Feedback on a peer's review of

Designing a formative e-assessment:

Latent class analysis of early reading skills

Originally by Benton and Sainsbury



Hi, XXX! I think you have presented a very well structured and good review of this paper. From the top of my head I can’t find anything important missing there. Thanks for clarifying the meaning of “latent class”. I needed that!


However: I think this article could have been linked closer to other articles in this course. You briefly mention Erstad (2009) and his arguments for formative assessment. That’s fine, but I found it a bit general. I can’t see how Johannesen’s article (2011) about using virtual reality is connected to this case. Maybe it is, but I wasn’t able to see that from what I read.


I think the article by Draper (2009) could give this one a new dimension. I also tend to think and work by what you described as "- this is the level now, and this could be your next level when you conclude these steps". Draper calls this “shallow learning”. He argues that teachers sometimes need to look away from the specific task and help students finding good learning strategies and varied problem solving approaches. Maybe the tests results in Sainsbury and Benton’s article could be seen in this perspective? If a test lets us know how a pupil struggles with reading, not only that he struggles, we can help him develop good strategies for reading – based on approaches suggested in the test results.


It seems like we have a common understanding of the article, except what you mentioned in your last sentence. To me it doesn’t seem like the authors consider replacing teachers with technology. Did it to you? They say (p. 501) that the teacher is central in helping pupils monitor their own performance. I think tests like the one described can save teachers time, by quickly dividing pupils into latent groups. The division into groups can be a good help deciding how to help the individual learner through identifying what the pupils are good at and what they need to work on (and how).


It may seem like a lot of critique from me, but I really think you have done a good job on this one!


I teach practical subjects (graphic design and communication), so my students don't get standardized tests. Therefore I'm quite unfamiliar with how they work, and I have a few questions:


Do standardized tests in Norway provide teachers with more detailed information about tehir pupil's reading/writing skills than just the final score? (Like the one mentioned in this article).


If you have tried using this kind of test;

Did the test give useful feedback?

Do you think the test results were good at pointing out the knowledge and struggles your students?






Feedback on a peer's review of

The Power of Feedback

Originally by by Hattie & Timperley


Thanks for the review, XXX!

After reading about the preconditions and dangers of giving different types of feedback, I’m quite scared to give one myself!


I think you have spotted and addressed the main issues in the text. However I think the chapter “The Focus of Feedback: The Four Levels” could have been described more in depth. In this chapter the authors divide feedback into different levels, based on what the feedback addresses; 1) Feedback about the task, 2) Feedback about the processing of the task, 3) Feedback about self-regulation and 4) Feedback about the self as a person.


I can’t see that you have met all the assessment criteria. I would like to hear more about how this article can be linked to common issues of other articles in e-assessment and about how to use the ideas in an educational context.


Questions for reflection:

Did you read anything in this paper that made you rethink how you give feedback to students?

Hattie says that “the most effective forms of feedback … are in the form of video-, audio- or computer-assisted instructional feedback; and/or relate to goals” (page 84). How can we use this information in an educational context?




Email: ellen (a)