Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Education SciencesEducation Sciences
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

23 February 2026

Results of Applying a Formative and Shared Assessment Protocol in the Preparation of Final Year Projects in Teacher Education

,
,
and
1
Departamento de Didáctica de la Expresión Musical, Plástica y Corporal, Facultad de Educación de Segovia, Universidad de Valladolid, Plaza de la Universidad 1, 40005 Segovia, Spain
2
Departamento de Didáctica de la Expresión Musical, Plástica y Corporal, Facultad de Educación de Palencia, Universidad de Valladolid, 34004 Palencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci.2026, 16(2), 351;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020351
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

(1) Background: Formative and Shared Assessment (F&SA) in teacher education (TE) is a formative model that has shown good results in developing both transversal and teaching competencies. Nevertheless, there seems to be a gap in its use for guiding final year projects (FYP). Therefore, in this study, we asked the following research question: what results are obtained after applying an F&SA protocol during FYP supervision in TE? (2) Methods: a mixed-method research design was used through a concurrent triangulation model; (3) Results: all five aspects assessed with the scale received high ratings. The most notable results include clear evidence of students’ acquisition and development of transversal competencies; a positive overall evaluation of the F&SA protocol; and improvements in students’ interest, initiative, and commitment; (4) conclusions: the protocol developed enabled continuity in assessment, enhanced visibility of the competencies needed to complete final projects, and reduced discrepancies between teachers and students. Autonomy and problem solving stand out as the most developed competencies.

1. Introduction

In the context of the European higher education area, final year projects (FYP) constitute the last course students must complete to finish their university degree programs, both at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels. They may take the form of a final grade project (FGP) or a final master project (FMP). In Spain, they are regulated by Royal Decree 861/2010, and more recently by Royal Decree 822/2021, which organizes official university programs. In the field of teacher education (TE), the weight of FYPs varies somewhat across degree programs; most commonly, they carry six European credit transfer and accumulation system (ECTS) credits, although in some curricula they have a higher workload. This is more frequent in FMPs, which usually range between 12 and 30 ECTS credits.
The regulatory adaptation concerning the guidance, supervision, and completion of FYPs must be carried out by universities, usually through their faculties. García and Valle (2014) point out that these processes depend largely on university instructors, who are the ones responsible for developing internal regulations and guidelines.
TE in Spain has two clearly defined training pathways, corresponding to the practice of the teaching profession: (1) the bachelor’s degree in primary education and/or early childhood education; and (2) the master’s degree in secondary education teaching, and requires a previously completed university degree in a specific discipline. In the first case, studies conclude with a FGP, and in the second, with a FMP.
Both types of projects aim to demonstrate professional competencies—both transversal and teaching-related—and to connect theoretical and practical application of learning. The FYP must provide sufficient guarantees of professional teaching competence, and thus enable graduation (Castillejo-Olán et al., 2019; Quintana & Gil, 2015; Trede & McEwen, 2015).
Studies conducted by C. A. Hernández et al. (2016) and Magaña-Salamanca et al. (2023) highlight the importance of students recognizing and demonstrating transversal and teaching competencies in their FYPs, for example: information search, analysis and evaluation, written and oral communication, organization, planning, and pedagogical content knowledge with its didactic application. Hill et al. (2022) suggest that the training and assessment systems used in these FYP do not always help students to be explicitly aware of the competencies they must activate to be successful. Fernández-Garcimartín et al. (2023c) find that this occurs when rubrics are clearly oriented toward grading.
The figure of the supervisor plays a key role in the FYP development process. However, curricula only regulate the mandatory nature of these projects and their assigned credits, without specifying the supervisor’s functions. Internal university regulations define the supervisor’s role and responsibilities. Díaz-Vázquez et al. (2018) propose a model of in-person tutorial styles that enhances students’ competency acquisition through close supervision of the entire FYP development process.
According to the scientific literature, these can be grouped into five areas: (1) thematic guidance and planning (Rodríguez et al., 2013; Rebollo-Quintela & Espiñeira-Bellón, 2017), (2) methodological advising (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a), (3) monitoring and formative feedback (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a), (4) support in the defense and appropriate use of shared assessment (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a), and (5) ethical and formal guarantees (Rodríguez et al., 2013). The literature agrees that the success of these projects does not depend solely on student effort, but also on the quality of the tutorial interaction and the supervisor’s ability to foster reflective, autonomous, and professionally oriented learning.
However, the assessment system used during the development of FYPs appears to be a fundamental variable in helping students achieve the required competencies. In this regard, the model known as formative and shared assessment (F&SA) seems to offer many advantages. The concept of “formative assessment” primarily aims to improve student learning, teaching practice, and the teaching–learning process (Herrero-González et al., 2023). On the other hand, “shared assessment” refers to processes in which students participate in assessment, as well as ongoing dialog between students and instructors aimed at improving learning and evidence of learning (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a).
Several studies support the positive results of implementing F&SA systems in TE: improved learning, increased motivation and satisfaction among students and teachers, development of professional competencies, and enhanced academic performance (Gallardo & Carter, 2016; Herrero-González et al., 2023; Hortigüela-Alcalá et al., 2018; Molina et al., 2020; Romero-Martín et al., 2015).
Recent research also suggests that F&SA systems support the acquisition of professional competencies. Molina et al. (2020) found positive improvements in perceived competency in a large sample of TE students using a validated questionnaire (Salcines et al., 2018), particularly in the specific teaching competencies of physical education (PE).
It also seems highly relevant that students know from the beginning of the course the assessment and grading system that will be used (Brown, 2020; Winkelmes et al., 2016). Regarding university programs focused on competency development, it is very important for students to know from the outset what will be assessed and how their work will be evaluated (Sadler, 2009).
In recent years, some proposals have emerged regarding the use of F&SA systems during FYP supervision and development, but there does not seem to be enough research on their application and observed results (Houston & Thompson, 2017). For example, Ureña (2021) presents an F&SA system during FYP supervision; the instructor develops a rubric with the students, which they use in self-assessment, feedback, and self-regulation processes throughout the FYP. Similarly, Fernández-Garcimartín et al. (2023a) present a proposal for applying F&SA processes during FYP development and supervision and highlight the importance of two aspects: (a) students must know from the beginning the instruments and criteria that will be used by the evaluation committee to assess the FYP; and (b) student and supervisor should use the instrument to conduct F&SA throughout the development process. These dynamics allow students to approach their work appropriately from the beginning and improve it as they progress.
Grohnert et al. (2024) propose an FMP supervision model based on the interaction among submissions, processes and outcomes, emphasizing the importance of dialog, feedback, and instructor adaptability as determining factors of the quality of the work and student satisfaction. Therefore, FYP supervision should not be solely the responsibility of the instructor or the student; rather, it requires meaningful interaction between both (Van der Marel, 2022), where shared assessment plays a particularly relevant role. Fernández-Garcimartín et al. (2023a) and Rekalde et al. (2018) also propose F&SA-based protocols for supervising FYPs, using graduated scales combined with self-assessment and shared assessment processes between instructor and student.
However, there is a significant gap in research regarding the results generated by the application of this type of F&SA protocol in FYP supervision. That is, although proposals on how F&SA systems could be applied during FYP supervision have begun to appear in recent years, there do not seem to be any studies investigating the results they offer in actual practice in TE.
Therefore, in this study, we asked the following research question: what results are obtained after applying an F&SA protocol during FYP supervision in TE?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

A mixed-methods research design was employed. Specifically, a concurrent triangulation model was adopted (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007), as it was suitable for cross-validating data obtained from quantitative and qualitative reports, providing a complementary and expanded view of the phenomenon under study and enabling a deeper understanding of it. The quantitative and qualitative methods were accorded equal status, and both types of data were collected at the same point in time. The logic of the model allows the data to be analyzed and the results to be presented independently. The integration of the findings with the existing literature is addressed in the discussion (Fetters et al., 2013; Hernández-Sampieri et al., 2010).

2.2. Procedure

The F&SA protocol implemented to guide students in the development of their FYPs is supported by a “Differentiated Rating Scale” with five levels of achievement. Its purpose is to evaluate both the final product and the process followed by students during the completion of their FYPs. The following aspects are assessed: (a) interest, initiative, and commitment; (b) attendance at tutorials; (c) participation in and benefit from tutorials; (d) ability to systematize and organize the work; (e) capacity for autonomous work and problem solving; and (f) degree of acquisition of transversal competencies. The protocol is also supported by additional complementary instruments: (1) a tutorial planner; and (2) a record sheet for each tutorial session (what was addressed and what work commitments were made).
The true formative value of the protocol lies in the functionality of the instruments to establish self-assessment processes for students, as well as hetero-assessment and dialogic assessment processes conducted by instructors throughout the entire development of the FYP.

2.3. Participants

Twenty university lecturers who supervise FYPs and teach in PE-TE in degree and master’s programs, from nine different Spanish universities, participated in the research, all of whom have experience implementing F&SA processes. The sample presents a mean teaching experience of 18.8 years (SD = 8.9).

2.4. Instruments and Materials

The primary instrument used was the Structured Reports of Good Practices. These reports are produced after applying the F&SA protocol during the supervision and guidance of students’ FYPs. They gather the results obtained in this process, following a series of items. The instrument was previously validated by experts during its initial development phase as part of a research project. It was subsequently used and validated during its systematic application over three academic years.
Quantitative data are collected using five items measured on a Likert scale (1–5, where 1 corresponds to “very little” and 5 to “a lot”):
I1—Use of the differentiated rating scale included in the F&SA protocol.
I2—Improvements in students’ interest, initiative, and commitment.
I3—Students’ use and benefit from tutorial sessions.
I4—Verification of students’ acquisition and development of transversal competencies.
I5—Overall assessment of the F&SA protocol using the scale.
The qualitative data come from open-ended questions that help clarify each of the five quantitative items. Direct quotations taken from the reports are presented with the code ‘Rpt.’ followed by the report number, for example: ‘Rpt.4’.

2.5. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were treated descriptively based on the five assessed aspects. The qualitative analysis was conducted using ATLAS.ti software (version 25.0.2), following a deductive coding approach with openness to data emergence (i.e., a non-rigid deductive approach). Five initial analytical categories were considered, derived from the five aspects of interest included in our formative assessment protocol (I1, I2, I3, I4, I5) (Miles et al., 2014). Each of these categories was created as a predefined parent code in ATLAS.ti and was systematically applied to relevant text segments across the 20 teachers’ reports. When details or nuances related to the parent codes emerged, additional codes were created to capture further attributes observed in the data. This flexible strategy allowed for both the verification of the initial categories and the exploration of variations within them. An iterative process of analysis and consensus among the analysts led to the definition of the codebook (Saldaña, 2016) (Table 1).
Table 1. Categories and codes.

3. Results

The results obtained after applying the differentiated rating scale during the F&SA process carried out in the supervision of the FYPs are presented below (Table 2).
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the five aspects of the report (Likert scale: 1–5).
The results show values above 3.5 points in all aspects, which may be considered high given that the Likert scale used ranges from 1 to 5. The two highest scores correspond to “Verification of students’ acquisition and development of transversal competencies” (4.2) and the “Overall assessment of the F&SA protocol” (4.0).
These positive evaluations are further supported by the frequency analysis conducted (Table 3).
Table 3. Analysis of absolute and relative frequencies (expressed in percentages).
Regarding category (I1) (“Use of the “differentiated rating scale”), teachers’ responses can be grouped between quite a lot and extensive use (hi = 70%). This positive evaluation, according to the answers to the open-ended questions in the report, is explained by two main uses indicated by the teachers:
(1) For developing students’ self-awareness. The scale makes explicit the competencies and criteria at play, which helps students become aware of the process of completing their FYP and the importance of their involvement in it. Two teachers explained it as follows: “I think the scale helped my students become more aware of the process of carrying out their FYP” (Rpt. 3); “the scale is useful to them during the tutoring process, so they know what they need to improve” (Rpt. 5).
(2) The feedback the scale allows during the tutoring process. The scale includes weighted levels of competency achievement and well-defined criteria; this enables teachers to provide students with clear, consistent and relevant feedback on their performance and progress. Such feedback guides students’ work pace and reduces perception gaps between student and teacher regarding the work completed. Teachers noted: “the scale was quite useful in enabling a shared assessment with my student, as the quantification of their achievement levels made it possible to provide constant and accurate feedback” (Rpt. 4).
Regarding category (I2) (“Improvement in students’ interest, initiative, and commitment”), teachers rated improvements achieved after the implemented F&SA protocol between quite a lot and a lot (hi = 45% and hi = 15%). Some teachers considered that the F&SA protocol improved two aspects: (1) students’ motivation, which was already high; assessment of these three qualities (interest, initiative, and commitment) through the tutoring records and feedback served as an additional motivational boost. One teacher explained: “for students who initially already showed this interest, initiative, and commitment, taking it into account in their self-assessment and the teacher’s assessment and discussing it during tutoring was a motivational boost…” (Rpt. 4); another added: “they felt proud of that recognition from the beginning; it was like starting off on the right foot” (Rpt. 11). (2) The guidance and systematization provided by the F&SA protocol. Teachers intervened more effectively regarding each student’s commitment and work pace, which made tutoring meetings more efficient, personalized, and motivating. A teacher stated: “the personalized record made it easier for me to be attentive and contact those who were not progressing smoothly, emphasizing their involvement and commitment, because they saw that I was supporting them” (Rpt. 9).
However, some teachers identified problems in managing students’ interest, involvement, and commitment, such as the lack of motivation among medium–low performing students or those with personal issues, who were less engaged in the process and viewed the F&SA protocol as an extra workload requiring effort and reflection beyond their ability. One teacher noted: “One of my students, who did not show much interest, fulfilled the commitments out of obligation; others had work and personal difficulties that affected the time they could invest, and they began the experience with less interest” (Rpt. 3).
Regarding category (I3) (“Students’ use and benefit from tutorial sessions”), teachers’ responses cluster between quite a lot and a lot (hi = 45% and hi = 20%). They highlight two advantages of the F&SA protocol for this: (1) focus and (2) reflection. Regarding focus, tutoring meetings became spaces where specific, actionable information was shared; this was achieved through the “differentiated rating scale” and the records teachers kept. Thus, tutoring time focused on relevant aspects to improve. One teacher stated: “My students did take advantage of the tutoring sessions, since with such a detailed scale, no time was wasted on digressions during the meetings; we went straight to the point” (Rpt. 7). Regarding reflection, tutoring sessions promoted more active and reflective roles among students after using the scale and receiving constant feedback throughout the process. This idea is illustrated by the following comment: “I think that giving them feedback during tutoring about the state of their work or their level of involvement in completing tasks was essential in helping them reflect” (Rpt. 19).
On the other hand, teachers observed two problems that hindered better use of tutoring sessions: (1) irregularity in students’ work, which interrupted the process pace and thus the usefulness of tutoring; and (2) the mismatch between the assessment of the FYP development process and the final product (the FYP document itself). Some students prioritized solving the final project, as it is evaluated by the committee, over the development process and acquisition of transversal competencies. Teachers expressed these issues as follows: “a problem detected in tutoring sessions is the lack of regularity, which sometimes required us to get back on track with the FYP due to the long time since the previous meeting” (Rpt. 13). “Some of my students constantly focused on solving the project. In tutoring they asked for recipes to solve their problems rather than guidance on which competencies they could activate to solve them” (Rpt. 8).
Regarding category (I4) (“Verification of students’ acquisition and development of transversal competencies”), the rating is especially high, ranging between a lot (hi = 45%) and quite a lot (hi = 32%). Teachers stated that from the very beginning of the tutoring process, transversal competencies required to complete the FYP became visible and explicit through the scale. However, they observed a problem: these competencies carry little weight in the final grade. Some teachers noted: “I have always relegated attention to competencies to a second plane; I didn’t give much importance to the how-to, and the scale helped me keep them in mind and convey their importance to my students” (Rpt. 4). Another teacher stated: “the problem is that since they are not considered gradable in our degree, students don’t fully value them and pay more attention to other aspects of the work rather than the competencies needed to carry it out” (Rpt. 6).
It is worth highlighting the verification of two transversal competencies in students identified by teachers through the F&SA protocol: (1) autonomy and self-regulation, as students took responsibility for organizing their work, jointly monitoring it with their teacher, and becoming truly aware of the outcome. One teacher stated: “they developed their autonomy and self-regulation during the process, which was key as it made them more aware of the value of the result they could achieve” (Rpt. 4). And (2) problem solving ability, as students recognized difficulties during the process and actively sought solutions. Teachers commented: “during on-demand tutoring sessions, my students raised doubts they had prepared in advance and, in dialogue, they themselves sought solutions” (Rpt. 7); or “during tutoring meetings based on their questions, I tried to encourage them to solve them themselves-teaching them how to fish rather than giving them the fish” (Rpt. 10).
Finally, regarding category (I5) (“Overall assessment of the F&SA protocol using the scale”), the rating ranges from quite positive to very positive (hi = 85%). Three arguments justify this overall assessment: (1) continuity in assessment, thanks to the protocol and tools used; (2) agreement between students and teachers on the skills to be developed; (3) reduction in discrepancies in perceived results. This threefold positive effect is reflected in the following statement: “the use of the new tool was positive for both students and teachers. It provided continuous F&SA throughout the development of the FYP, detailed the competencies being acquired, and reduced perception discrepancies between students and teachers” (Rpt. 5).
Finally, the grades obtained by students were considered based on the type of FYP they completed during the implemented F&SA process. The 20 participating teachers supervised a total of 90 students: 36 undergraduate FYPs (FGP) and 54 master’s FYPs (FMP). In Spain, grades range from 0 to 10.
Both undergraduate and master’s FYPs had an average grade of 8.1. The detailed results can be found in Table 4.
Table 4. Results of the FYPs regarding academic performance, on a 1–10 scale.
Overall, high grades can be observed, although there is a concerning percentage of “Not submitted.” These cases correspond to students who had been working on their FYP but ultimately decided not to submit it in that examination period and to wait for the next one, as they did not manage to finish it properly in time.

4. Discussion

The research question was: what results are obtained after applying an F&SA protocol during FYP supervision in TE? To address the research question, we will review each of the five categories.
Category 1. Teachers positively value the use of the “differentiated rating scale” included in the F&SA protocol and identified two advantages in its use: it promotes students’ self-awareness of the quality of their work and enables contextualized feedback during tutorials. The scale makes explicit the competencies to be developed, the quality of the work to be produced, and the criteria by which it will be assessed and graded. This enables feed-forward processes, helping students understand where to direct their work and how to approach it. On the other hand, the scale allows teachers to provide very specific and consistent feedback throughout the tutoring process. Other studies make similar proposals, although they use descriptive scales (rubrics) instead of differentiated scales (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a; Rekalde et al., 2018). Both advantages have been widely documented when descriptive or differentiated scales are used systematically, especially when combined with systematic F&SA processes (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a; López-Pastor & Pérez-Pueyo, 2017; Reyes, 2013). This coincides with the findings of García-Valcárcel et al. (2021), who state that rubrics act as guidance tools that help students understand and improve their own learning process. Pinya-Medina et al. (2020) defend this same logic when they state that the assessment tools used in FYP tutoring should not be conceived solely as grading instruments, but also as pedagogical feedback strategies that encourage self-regulated learning in students. This approach yields positive results when students understand the process and are interested in taking advantage of tutoring and scaling; however, this does not always happen; some students show no interest in taking this step.
Category 2. Teachers consider that the use of the protocol “Improves students’ interest, initiative, and commitment” to a large extent (3.7), helps in two ways: it improves students’ motivation and the orientation and systematization of their work. Similar results can be found in the qualitative study carried out by Fernández-Garcimartín et al. (2023a), where students who follow an F&SA system from the beginning of FYP tutoring show high levels of interest and commitment.
Sonlleva-Velasco et al. (2024) examined how students experience assessment and grading processes in FYPs and found that using the protocol and scale enables teachers to intervene more effectively, making tutorial meetings more efficient and personalized. It also allows for closer monitoring of students who are falling behind or showing less commitment, as it enables teachers to warn them and redirect the situation in time. This aspect is also highlighted by Díaz-Vázquez et al. (2018). In the same vein, Gan and Wang (2025) find that tutorial sessions and feedback seem to reinforce this motivation among students.
However, lecturers also identify certain problems with involvement and commitment during the FYP process, such as possible demotivation among students with average to low academic performance, students with personal or family difficulties, or students with low levels of commitment. The latter perceive the F&SA protocol as an additional effort that they do not want to make. In some cases, the protocol and the teacher’s efforts can help some of these students, who ultimately succeed in completing their FYP; in other cases, students abandon the process and do not submit their FYP. Romero-Martín et al. (2023) find similar results, although sometimes the second type of students do manage to submit their FYP, obtaining low grades. TE students show great diversity in terms of academic ability and work habits. Several studies show that not all students accept, understand, or adhere to protocols that require regular and sustained participation over time (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a; Sonlleva-Velasco et al., 2024). In a study on academic subjects, Molina et al. (2020) show that F&SA systems generally generate better academic performance, provided the students show interest and motivation to get involved and follow these processes correctly. Based on the results found, it seems that this is also the case in the development of FYPs.
Category 3. Teachers positively value the statement that: “Students use and benefit from tutorial sessions” (3.6). Two main advantages were identified regarding this aspect: (1) thanks to the protocol, tutoring sessions are highly focused, addressing the specific components to be developed according to the differentiated scoring scale; this makes them more efficient both in terms of time and content, centering on the relevant aspects to be improved; (2) the use of the protocol encourages students to adopt more active and reflective roles, as they must complete self-assessment processes before attending their tutoring sessions. Sáiz-Manzanares et al. (2019) obtained similar results in a study where students rated tutoring sessions more highly based on the tutor’s availability, the clarity of the assessment criteria, and the feedback provided. Colmenero et al. (2020) and Rebollo-Quintela and Espiñeira-Bellón (2017) also find positive assessments of the FYP monitoring process through tutorials. Similar results are obtained in the study by Fernández-Garcimartín et al. (2022). In studies conducted in academic subjects, several authors highlight the importance of incorporating self-assessment and shared assessment processes to promote self-regulation of learning (Herrero-González et al., 2023; Panadero et al., 2017, 2024; Yan et al., 2022).
On the other hand, the teachers involved in the study also identified challenges related to the tutoring sessions and their effective use. The first relates to the irregularity of some students, who miss scheduled sessions or postpone them. The second concerns the students’ excessive obsession with producing the final FYP document, which must be submitted within the deadlines and defended. Vera and Briones (2015) also point to this obsession with grades in the development of the FYP. Other studies (Fernández-Castillo & Nieves-Achón, 2015; Hattie & Donoghue, 2016; F. Hernández et al., 2014; Lobato & Guerra, 2016) point out that this excessive focus on the final product leads students to show little interest in the importance of the FYP development process and the skills to be acquired. For their part, Fernández-Garcimartín et al. (2023c), Romero-Martín et al. (2023) and Sonlleva-Velasco et al. (2024) find that students and teachers tend to use official scales and rubrics only for the final summative assessment and grading processes of the FYP, while very few teachers use them for clearly formative purposes throughout the process.
Category 4. Teachers consider the protocol to be very useful in achieving the “Verification of the acquisition and development of transversal competencies” throughout the FYP process, obtaining the highest average score of all (4.2).
Teachers affirm that two cross-curricular skills show significant improvement thanks to the use of the F&SA protocol: (a) the ability to learn independently and self-regulate; and (b) problem solving skills. Other studies confirm these results, some in FYP tutoring (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023b; Mitchell & Rich, 2021), and others in academic subjects (Herrero-González et al., 2023; López-Pastor & Pérez-Pueyo, 2017). These effects are commonly observed when systematic processes of student self-assessment and shared assessment between students and teachers are used. Similarly, Panadero et al. (2018) reinforce the idea that teacher-guided formative assessment focused on constant feedback increases students’ perception of their acquisition of transversal competencies.
Category 5. Teachers give a very high rating (4.0) to the “Overall assessment of the F&SA protocol implemented”, highlighting its three main advantages: (1) it facilitates continuity, progression and improvement of the FYP throughout the semester; (2) it helps students to be aware of the quality of the document and the skills they need to develop throughout the process; and (3) the scale helps to ensure that quality criteria are common to both teachers and students, thereby reducing discrepancies in the tutoring and review processes. These advantages are also highlighted in previous studies that advocate the use of systematic F&SA processes during the development of the FYP (Fernández-Garcimartín et al., 2023a). Furthermore, Sáiz-Manzanares et al. (2019), in validating a scale that assesses satisfaction with the development of the FYP, find very positive evaluations of the formative processes during teacher supervision.
Finally, in terms of academic performance, high grades predominate among the FYPs defended, but the high percentage of ‘not submitted’ FYPs is worrying. This seems to indicate that many students are unable to complete their FYP within the established deadline and must finish it for the next session. Among the FYPs submitted to the panel, there are practically no failing grades, with only one case in the master’s program. This is quite logical and indicates that tutors do not allow FYPs to be submitted to the relevant boards if they are not of sufficient quality to pass the examination. Another possible interpretation is that the FYP boards were awarding higher marks than in other subjects. There is very little research on grades in FYP. In the study by Sonlleva-Velasco et al. (2024), students state that when an FYP does not meet the minimum quality requirements, they themselves choose not to submit it in the official session and continue working to improve it and submit it in the next session. They also state that they often do not understand the criteria on which their assessment is based and would like to receive more detailed feedback from the assessment panel.

5. Conclusions

The research question was: what results are obtained after applying an F&SA protocol during FYP supervision in TE? Below, we present the most relevant conclusions:
University tutors positively value the use of the F&SA protocol implemented during FYP supervision, mainly because it ensures continuity in assessment, increases awareness of the competencies being developed, and reduces discrepancies between teachers and students. They also highlight that it allows them to provide constant and precise feedback to students.
The F&SA protocol is very useful for verifying students’ acquisition of transversal competencies, especially autonomy and problem solving. It also helps guide and systematize the supervision and development process of FYPs, which improves students’ interest, initiative and commitment. Teachers indicate that the protocol enhances the effectiveness of tutorial sessions because it allows them to focus on what is important and promotes students’ reflection and active participation.
The drawbacks of implementing the protocol include: (a) the additional effort required; (b) the lack of regularity in some students’ work; (c) the mismatch between the assessment of the process and the final product (the FYP document), assessed and graded by a committee.
Finally, the grades obtained by the students who followed the protocol are generally high; however, some students either do not submit the FYP or abandon it, probably because tutors do not allow the submission of projects that do not meet minimum quality standards.
This study can be very useful and relevant for all teachers involved in FYP tutoring, both in the field of TE and in higher education in general, and in other countries. It provides evidence on a reality that has been little researched. The results show that the application of F&SA protocols during FYP supervision is feasible and generates several benefits for students (motivation, involvement, learning, skills development, etc.) and in the academic performance achieved in the final defense of the FYP before a committee.
This study has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample size was relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Secondly, the data were obtained from tutors’ reports rather than directly from the students.
Looking ahead, a possible line of research would be to replicate the study with a larger sample of teachers and also students in order to draw more robust conclusions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; methodology, T.F.-N. and J.L.A.-H.; software, T.F.-N. and J.L.A.-H.; validation, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; formal analysis, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; investigation, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; resources, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; data curation, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; writing—review and editing, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; visualization, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; supervision, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; project administration, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S.; funding acquisition, T.F.-N., J.L.A.-H., V.M.L.-P. and M.M.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

State Program for R+D+i Oriented to the Challenges of Society within the framework of the State Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2017–2020: RTI2018-093292-B-I00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Ethics Committee for Research in the Community of Aragon (protocol code C.P.-C.I.PI.21/377 and date of approval 22 September 2021).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ECTSEuropean Credit Transfer and accumulation System
F&SAFormative and Shared Assessment
FYPFinal Year Project
FGPFinal Grade Project
FMPFinal Master Project
PEPhysical Education
TETeacher Education

References

  1. Brown, S. (2020). Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education. McMillan. [Google Scholar]
  2. Castillejo-Olán, R., Álvarez-Vera, E. K., & Granados-Romero, J. F. (2019). Evaluación y autopercepción de competencias docentes para la gestión de la clase en educación física. Arrancada, 19(35), 108–117. [Google Scholar]
  3. Colmenero, M. J., Molina, M. D., & Rodríguez, J. (2020). Percepciones del alumnado universitario sobre los trabajos fin de grado. Formación Universitaria, 13(6), 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Creswell, J., & Plano-Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  5. Díaz-Vázquez, R., García-Díaz, A., Maside, J. M., & Vázquez-Rozas, E. (2018). El trabajo de fin de grado: Fines, modalidades y estilos de tutorización. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 16(2), 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fernández-Castillo, E., & Nieves-Achón, Z. I. (2015). Enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios y su relación con el rendimiento académico. Educare, 19(2), 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fernández-Garcimartín, C., López-Pastor, V. M., Fuentes-Nieto, T., & Hortigüela-Alcalá, D. (2022). Los instrumentos de evaluación de los trabajos fin de grado. Revista INTEREDU, 1(6), 97–126. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fernández-Garcimartín, C., López-Pastor, V. M., Fuentes-Nieto, T., & Hortigüela-Alcalá, D. (2023a). Formative and shared-assessment and final degree projects in physical education pre-service teacher education. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 18(55), 33–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fernández-Garcimartín, C., López-Pastor, V. M., Fuentes-Nieto, T., & Hortigüela-Alcalá, D. (2023b). How students use rubrics in Final year projects in teacher education. Revista Contemporânea de Educação, 8(41), 114–132. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fernández-Garcimartín, C., López-Pastor, V. M., Fuentes-Nieto, T., & Hortigüela-Alcalá, D. (2023c). How the rubrics used for the assessment of final year projects in physical education? The predominance of the marking function. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado, 16(33), 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48, 2134–2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gallardo, F., & Carter, B. (2016). La evaluación formativa y compartida durante el prácticum en la formación inicial del profesorado: Análisis de un caso en Chile. Retos, 29(1), 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gan, Z., & Wang, X. (2025). Perceived teacher feedback practices, student feedback motivation and engagement in English learning: A survey of Chinese university students. Applied Linguistics Review, 16(1), 455–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. García, M. A., & Valle, A. M. (2014). Comparative analysis of the regulations on the final thesis of the mathematics degree in state universities. In Proceedings of the I interuniversity conference on the end-of-degree project (pp. 149–158). Bilbao. [Google Scholar]
  15. García-Valcárcel, A., Hernández, A., Martín, M., & Olmos, S. (2021). Validación de una rúbrica para la evaluación de trabajos fin de máster. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 24(2), 72–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Grohnert, T., Gromotka, L., Gast, I., Delnoij, L., & Beausaert, S. (2024). Effective master’s thesis supervision. A Summative Framework for research and practice. Educational Research Review, 42, 100589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hattie, J., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. Science of Learning, 1, 16013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hernández, C. A., Jiménez, M., Guadarrama, E., & Rivera, A. E. (2016). La percepción de la motivación y satisfacción de la tutoría recibida en estudios de postgrado. Formación Universitaria, 9(2), 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hernández, F., García, M. P., & Maquilón, J. J. (2014). Estudio empírico de los enfoques de aprendizaje de los estudiantes universitarios en función del perfil de su titulación (profundo vs. superficial). REOP. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 12(22), 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la investigación. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  21. Herrero-González, D., López-Pastor, V. M., Manrique, J. C., & Moura, A. (2023). Formative and shared assessment: Literature review on the main contributions in physical education and physical education teacher education. European Physical Education Review, 30(3), 493–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hill, M. A., Overton, T., Kitson, R. R., Thompson, C. D., Brookes, R. H., Coppo, P., & Bayley, L. (2022). They help us realise what we’re actually gaining’: The impact on undergraduates and teaching staff of displaying transferable skills badges. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Palacios, A., & López-Pastor, V. M. (2018). The impact of formative and shared or co-assessment on the acquisition of transversal competences in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Houston, D., & Thompson, J. N. (2017). Blending formative and summative assessment in a capstone subject: ‘It’s not your tools, it’s how you use them’. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(3), 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lobato, C., & Guerra, N. (2016). La tutoría en la educación superior en Iberoamérica: Avances y desafíos. Educar, 52(2), 379–398. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10810/25406 (accessed on 20 January 2026).
  26. López-Pastor, V. M., & Pérez-Pueyo, A. (Coordinator). (2017). Evaluación formativa y compartida en Educación: Experiencias de éxito en todas las etapas educativas. Universidad de León. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10612/5999 (accessed on 6 January 2026).
  27. Magaña-Salamanca, E., López-Pastor, V. M., & Manrique-Arribas, J. C. (2023). Academic performance and competence perception in physical education final year projects. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 18(55), 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mitchell, A., & Rich, M. (2021). Teaching research methods and the supervision of undergraduate projects: Seeking practical improvements to a complex process. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 19(2), 104–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Molina, M., Pascual-Arias, C., & López-Pastor, V. (2020). El rendimiento académico y la evaluación formativa y compartida en formación del profesorado. Alteridad, 15(2), 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 13–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., & Järvelä, S. (2024). Effects of using rubrics in self-assessment with instructor feedback on pre-service teachers’ academic performance, self-regulated learning, and perceptions of self-assessment. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(5), 2551–2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. 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] [CrossRef]
  34. Pinya-Medina, C., De La Iglesia-Mayol, B., Verger-Gelabert, S., & Rosselló-Ramon, M. R. (2020). Diseño, aplicación y valoración del feedback formativo para la tutorización del TFG. Magister, 32(1), 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Quintana, M., & Gil, J. E. (2015). Rubrics as an effective method of assessment in the assessment of learning. Alternativas, 16(3), 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rebollo-Quintela, N., & Espiñeira-Bellón, E. M. (2017). La tutoría durante el proceso de desarrollo del TFG y TFM: Análisis del grado de utilidad y satisfacción del alumnado. Educatio Siglo XXI, 35(2), 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rekalde, I., Ruiz-de Gauna, M. P., & Bilbao, B. (2018). Tutorial action and formative assessment during Final Degree Project. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 16(2), 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reyes, C. I. (2013). La evaluación del trabajo fin de grado a través de la rúbrica. El Guiniguada, 22(1), 128–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rodríguez, M., Llanes, J., Burguet, M., Buxarrais, M., Esteban, F., Jarauta, B., Molina, M., Pérez, E., Serrat, N., & Solé, M. (2013). Cómo elaborar, tutorizar y evaluar un trabajo de fin de máster. Agència per a la qualitat del sistema universitari de catalunya (AQU catalunya). Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/2445/48357 (accessed on 1 January 2026).
  40. Romero-Martín, R., Caballero-Julia, D., Ruiz-Lara, E., & Ureña-Ortín, N. (2023). Analysis of final year project syllabi in physical education teacher education: Is the assessment formative? Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 18(55), 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Romero-Martín, R., Castejón-Oliva, F. J., & López-Pastor, V. M. (2015). Divergencias del alumnado y del profesorado universitario sobre las dificultades para aplicar la evaluación formativa. Relieve. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 21(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Salcines, I., González-Fernández, N., Ramírez-García, A., & Martínez-Mínguez, L. (2018). Validación de la escala de autopercepción de competencias transversales y profesionales de estudiantes de educación superior. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 22(3), 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sáiz-Manzanares, M. C., Prieto, B., Hoyuelos, F. J., & Cámara, J. M. (2019). Validation of a scale of student satisfaction with final year degree projects. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 17(47), 169–192. Available online: https://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/EJREP/article/view/2002/2866 (accessed on 16 December 2025).
  46. Sonlleva-Velasco, M., Martínez-Scott, S., Asún-Dieste, S., & López-Pastor, V. M. (2024). Evaluación final y calificación de los trabajos fin de estudios en la formación del profesorado de educación física: Percepciones de los estudiantes. Retos, 51, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Trede, F., & McEwen, C. (2015). Early workplace learning experiences: What are the pedagogical possibilities beyond retention and employability? Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 69(1), 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ureña, N. (2021). La Evaluación formativa y acción tutorial en los TFG. Journal of Sport Pedagogy and Research, 7(3), 89–91. [Google Scholar]
  49. Van der Marel, I. (2022). Supervising graduation projects in higher professional education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1597–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vera, J., & Briones, E. (2015). Perspectiva del alumnado de los procesos de tutorización y evaluación de los trabajos de fin de grado. Cultura y Educación, 27(4), 742–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Winkelmes, M. A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success. Peer Review, 18(1–2), 31–36. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1805184428 (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  52. Yan, Z., Lao, H., Panadero, E., Fernández-Castilla, B., Yang, L., & Yang, M. (2022). Effects of self-assessment and peer-assessment interventions on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Thinking Classrooms in Graduate Engineering Education: A Pedagogical Framework for Autonomy and Problem-Solving
Previous
Hidden Faculty Service in U.S. Higher Education: A Literature Review
Next