cognitive modeling and intelligent tutoring. Artificial intelligence, 42(1), 7–49.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.  Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.Google Scholar
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Adaptive content and process scaffolding: A key to facilitating students’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Psychological Testing and Assessment Modeling, 53(1), 106–140.Google Scholar
Baker, R. S., Clarke-Midura, J., & Ocumpaugh, J. (2016). Towards general models of effective science inquiry in virtual performance assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 267–280.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5.Google Scholar
Buelow, M. T., Okdie, B. M., & Cooper, A. B. (2015). The influence of video games on executive functions in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 228–234.Google Scholar
Chen, C. M., & Wang, H. P. (2011). Using emotion recognition technology to assess the effects of different multimedia materials on learning emotion and performance. Library & Information Science Research, 33(3), 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, A. T., Anderson, J. R., & O’Brien, A. T. (1995). Student modeling in the ACT programming tutor. Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment, 19–41.Google Scholar
Csapó, B., Lörincz, A., & Molnár, G. (2012). Innovative assessment technologies in educational games designed for young students. In Assessment in game-based learning (pp. 235–254). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
De Lisi, R., & Wolford, J. L. (2002). Improving children’s mental rotation accuracy with computer game playing. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(3), 272–282.Google Scholar
de Klerk, S., Veldkamp, B. P., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Psychometric analysis of the performance data of simulation-based assessment: A systematic review and a Bayesian network example. Computers & Education, 85, 23–34.Google Scholar
de Klerk, S., Veldkamp, B. P., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2016). A methodology for applying students’ interactive task performance scores from a multimedia-based performance assessment in Bayesian network. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 264–279.Google Scholar
DeLoache, J. S. (1987). Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science, 238, 1556–1557.Google Scholar
Domagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024–1033.Google Scholar
Fraser, K., Ma, I., Teteris, E., Baxter, H., Wright, B., & McLaughlin, K. (2012). Emotion, cognitive load and learning outcomes during simulation training. Medical Education, 46(11), 1055–1062.Google Scholar
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1055.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Looking where the light is bad: Video games and the future of assessment. Phi Delta Kappa International EDge, 6(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
Hao, J., Smith, L., Mislevy, R., von Davier, A., & Bauer, M. (2016). Taming log files from game/simulation‐based assessments: Data models and data analysis tools. Research Report ETS RR-16-10. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ets2.12096/epdf.Google Scholar
Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., Raffaele, C., Ober, T. M., & Ali, A. (2018). Improving high school students’ executive functions through digital game play. Computers & Education, 117, 50–58.Google Scholar
Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 245–270.Google Scholar
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004, July). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–5). San Jose, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem‐based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394–404.Google Scholar
Kim, B. (2015). Game mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics. Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 17.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. J., & Shute, V. J. (2015). The interplay of game elements with psychometric qualities, learning, and enjoyment in game-based assessment. Computers & Education, 87, 340–356.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. In Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Kyle, F., Kujala, J., Richardson, U., Lyytinen, H., & Goswami, U. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of two theoretically motivated computer‐assisted reading interventions in the United Kingdom: GG Rime and GG Phoneme. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
Leighton, J. P., & Chu, M. W. (2016). First among equals: Hybridization of cognitive diagnostic assessment and evidence-centered game design. International Journal of Testing, 16(2), 164–180.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2015). On the need for research evidence to guide the design of computer games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 349–353.Google Scholar
McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual: Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
Meyer, B., & Sørensen, B. H. (2009). Designing serious games for computer assisted language learning: A framework for development and analysis. In Kankaanranta, M. & Neittaanmäki, P. (Eds.), Design and use of serious games (pp. 69–82). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., Behrens, J. T., Dicerbo, K. E., Frezzo, D. C., & West, P. (2012). Three things game designers need to know about assessment. In Assessment in game-based learning (pp. 59–81). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence‐centered design for educational testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., Orange, A., Bauer, M. I., von Davier, A., Hao, J., Corrigan, S., … & John, M. (2014). Psychometric considerations in game-based assessment. White paper. Retrieved from www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/white_paper/2014/jrrx.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 477–496.Google Scholar
Novak, E., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Assessment of student’s emotions in game-based learning. In Assessment in game-based learning (pp. 379–399). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Parong, J., Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., MacNamara, A., Homer, B. D., & Plass, J. L. (2017). Learning executive function skills by playing focused video games. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 141–151.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50, 258–283.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C. K., Chang, Y. K., Frye, J., Kaczetow, W., … & Perlin, K. (2013). Metrics in simulations and games for learning. In Seif El-Nasr, M., Drachen, A., & Canossa, A. (Eds.), Game analytics (pp. 697–729). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C. K., Frye, J., & Perlin, K. (2011). Learning mechanics and assessment mechanics for games for learning. G4LI White Paper, 1.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., & Kaplan, U. (2016). Emotional design in digital media for learning. In Emotions, technology, design, and learning (pp. 131–161).Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., O’Keefe, P. A., Homer, B. D., Case, J., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (2013). The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play on learning, performance, and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1050–1066.Google Scholar
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1–48.Google Scholar
Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardization of progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19(1), 137–150.Google Scholar
Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Reese, D. D., Seward, R. J., Tabachnick, B. G., Hitt, B. A., Harrison, A., & Mcfarland, L. (2012). Timed report measures learning: Game-based embedded assessment. In Assessment in game-based learning (pp. 145–172). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rizzo, A. A., Buckwalter, J. G., Bowerly, T., Van Der Zaag, C., Humphrey, L., Neumann, U., … & Sisemore, D. (2000). The virtual classroom: A virtual reality environment for the assessment and rehabilitation of attention deficits. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(3), 483–499.Google Scholar
Servan-Schreiber, E. (1991). The competitive chunking theory: Models of perception, learning, and memory. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
Shute, V., & Sun, C. (in press). Game-based assessment: What it is and does it work? In Plass, J., Mayer, R., & Homer, B. D. (Eds.), Handbook of game-based learning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shute, V., & Ventura, M. (2013). Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in video games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer Games and Instruction, 55(2), 503–524.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J., Moore, G. R., & Wang, L. (2015). Measuring problem solving skills in Plants vs. Zombies 2. International Educational Data Mining Society: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 428–431). Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Ke, F. (2015). The power of play: The effects of Portal 2 and Lumosity on cognitive and noncognitive skills. Computers & Education, 80, 58–67.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Assessment and learning of qualitative physics in Newton’s Playground.  Journal of Educational Research, 106(6), 423–430.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J., Wang, L., Greiff, S., Zhao, W., & Moore, G. (2016). Measuring problem solving skills via stealth assessment in an engaging video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 106–117.Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2000). Computer-based assessment: A versatile educational tool. Computers & Education, 34(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. J., Revkin, S. K., Cohen, D., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2006). An open trial assessment of “The Number Race,” an adaptive computer game for remediation of dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2(1), 20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wüstenberg, S., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). Complex problem solving more than reasoning? Intelligence, 40, 1–14.Google Scholar

References

Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., & Pilli, O. (2015). Assessment in massive open online courses. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13, 207–216.Google Scholar
Alaoutinen, S. (2012). Evaluating the effect of learning style and student background on self-assessment accuracy. Computer Science Education, 22, 175–198.Google Scholar
Al-Rawahi, N. M., & Al-Balushi, S. M. (2015). The effect of reflective science journal writing on students’ self-regulated learning strategies. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10, 367–379.Google Scholar
Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In Andrade, H. & Cizek, G. (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andrade, H. (2013). Classroom assessment in the context of learning theory and research. In McMillan, J. H. (Ed.), Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 17–34). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., & Boulay, B. (2003). The role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 21–34.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. M. (2016). The role of classroom assessment in supporting self-regulated learning (pp. 293–309). In Laveault, D. & Allal, L. (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Andrade, H. L., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Student self-assessment in the classroom. In Brown, G. T. L. & Harris, L. R. (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 319–334). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 159–181.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assessment in Education, 17, 199–214.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 27(2), 3–13.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 12–19.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 287–302.Google Scholar
Baars, M., Vink, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33, 92–107.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Barney, S., Khurum, M., Petersen, K., Unterkalmsteiner, M., & Jabangwe, R. (2012). Improving students with rubric-based self-assessment and oral feedback. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55, 319–325.Google Scholar
Baxter, P., & Norman, G. (2011). Self-assessment or self deception? A lack of association between nursing students’ self-assessment and performance. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 2406–2413.Google Scholar
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 18, 5–25.Google Scholar
Birjandi, P., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–144, 146–148.Google Scholar
Blanch-Hartigan, D. (2011). Medical students’ self-assessment of performance: Results from three meta-analyses. Patient Education and Counseling, 84, 3–9.Google Scholar
Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., Walck, C. C., & Nunnery, J. A. (2012). The effects of individual or group guidelines on the calibration accuracy and achievement of high school biology students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 280–287.Google Scholar
Boud, D. (1995a). Implementing student self-assessment (2nd edn.). Australian Capital Territory: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.Google Scholar
Boud, D. (1995b). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Boud, D. (1999). Avoiding the traps: Seeking good practice in the use of self-assessment and reflection in professional courses. Social Work Education, 18, 121–132.Google Scholar
Boud, D., & Brew, A. (1995). Developing a typology for learner self-assessment practices. Research and Development in Higher Education, 18, 130–135.Google Scholar
Bourke, R. (2014). Self-assessment in professional programmes within tertiary institutions. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 908–918.Google Scholar
Bourke, R. (2016). Liberating the learner through self-assessment. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46, 97–111.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Andrade, H., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: Directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education, 22(4), 444–457.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In McMillan, J. H. (Ed.), Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom practice: Reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontline Learning Research, 3, 22–30.Google Scholar
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.Google Scholar
Chang, C.-C., Liang, C., & Chen, Y.-H. (2013). Is learner self-assessment reliable and valid in a web-based portfolio environment for high school students? Computers & Education, 60, 325–334.Google Scholar
Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., & Lou, S.-J. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58, 303–320.Google Scholar
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.Google Scholar
de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom, Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 245–252.Google Scholar
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13, 129–142.Google Scholar
Draper, S. W. (2009). What are learners actually regulating when given feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 306–315.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. M., Siegel, D. J., & Silberman, J. (2008). Self-monitoring in clinical practice: A challenge for medical educators. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 5–13.Google Scholar
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2008). “I’ll never play professional football” and other fallacies of self-assessment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 14–19.Google Scholar
Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
Fastre, G. M. J., van der Klink, M. R., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2012). Drawing students’ attention to relevant assessment criteria: Effects on self-assessment skills and performance. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 64, 185–198.Google Scholar
Fastre, G. M. J., van der Klink, M. R., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2010). The effects of performance-based assessment criteria on student performance and self-assessment skills. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 517–532.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, B., & Schulz, H. (2016, April). Teaching young students to self-assess critically. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Franken, A. S. (1992). I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me! Daily affirmations by Stuart Smalley. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’ composition skills: Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297–310.Google Scholar
Gonida, E. N., & Leondari, A. (2011). Patterns of motivation among adolescents with biased and accurate self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 209–220.Google Scholar
Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.Google Scholar
Harding, J. L., & Hbaci, I. (2015). Evaluating pre-service teachers’ math teaching experience from different perspectives. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(6), 382–389.Google Scholar
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101–111.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.Google Scholar
Hawe, E., & Parr, J. (2014). Assessment for learning in the writing classroom: An incomplete realization. Curriculum Journal, 25, 210–237.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S. C., Osborne, A., Schofield, S. J., Pournaras, D. J., & Chester, J. F. (2012). Improving the accuracy of self-assessment of practical clinical skills using video feedback: The importance of including benchmarks. Medical Teacher, 34, 279–284.Google Scholar
Huang, Y., & Gui, M. (2015). Articulating teachers’ expectations afore: Impact of rubrics on Chinese EFL learners’ self-assessment and speaking ability. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(3), 126–132.Google Scholar
Kaderavek, J. N., Gillam, R. B., Ukrainetz, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Eisenberg, S. N. (2004). School-age children’s self-assessment of oral narrative production. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26, 37–48.Google Scholar
Karnilowicz, W. (2012). A comparison of self-assessment and tutor assessment of undergraduate psychology students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40, 591–604.Google Scholar
Kingston, N. M., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.Google Scholar
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Enhancing self-regulation of practice: The influence of graphing and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 201–212.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.Google Scholar
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.Google Scholar
Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2012). Students’ performance calibration in a basketball dribbling task in elementary physical education. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 507–517.Google Scholar
Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22, 296–298.Google Scholar
Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 121–132.Google Scholar
Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards Metacognition and Learning, 5, 173–194.Google Scholar
Leach, L. (2012). Optional self-assessment: Some tensions and dilemmas. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 137–147.Google Scholar
Lew, M. D. N., Alwis, W. A. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment and their beliefs about its utility. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 135–156.Google Scholar
Lin-Siegler, X., Shaenfield, D., & Elder, A. D. (2015). Contrasting case instruction can improve self-assessment of writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 517–537.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student response to feedback. In Brown, G. T. L. & Harris, L. R. (Eds.), The handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169–185). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lopez, R., & Kossack, S. (2007). Effects of recurring use of self-assessment in university courses. International Journal of Learning, 14, 203–216.Google Scholar
Lopez-Pastor, V. M., Fernandez-Balboa, J.-M., Santos Pastor, M. L., & Aranda, A. F. (2012). Students’ self-grading, professor’s grading and negotiated final grading at three university programmes: Analysis of reliability and grade difference ranges and tendencies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 453–464.Google Scholar
Lui, A. (2017). Validity of the Responses to Feedback Survey: Operationalizing and measuring students’ cognitive and affective responses to teachers’ feedback. Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York.Google Scholar
Memis, E. K., & Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH approach and self-evaluation on sixth grade students’ learning and retention of an electricity unit. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 32–49.Google Scholar
Meusen-Beekman, K. D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). Effects of formative assessments to develop self-regulation among sixth grade students: Results from a randomized controlled intervention. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 126–136.Google Scholar
Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011). Training metacognition in the classroom: The influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 303–314.Google Scholar
Murakami, C., Valvona, C., & Broudy, D. (2012). Turning apathy into activeness in oral communication classes: Regular self- and peer-assessment in a TBLT programme. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 40, 407–420.Google Scholar
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. (2014), Self-assessment methods in writing instruction: A conceptual framework, successful practices and essential strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 1–16.Google Scholar
Nowell, C., & Alston, R. M. (2007). I thought I got an A! Overconfidence across the economics curriculum. Journal of Economic Education, 38(2), 131–142.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11, 551–576.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 806–813.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Huertas, J. A. (2014). Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts: Effects on first year university students’ self-regulation and performance. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 3(7), 149–183.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Reche, E. (2013). Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts effect on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy in pre-service teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 125–132.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Brown, G. L., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In Laveault, D. & Allal, L. (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., & Romero, M. (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21, 133–148.Google Scholar
Punhagui, G. C., & de Souza, N. A. (2013). Self-regulation in the learning process: Actions through self-assessment activities with Brazilian students. International Education Studies, 6(10), 47–62.Google Scholar
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998, April). Impact of self-evaluation training on mathematics achievement in a cooperative learning environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Ross, J. A., & Starling, M. (2008). Self‐assessment in a technology‐supported environment: The case of grade 9 geography. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 183–199.Google Scholar
Sargeant, J. (2008). Toward a common understanding of self-assessment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 1–4.Google Scholar
Sargeant, J., Mann, K., van der Vleuten, C., & Metsemakers, J. (2008). “Directed" self-assessment: Practice and feedback within a social context. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 47–54.Google Scholar
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.Google Scholar
Silver, I., Campbell, C., Marlow, B., & Sargeant, J. (2008). Self-assessment and continuing professional development: The Canadian perspective. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 25–31.Google Scholar
Siow, L.-F. (2015). Students’ perceptions on self- and peer-assessment in enhancing learning experience. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 21–35.Google Scholar
Tan, K. (2004). Does student self-assessment empower or discipline students? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 651–662.Google Scholar
Tan, K. (2009). Meanings and practices of power in academics’ conceptions of student self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 361–373.Google Scholar
Taras, M. (2008). Issues of power and equity in two models of self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 81–92.Google Scholar
Tejeiro, R. A., Gomez-Vallecillo, J. L., Romero, A. F., Pelegrina, M., Wallace, A., & Emberley, E. (2012). Summative self-assessment in higher education: Implications of its counting towards the final mark. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10, 789–812.Google Scholar
van Helvoort, A. A. J. (2012). How adult students in information studies use a scoring rubric for the development of their information literacy skills. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38, 165–171.Google Scholar
van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151, 143–154.Google Scholar
Wang, W. (2017). Using rubrics in student self-assessment: Student perceptions in the English as a foreign language writing context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1280–1292.Google Scholar
Wollenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 1–11.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: An introduction and overview. In Zimmerman, B. J & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

References

Alqassab, M. (2016). Peer feedback provision and mathematical proofs: Role of domain knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, epistemic emotions, and peer feedback content. Doctoral thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians University.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7–73.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In McMillan, J. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Chesney, S., & Marcangelo, C. (2010). “There was a lot of learning going on”: Using a digital medium to support learning in a professional course for new HE lecturers. Computers & Education, 54, 701–708.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Cho, M., & Hacker, D. J. (2010). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 101–113.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83–88.Google Scholar
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. A. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing. Written Communication, 23, 260–294.Google Scholar
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331–350.Google Scholar
Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 128–143). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430.Google Scholar
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287–322.Google Scholar
Gan, J. S. M. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality. Doctoral thesis, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Gan, M. J. S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42, 861–878.Google Scholar
Gan, M. J. S., & Hill, M. (2014). Using a dialogical approach to examine peer feedback during chemistry investigative task discussion. Research in Science Education, 44, 727–749.Google Scholar
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 21–38.Google Scholar
Gielen, M. (2016). The impact of structuring peer feedback in a wiki-based CSCL environment on performance and feedback content. Dissertation, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a wiki: Product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 585–594.Google Scholar
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015a). Structuring the peer assessment process: A multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 435–449.Google Scholar
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015b). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015c). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386.Google Scholar
Gielen, S. (2007). Peer assessment as a tool for learning. Doctoral thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137–155.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Decuyper, S. (2007). A complementary role for peer feedback and staff feedback in powerful learning environments. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S. (2011). Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 719–735.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304–315.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). Peer feedback as a substitute for teacher feedback. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In Mayer, R. E. & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.Google Scholar
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 525–536.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student response to feedback. In Brown, G. T. L. & Harris, L. R. (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169–185). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Student attitudes toward networked peer assessment: Case studies of undergraduate students and senior high school students. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 241–254.Google Scholar
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. M. (2016). Global learning partnerships in the café: Peer feedback as a formative assessment tool for animation students. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 1298–1318.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35–44.Google Scholar
Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In Niegemann, H. M., Brünken, R., & Leutner, D. (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop of SIG 6 Instructional Design of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) (pp. 181–195). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In Brown, G. T. L. & Harris, L. R. (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32, 133–156.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In Laveault, D. & Allal, L. (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on construct validity of peer assessment, perceived fairness and comfort, and performance. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 195–203.Google Scholar
Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41, 381–405.Google Scholar
Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43, 591–614.Google Scholar
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T. (2017). The social nature of peer assessment in secondary and higher education: Examining students’ perceptions on interpersonal processes and peer feedback quality in anonymous face-to-face settings using mobile response technology. Doctoral thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Estrada, E., & Schellens, T. (2017). How do students perceive the educational value of peer assessment in relation to its social nature? A survey study in Flanders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 29–40.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Schellens, T., & Raes, A. (2018a). “Now you know what you?re doing right and wrong!” Peer feedback quality in synchronous peer assessment in secondary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(2), 255–275. doi:10.1007/s10212-017-0329-xGoogle Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018b). Peer assessment use, its social nature challenges and perceived educational value: a teachers’ survey study. Accepted for publication in Studies in Educational Evaluation.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018c). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: Its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33, 75–99. doi:10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8Google Scholar
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.Google Scholar
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 443–454.Google Scholar
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 59–78.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., & Müller, A. (2014). Personale faktoren im feedbackprozess. In Ditton, H. & Müller, A. (Eds.), Feedback und rückmeldungen: Theoretische grundlagen, empirische befunde, praktische anwendungsfelder [Feedback and evaluation: Theoretical foundations, empirical findings, practical implementation] (pp. 87–134). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20, 291–303.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., Ochoa, T. A., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Fostering interactivity through formative peer assessment in (web-based) collaborative learning environments. In Mourlas, C., Tsianos, N., & Germanakos, P. (Eds.), Cognitive and emotional processes in web-based education: Integrating human factors and personalization (pp. 375–395). Hersey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265–269.Google Scholar
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.Google Scholar
van Gennip, N. (2012). Assessing together: Peer assessment from an interpersonal perspective. Doctoral thesis, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4, 41–54.Google Scholar
van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 280–290.Google Scholar
van Zundert, M. (2012). Conditions of peer assessment for complex learning. Doctoral thesis, Maastrich University.Google Scholar
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Könings, K. D., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). The differential effects of task complexity on domain-specific and peer assessment skills. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 32, 127–145.Google Scholar
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 270–279.Google Scholar
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14.Google Scholar
Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). A cyclical self-assessment process: Towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16.Google Scholar

References

Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd edn.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–144.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment (UCLA-CSIEP), 1(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1971a). Individual differences in school achievement: A vanishing point? Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan International.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1971b). Mastery learning. In Block, J. H. (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1977). Favorable learning conditions for all. Teacher, 95(3), 22–28.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1978). New views of the learner for instruction and curriculum. Educational Leadership, 35, 563–576.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1981). All our children learning: A primer for parents, teachers, and other educators. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1981). Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Duffy, G. G., & Kear, K. (2007). Compliance or adaptation: What is the real message about research-based practices? Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 579–581.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Given, B. K. (2000). Learning styles (rev. edn.). Oceanside, CA: Learning Forum Publications.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (1997). Implementing mastery learning (2nd edn.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (1998). Making time to train your staff. School Administrator, 55(7), 35–37.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (2001). Mastery learning. In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 9372–9377). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6–11.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (2007a). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, research, and practice. In McMillan, J. H. (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 63–78). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (2007b). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 8–31.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (2008). The rest of the story. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 28–35.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (Ed.) (2012). Benjamin S. Bloom: Portraits of an Educator (2nd edn.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R., & DeWitt, P. (2017, June 1). Why do we recycle and sometimes misuse educational words? Education Week Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2017/06/educational_words_wh_they_are_recycled_and_sometimes_misused.html.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R., & McTighe, J. (2016). Pre-assessment: Promises and cautions. Educational Leadership, 73(7), 38–43.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.Google Scholar
Hockett, J. A., & Doubet, K. J. (2014). Turning on the lights: What pre-assessments can do. Educational Leadership, 71(4), 50–54.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. K., & Sekayi, D. (2016, Winter). Teacher perceptions of response to intervention implementation in light of IDEA goals. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 66–86.Google Scholar
Kastner, J., & Gottlieb, J. (1991). Classification of children in special education: Importance of pre-assessment information. Psychology in the Schools, 28, 19–27.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 2: The affective domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
Lawrence, G. D. (1997). Looking at type and learning styles. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.Google Scholar
Lazarowitz, R., & Lieb, C. (2006). Formative assessment pre-test to identify college students’ prior knowledge, misconceptions and learning difficulties in biology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 741–762.Google Scholar
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18–24.Google Scholar
Leyton, F. S. (1983). The extent to which group instruction supplemented by mastery of initial cognitive prerequisites approximates the learning effectiveness of one-to-one tutorial methods. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Marzano, R. J. (2017). The new art and science of teaching. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
Mattern, K., Sanchez, E., & Ndum, E. (2017). Why do achievement measures underpredict female academic performance? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36, 47–57.Google Scholar
Morrison, H. C. (1926). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Myles, B. S., Ormsbee, C. K., & Simpson, R. L. (1997). Reflections on “General and special educators’ perceptions of preassessment-related activities and team members.” Exceptionality, 7, 193–197.Google Scholar
Pendergrass, E. (2013). Differentiation: It starts with pre-assessment. Educational Leadership, 71(4).Google Scholar
Scriven, M. S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Tyler, R. W., Gagne, R. M., & Scriven, M. (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Simpson, E. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., & DeLisi, R. (2001). Natural classroom assessment: Designing seamless instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36–40.Google Scholar
Stiggins, R. (2008). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning (5th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Wagner, E. P., Sasser, H., & DiBiase, W. J. (2002). Predicting students at risk in general chemistry using pre-semester assessments and demographic information. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 749–755.Google Scholar
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In Gabel, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Washburne, C. W. (1922). Educational measurements as a key to individualizing instruction and promotions. Journal of Educational Research, 5, 195–206.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd edn.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

References

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 70–74.Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.Google Scholar
Brookhart, S. M., (2008). How to give to effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T., Harris, L. R., & Harnett, J. (2012). Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 968–978.Google Scholar
Chan, P. E., Konrad, M., Gonzalez, V., Peters, M. T., & Ressa, V. A. (2014). The critical role of feedback in formative instructional practices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 96–104.Google Scholar
Clarke, S. (2003). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical strategies for enhancing pupils’ learning in the primary classroom. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Davies, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2003). Assessment for learning: Reconsidering portfolios and research evidence. In Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 141–169). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46, 73–90.Google Scholar
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011a). National Curriculum Statement (NCS): Curriculum and Policy Statement – Foundation Phase 6. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Basic Education.Google Scholar
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011b). National Protocol for Assessment Grades R-12. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Education.Google Scholar
Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Education Endowment Foundation (2016). Technical Appendix: Feedback. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Toolkit/Technical_Appendix/EEF_Feedback_Technical_Appendix.pdf.Google Scholar
Elliott, V., Baird, J. A., Hopfenbeck, T. N., Ingram, J., Thompson, I., Usher, N., & Coleman, R. (2016). A marked improvement? A review of the evidence on written marking. London: Education Endowment Foundation.Google Scholar
Engelsen, K., & Smith, K. (2010). Is “excellent” good enough? Education Inquiry, 1(4), 415–431.Google Scholar
Eriksson, E., Björklund Boistrup, L., & Thornberg, R. (2017). A categorisation of teacher feedback in the classroom: A field study on feedback based on routine classroom assessment in primary school. Research Papers in Education, 32, 316–332.Google Scholar
Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 517–530.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, E., McCallum, B., & Gipps, C. (2000). Teacher feedback strategies in primary classrooms: New evidence. In Askow, S. (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 21–31). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.Google Scholar
Hoadley, U. (2012). What do we know about teaching and learning in South African primary schools? Education as Change, 16, 187–202.Google Scholar
Irving, S. E., Harris, L. R., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). “One assessment doesn’t serve all the purposes” or does it? New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 413–426.Google Scholar
Kanjee, A., & Croft, C. (2012, April). Enhancing the use of assessment for learning: Addressing challenges facing South African teachers. Paper presented at the annual American Educational Research Conference, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Kanjee, A., & Mthembu, J. (2015). Assessment literacy of Foundation Phase teachers: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 5, 142–168.Google Scholar
Kanjee, A., & Sayed, Y. (2013). Assessment policy in post-apartheid South Africa: Challenges for improving education quality and learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 442–469.Google Scholar
Kanjee, A., & White, C. J. (2014). Evaluation of a national professional development programme to improve teacher formative assessment practices. Unpublished report, Department of Educational Studies, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2008). Response to assessment feedback: The effects of grades, praise, and source of information. Report No. 08-30. Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 319–333.Google Scholar
McDonald, L., Flint, A., Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Watson, P., & Garrett, L. (2016). Teaching high-expectation strategies to teachers through an intervention process. Professional Development in Education, 42, 290–307.Google Scholar
Mkhwanazi, H. N. (2013). Teachers’ use of formative assessment in the teaching of reading comprehension in grade 3. PhD thesis, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
Mkhwanazi, H. N., Joubert, I., Phatudi, N. C., & Fraser, W. J. (2014). Teachers’ use of formative assessment for the teaching of reading comprehension in Grade 3. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 468–475.Google Scholar
Naroth, C. (2010). Constructive teacher feedback for enhancing learner performance in mathematics. Master’s thesis, University of the Free State.Google Scholar
Rubie-Davies, C. (2014). Becoming a high expectation teacher: Raising the bar. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rubie‐Davies, C. M., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. G. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 270–288.Google Scholar
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.Google Scholar
Sadler, R. D. 2010. Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right, using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.Google Scholar
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22, 389–404Google Scholar
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar

References

Ajisaka, T. (1960). Education by Dr. Obara. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, M., & Williams, G. (2011). Consciousness, plasticity, and connectomics: The role of intersubjectivity in human cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(20).Google Scholar
Arimoto, M. (2017). The prospect of educational assessment as a secret ingredient of effective pedagogy in the context of Japanese kizuki (with-it-ness) based on evidence-informed principles for effective teaching and learning. Annual Bulletin, Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University, 3, 10–35.Google Scholar
Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge School of Education, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., & Blatchford, P. (2009). Improving pupil group work interaction and dialogue in primary classrooms: Results from a year-long intervention study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 95–117.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2008). The reconstruction of “free will” from the agentic perspective of social cognition theory. In Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.), Are we free? Psychology and free will (pp. 86–127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2011). The unselfish gene. Harvard Business Review, 89(7–8), 77–85.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In Gardner, J. (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (pp. 9–25). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Kappan Delta, 92, 81–90.Google Scholar
Bostock, J., & Wood, J. (2014). Supporting student transitions 14–19: Approaches to teaching and learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bromme, R., & Steinbring, H. (1994). Interactive development of subject matter in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 217–248.Google Scholar
Cave, P. (2016). Schooling selves: Autonomy, interdependence and reform in Japanese junior high education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Central Council for Education/Ministry of Education. (1996). Priorities and prospects for a lifelong learning society: Increasing diversification and sophistication; the future of lifelong learning; encouraging zest for living. Tokyo: MEXT. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpae199601/hpae199601_2_042.html.Google Scholar
Cheng, R. W., Lam, S.-F., & Chan, J. C. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 205–221.Google Scholar
Clark, I. (2011). Formative assessment: Policy, perspectives and practice. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 4, 158–180.Google Scholar
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205–249.Google Scholar
Clark, I., & Dumas, G. (2015). Toward a neural basis for peer-interaction: What makes peer-learning tick? Frontiers in Psychology, 6.Google Scholar
Clark, I., & Dumas, G. (2016). The regulation of task performance: A trans-disciplinary review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1862.Google Scholar
Fereshteh, M. H. (1992). The U.S. and Japanese education: Should they be compared? Paper presented at Lehigh University’s Conference on Education and Economics in Technologically Advancing Countries, Bethlehem, PA.Google Scholar
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated meta-cognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 192–223.Google Scholar
Guionnet, S., Nadel, J., Bertasi, E., Sperduti, M., Delaveau, P., & Fossati, P. (2012). Reciprocal imitation: Toward a neural basis of social interaction. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 971–978.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, C., & Hayward, L. (2005). The journey so far: Assessment for learning in Scotland. Curriculum Journal, 16, 225–248.Google Scholar
Inoue, N. (2010). Zen and the art of neriage: Facilitating consensus building in mathematics inquiry lessons through lesson study. Journal of Mathematic Teacher Education, 14, 5–23.Google Scholar
Inoue, N., Asada, A., Maeda, M., & Nakamura, S. (2016, August). Deconstructing adaptive teacher expertise for inquiry-based teaching in Japanese elementary classrooms: Neriage as inter-subjective pedagogy for social mind-storming. Paper presented at the ECER 2016 Leading Education conference, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2013). Full catastrophe living (rev. edn.). New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1784). An answer to the question: “What is enlightenment?” Retrieved from https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/What_is_Enlightenment.pdf.Google Scholar
Kazemi, E., Elliott, R., Hubbard, A., Carroll, C., & Mumme, J. (2007). Doing mathematics in professional development: Theorizing teacher learning with and through socio-mathematical norms. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Stateline (Lake Tahoe), NV: University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
Kitayama, S., Markus, H., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93–124.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, M. (2004). Prospects. UNESCO International Bureau of Education, vol. 34, no. 2, 222–239. Retrieved from www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/obara.pdf.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, T. (1990). Masataro Sawayanagi (1865–1937) and the revised elementary code of 1900. Biography, 13, 43–56.Google Scholar
Kounin, J. (1977). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Huntington, NY: Krieger.Google Scholar
Krill, A. L., & Platek, S. M. (2012). Working together may be better: Activation of reward centers during a cooperative maze task. PLoS ONE, 2, e30613.Google Scholar
Kusanagi, K. (2013). The bureaucratising of lesson study: A Javanese case. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16, 171–200.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lebra, R. S. (1976). Japanese pattern of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Lebra, R. S. (2004). The Japanese self in cultural logic. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press.Google Scholar
Lesson Study Group. (n.d.). Teaching through problem solving: Students do mathematics to learn mathematics. Neriage. Retrieved from http://preservice.lessonresearch.net/polygon-overview/neriage/.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. (1995). Educating heart and minds: Reflections on Japanese pre-school and elementary education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linquisti, R. (2014). Supporting formative assessment for deeper learning: A primer for policymakers. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
Macintyre, L. M., Buck, G., & Beckenhauer, A. (2007). Formative assessment requires artistic vision. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(4), 1–23.Google Scholar
Ministry for Education (MEXT). (n.d. a). Improvement of academic abilities: Courses of study. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/elsec/title02/detail02/1373859.htm.Google Scholar
Ministry for Education (MEXT). (n.d. b). Four basic policy directions. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/lawandplan/title01/detail01/sdetail01/1373808.htm.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edn.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005a). Formative Assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005b). Formative Assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Policy Brief, November 2005. OECD Observer. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/35661078.pdf.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2016). Country note: Japan. Programme for International Student Assessment: Results from PISA 2015. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-Japan.pdf.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.) (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Pryor, J., & Torrance, H. (1996). Teacher–pupil interaction in formative assessment: Assessing the work or protecting the child? Curriculum Journal, 7, 205–226.Google Scholar
Redcay, E., Dodell-Feder, D., Pearrow, M., Mavros, P., Kleiner, M., Gabrieli, J., & Saxe, R. (2010). Live face-to-face interaction during fMRI: A new tool for social cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage, 50, 1639–1647.Google Scholar
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.Google Scholar
Sakaiya, S., Shiraito, Y., Kato, J., Ide, H., Okada, K., Takano, K., & Kansaku, K. (2013). Neural correlate of human reciprocity in social interactions. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 239.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, N. (2011). Professional development through “kizuki”: Cognitive, emotional and collegiate awareness. Teacher Development, 15, 187–203.Google Scholar
Salamone, J., & Correa, M. (2012). The mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine. Neuron, 76, 470–485.Google Scholar
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlict, T., et al. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 393–462.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Scottish Government. (2011). Curriculum for excellence: Building the curriculum 5: A framework for learning and teaching. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/BtC5Framework_tcm4-653230.pdf.Google Scholar
Shimahara, N. K. (1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching as craft. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 451–462.Google Scholar
Shimizu, Y. (1999). Aspects of mathematics teacher education in Japan: Focusing on teacher’s roles. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2, 107–116.Google Scholar
Shinkawa, M., & Arimoto, M. (2012). Research for Japanese-like competency and assessment through challenges of eager schools for sustainability after the great earthquake and tsunami. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 3, 61–69.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134, 52–59.Google Scholar
Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychology, 21, 209–23–3.Google Scholar
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sugita, H. (2012). Excerpts taken from a lecture given to novice Japanese teachers in light of the full implementation of Special Activities (tokkatsu) in the New Japanese Curriculum. Retrieved from www.p.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tsunelab/tokkatsu/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/sugita.pdf.Google Scholar
Takahashi, A. (2008). Neriage: An essential piece of a problem-based lesson. Teaching through problem solving: A Japanese approach. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
Takanashi, Y. (2004). TEFL and communication styles in Japanese culture. Language Culture and Curriculum, 17, 1–14.Google Scholar
Thien, K. (2004) Buddhist general semantics: A new approach to Buddhist religion and its philosophy. New York: iUniverse.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. In Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling, and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 191–212). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tsuneyoshi, R. (2017). Educating the whole child: The Japanese model of educating the whole child. Graduate School of Education, University of Tokyo. Retrieved from www.p.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tsunelab/tokkatsu/edwc/.Google Scholar
Vogel, E. (1979). Japan as number one: Lessons for America. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com.Google Scholar
Vogt, F., & Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1051–1060.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In Rieber, R. W. & Carton, A. S. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, vol. 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (2010). Socio-cultural issues in motivation. In Peterson, P., Baker, E., & McGaw, B. (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (pp. 712–717). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Walshaw, M. (2011). Working with teachers to enable both student and teacher learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 1–4.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiliam, D., Bartholomew, H., & Reay, D. (2004). Assessment, learning and identity. In Valero, P. and Zevenbergen, R. (Eds.), Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power theory and methodology (pp. 43–61). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2007). A theoretical foundation for formative assessment. In McMillan, H. (Ed.), Formative assessment classroom: Theory into practice (pp. 29–42). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (2010). Assessment for learning as a participative pedagogy. Assessment Matters, 2, 65–84.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17, 89–100.Google Scholar
Young, V., & Kim, D. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19), 1–40.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B., & Cleary, T. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency. In Urban, T. and Pajares, F. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45–70). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

References

Altman, K. I., & Linton, T. E. (1971). Operant conditioning in the classroom setting: A review of the research. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 277–286.Google Scholar
Bailey, R., Bihm, E. M., Gillaspy, J. A., Abbott, H. J., Lammers, W. J., & Lammers, W. (2010). More misbehavior of organisms: A Psi Chi lecture by Marian and Robert Bailey. Psychological Record, 60, 505–522.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M., & Byers, J. A. (1998). Animal play. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bentosela, M., Jakovcevic, A., Elgier, A. M., Mustaca, A. E., & Papini, M. R. (2009). Incentive contrast in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123, 125–130.Google Scholar
Chiandetti, C., Avella, S., Fongaro, E., & Cerri, F. (2016). Can clicker training facilitate conditioning in dogs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 184, 109–116.Google Scholar
Davis, C., & Harris, G. (2006). Redefining our relationships with the animals we train: Leadership and posture. Soundings, 31(4), 6–8.Google Scholar
Dubanoski, R. A., Inaba, M., & Gerkewicz, K. (1983). Corporal punishment in schools: Myths, problems and alternatives. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(3), 271–278.Google Scholar
Emer, S., Mora, C., Harvey, M., & Grace, M. (2015). Predators in training: Operant conditioning of novel behavior in wild Burmese pythons (Python molurus bivitattus). Animal Cognition, 18, 269–278.Google Scholar
Greydanus, D. E., Pratt, H. D., Richard Spates, C., Blake-Dreher, A. E., Greydanus-Gearhart, M. A., & Patel, D. R. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 385–393.Google Scholar
Hiby, E., Rooney, N., & Bradshaw, J. (2004). Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 63–69.Google Scholar
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A., Lacinak, T., Fad, O., Trone, M., Solangi, M., & Ramos, J. A. (2002). Keeping environmental enrichment enriching. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 15, 127–137.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A., & Xitco, M. J. (2002). It takes more than fish: The psychology of marine mammal training. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 15, 186–200.Google Scholar
Maag, J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in schools. Exceptional Children, 67, 173–186.Google Scholar
McAllister, L. W., Stachowiak, J. G., Baer, D. M., & Conderman, L. (1969). The application of operant conditioning techniques in a secondary school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 277–285.Google Scholar
Millan, C. (n.d.). Cesar’s way: Achieving balance and harmony. Retrieved from www.cesarsway.com/.Google Scholar
Parish, P. (1993). Thank you Amelia Bedelia. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Paulos, R. D., Trone, M., & Kuczaj, S. A. (2010). Play in wild and captive cetaceans. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 23, 701–722.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (Anrep, G. V., trans.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (2001). Theories of associative learning in animals. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 111–139.Google Scholar
Premack, D. (1965). Reinforcement theory. In Levine, D. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Premack, D. (1971). Catching up with common sense or two sides of a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement (pp. 121–150). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pryor, K. W. (1975). Lads before the wind: Diary of a dolphin trainer. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Pryor, K. W. (1999). Don’t shoot the dog: The new art of teaching and training. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Pryor, K. W. (2014). Historical perspectives: A dolphin journey. Aquatic Mammals, 40, 104–114.Google Scholar
Pubols, B. H. (1960). Incentive magnitude, learning, and performance in animals. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 89–115.Google Scholar
R2 Fish School. (n.d.). The complete kit to teach your fish amazing tricks. Retrieved from www.r2fishschool.com/.Google Scholar
Ramirez, K. (1996). Secondary reinforcers as an indespensible tool: The effectiveness of non-food reinforcers. Marine Mammals: Public Display and Research, 2(1), 42–31.Google Scholar
Ramirez, K. (1999). Animal training. Chicago, IL: John G. Shedd Aquarium.Google Scholar
Sigler, E. A., & Aamidor, S. (2005). From positive reinforcement to positive behaviors: An everyday guide for the practitioner. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 249–253.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1951). How to teach animals. Scientific American, 185(6), 26–29.Google Scholar
Smith, T. A., & Kimball, D. R. (2010). Learning from feedback: Spacing and the delay-retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 80–95.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. R., Rosati, A. G., Heilbronner, S. R., & Muhlhoff, N. (2011). Waiting for grapes: Expectancy and delayed gratification in bonobos. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 24, 99–111.Google Scholar
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23–50.Google Scholar
TAGteach International. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.tagteach.com/.Google Scholar
van de Vijver, I., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & de Wit, S. (2015). Age-related changes in deterministic learning from positive versus negative performance feedback. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22, 595–619.Google Scholar
van Kerkhove, W. (2004). A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal dog social behavior. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7, 279–285.Google Scholar
Walters, G. C., & Grusec, J. F. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A. (1994). Conditioned reinforcement: Experimental and theoretical issues. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 261–285.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×