View in EDS

Business Administration Students' Perceptions of Formative Assessment as an Instructional Tool

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Business Administration Students' Perceptions of Formative Assessment as an Instructional Tool
Language: English
Authors: María Leonor Parrales Poveda (ORCID 0000-0003-3994-3711), Diego Sornoza-Parrales (ORCID 0000-0001-9319-9298), Ruth Yadira Sumba Bustamante (ORCID 0000-0003-2620-1129), Karina Lourdes Santistevan Villacreses (ORCID 0000-0002-3085-1151)
Source: Educational Process: International Journal. Article e2025521 2025 18.
Availability: UNIVERSITEPARK Limited. iTOWER Plaza (No61, 9th floor) Merkez Mh Akar Cd No3, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey 34382. e-mail: editor@edupij.com; Web site: http://www.edupij.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Business Education, Formative Evaluation, Student Attitudes, Student Evaluation, Foreign Countries, Undergraduate Students, Age Differences, Gender Differences
Geographic Terms: Ecuador
ISSN: 2147-0901
2564-8020
Abstract: Background/purpose: Formative assessment supports competency development and self-regulated learning in higher education, yet evidence on business administration students' perceptions (especially in Latin American contexts) remains limited. This study examined perceptions of formative assessment to identify improvement areas and inform pedagogy in business administration programs. Materials/methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive-correlational survey was administered to 112 fourth-, sixth-, and seventh-semester business administration students at a university in Ecuador. An adapted Students' Perceptions of Formative Assessments (SPFA) instrument assessed five conceptual dimensions: congruence, authenticity, consultation, transparency, and accommodation. Operationally, Part A (discipline-specific knowledge) consisted of five subscales, while Part B (self-directed learning skills) combined transparency and accommodation, resulting in four subscales. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations among subscales, Pearson correlations with age, and independent-samples t-tests by gender. Results: Students reported moderately positive perceptions across all dimensions (M = 3.64-3.74, 1-5 scale). For discipline-specific knowledge, congruence was highest; for self-directed learning, authenticity was highest, while consultation was lowest across parts. Intercorrelations among dimensions were strong and significant (rs = 0.709-0.947), indicating a holistic perception of formative assessment. Neither age nor gender was significantly associated with perceptions. Internal consistency was excellent across subscales ([alpha] = 0.973-0.989) Conclusion: Students value formative assessment but identify opportunities to strengthen authenticity and consultation. Recommendations include embedding authentic, professionally relevant tasks, increasing student participation in co-constructing and clarifying evaluative criteria, and reinforcing alignment among outcomes, activities, feedback, and assessment practices.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486433
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1486433
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486433
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Business Administration Students' Perceptions of Formative Assessment as an Instructional Tool
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22María+Leonor+Parrales+Poveda%22">María Leonor Parrales Poveda</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3994-3711">0000-0003-3994-3711</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diego+Sornoza-Parrales%22">Diego Sornoza-Parrales</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9319-9298">0000-0001-9319-9298</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruth+Yadira+Sumba+Bustamante%22">Ruth Yadira Sumba Bustamante</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2620-1129">0000-0003-2620-1129</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karina+Lourdes+Santistevan+Villacreses%22">Karina Lourdes Santistevan Villacreses</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3085-1151">0000-0002-3085-1151</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Process%3A+International+Journal%22"><i>Educational Process: International Journal</i></searchLink>. Article e2025521 2025 18.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: UNIVERSITEPARK Limited. iTOWER Plaza (No61, 9th floor) Merkez Mh Akar Cd No3, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey 34382. e-mail: editor@edupij.com; Web site: http://www.edupij.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Education%22">Business Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Formative+Evaluation%22">Formative Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ecuador%22">Ecuador</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2147-0901<br />2564-8020
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background/purpose: Formative assessment supports competency development and self-regulated learning in higher education, yet evidence on business administration students' perceptions (especially in Latin American contexts) remains limited. This study examined perceptions of formative assessment to identify improvement areas and inform pedagogy in business administration programs. Materials/methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive-correlational survey was administered to 112 fourth-, sixth-, and seventh-semester business administration students at a university in Ecuador. An adapted Students' Perceptions of Formative Assessments (SPFA) instrument assessed five conceptual dimensions: congruence, authenticity, consultation, transparency, and accommodation. Operationally, Part A (discipline-specific knowledge) consisted of five subscales, while Part B (self-directed learning skills) combined transparency and accommodation, resulting in four subscales. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations among subscales, Pearson correlations with age, and independent-samples t-tests by gender. Results: Students reported moderately positive perceptions across all dimensions (M = 3.64-3.74, 1-5 scale). For discipline-specific knowledge, congruence was highest; for self-directed learning, authenticity was highest, while consultation was lowest across parts. Intercorrelations among dimensions were strong and significant (rs = 0.709-0.947), indicating a holistic perception of formative assessment. Neither age nor gender was significantly associated with perceptions. Internal consistency was excellent across subscales ([alpha] = 0.973-0.989) Conclusion: Students value formative assessment but identify opportunities to strengthen authenticity and consultation. Recommendations include embedding authentic, professionally relevant tasks, increasing student participation in co-constructing and clarifying evaluative criteria, and reinforcing alignment among outcomes, activities, feedback, and assessment practices.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486433
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486433
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Business Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Formative Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ecuador
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Business Administration Students' Perceptions of Formative Assessment as an Instructional Tool
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: María Leonor Parrales Poveda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diego Sornoza-Parrales
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruth Yadira Sumba Bustamante
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karina Lourdes Santistevan Villacreses
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 2147-0901
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2564-8020
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Process: International Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1