How is theory used in assessment and feedback research? A critical review

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the dataset (N = 56). The frequencies of studies are in brackets.

Context	Type of assessment
Europe (18) The United Kingdom (7) Nordic countries (5) Australia and New Zealand (17) Asia (12) China (7) The United States and Canada (5) South Africa (2) Unclear (1) Multiple countries (1)	Feedback (12) Peer assessment (9) Multiple/general (e.g., conceptions about assessment) (9) Authentic assessment (5) Academic integrity (4) Self-assessment (3) Examinations (3) Rubrics (3) Formative assessment in general (2) Learning analytics (2) Assessment adjustments (2) Assessment hurdles (1) Project assessment (1)
Discipline	Study design
Multiple disciplines (25) STEM (8) Education and psychology (7) Business (6) Medicine (5) Humanities (5)	Qualitative (21) Quantitative (20) Mixed methods (15)

Table 2. The main data collection and analysis methods (frequencies of studies in brackets, only studies with frequencies over one are reported).

	Qualitative	Quantitative	Mixed methods
Data collection methods	Interviews (14) Feedback comments (5) Documents (e.g. unit guides, course syllabi) (5) Assessment materials (e.g. reflective journals, peer feedback sheets) (5) Survey/questionnaire (2) Observations (2)	Survey/questionnaire (15) Assessment materials (e.g. reflective journals, peer feedback sheets) (7) Grades and/or performance data (5)	Survey/questionnaire (10) Interviews (9) Assessment materials (e.g. reflective journals, peer feedback sheets) (6) Grades and/or performance data (4)
Data analysis method	Thematic analysis (12) Unclear (4) Coding (3) Content analysis (3)	T-testing, ANOVA (5) Descriptive analysis (4) Structural equation modelling (4) Factor analysis (3) MANOVA (2) Regression analysis (2)	Qualitative: Thematic analysis (6) Coding (4) Content analysis (3) Unclear (2) Quantitative: Descriptive statistics (9) T-testing and/or ANOVA (3)

Table 3. The worldviews and whether they were explicitly discussed.

Was the worldview explicitly discussed?		Worldview
Yes	No	Post-positivist	Interpretivist	Critical- transformative	Practical perspective
10	46	30	17	0	23

Table 4. The theories as described in the studies (N = 21).

Post-positivist	Interpretivist	Practical perspective
Self-efficacy (Adams et al. 2020) Self-determination theory (Gaynor 2020^a) Reflective practices (Hoo et al. 2020) Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions (Lim et al. 2020; Myyry et al. 2020^a) Confucian Heritage Culture (Wicking 2020^a) Self-regulation and the cyclical self-assessment model (Yan 2020) Individualism- collectivism (Zhang and Yin 2020)	Communities of practice (Ajjawi et al. 2020; Merry and Orsmond 2020) Authenticity (Hains-Wesson et al. 2020^a) CHAT (Macleod et al. 2020) Ecological agency (Nieminen and Tuohilampi 2020) Socio-cultural practices (Olave-Encina, Moni, and Renshaw 2020) Threshold concepts (Simper 2020) Legitimation Code Theory (Van Heerden 2020) Mayes and de Freitas’ model for online learning, Heutagogy (Youde 2020^a) Ecological systems theory (Zhan 2020^a) Academic literacies (Zhou, Zhao, and Dawson 2020)	Sustainable assessment (Dai et al. 2020) Five other studies reported under post-positivism and interpretivism.

^aAlso coded under practical perspective.

Table 5. How theory was used in the 21 studies.

	N
Conceptualisation of research object
Implicit theory	0
Multiple theories	3
Competing theories	1
Positioning of research object	17
Analysing the data
No account	0
Unclear account	3
Explicit account - original conceptualisation	12
Explicit account - different conceptualisation	1
No theory used	5
Discussing the research outcomes
No use of theory	3
Conceptualisation of the research object is used to explore the meaning of the outcomes	9
Interrogating the conceptualisation of the research object	1
Developing a conceptualisation of the research object	8