1 / 25

Student-Suggested Instruction on Assessment Outcomes

This study explores the benefits of formative assessment, student choice in learning methods, and student input on re-teaching sessions. The findings suggest that these practices can enhance student engagement, motivation, and academic performance.

scastro
Download Presentation

Student-Suggested Instruction on Assessment Outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Student-Suggested Instruction on Assessment Outcomes Wright State University, Graduate Students Mariah Vraniak Michael Fmura Maggie Demarse Nicholas Davis

  2. Rationale • Engage students in learning • Provide opportunities for students to determine instructional methods • Identify students’ misunderstandings • Make the education process transparent • Build rapport with students • Nurture students’ investment in learning

  3. Assessment • The evolution of assessment • Methods determined by teacher • Teacher’s preferences and attitudes • Teacher’s understanding and time-management of assessment • Used to measure student growth • Various types of assessment

  4. Formative Assessment • Cyclical Process • Effective way to gather data on student learning • Opportunity to provide effective feedback • Low stakes

  5. Formative Assessment: Benefits • Increased awareness of student misconceptions • Increased student self-efficacy • Increased student learning gains  • Reduced student anxiety • Increased student motivation • Provided opportunities for students to reflect on their learning as it happened • Increased academic performance

  6. Formative Assessment: Benefits • Teachers re-teaching missed content • Valuable feedback for teachers • Modifying instruction • Students provide honest appraisal • Everyone wins

  7. Student Choice • Typical opportunities for student choice • Benefits: • lends itself to differentiation of instruction • helped produce a more productive classroom community • increased motivation to learn the material • encouraged participation from students in classroom learning • increased student self-determination • increased student engagement • reduced problem behavior

  8. Participants

  9. Pre-Survey 1. How do you feel that you learn best? 2. How do teaching methods impact your test scores?

  10. Who’s the Boss • How do you feel your input for the Monday re-teaching sessions is affecting your learning? • What do you like and/or dislike about being able to provide input for the Monday re-teaching sessions?

  11. Focus Group • Do you feel that the different methods of re-teaching on Mondays benefit you? Why or why not? • How do you feel that providing suggestions for the re-teaching on Mondays is affecting your learning in * class? • How does providing suggestions for the re-teaching methods used on Mondays make you feel about the learning * and motivate you to learn? Why?

  12. Data Instruments & Procedures

  13. Results: Pre-Survey

  14. Results: Pre-Survey • Question 1: How do you feel that you learn best?

  15. Results: Who’s the Boss

  16. Results: Who’s the Boss • Question 1: How do you feel your input for the Monday re-teaching sessions is affecting your learning?

  17. Results: Who’s the Boss • Question 2: What do you like and/or dislike about being able to provide input for the Monday re-teaching sessions?

  18. Results: Focus Group

  19. Homerun Hitters • Student choice and learning preferences • Student confidence and self-efficacy • Student investment and engagement • Student summative assessment scores

  20. Implications • Time management • Data-based instruction • Classroom Management • Ease of implementation

  21. References • Adediwura, A. A. (2012). Effect of peer and self-assessment on male and female students' self-efficacy and self-autonomy in the learning of mathematics. Gender & Behaviour, 10(1), 4492-4508. • Ali, A., & Ali, U. (2010). Educational measurement and testing: Historical perspectives. Journal Of Educational Research, 13(2), 216-221. • Alkharusi, H., Aldhafri, S., Alnabhani, H., & Alkalbani, M. (2013). The impact of students' perceptions of assessment tasks on self-efficacy and perception of task value: A path analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(10), 1681-1692.  • Bakula N. (2010). The benefits of formative assessments for teaching and learning. Science Scope, 34(1), 37-43. • Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: the science teacher's role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55-61. • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. • Brookhart, S. M. (2008). Feedback that fits. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 54-59. • Buck, G. A., & Trauth-Nare, A. E. (2009). Preparing teachers to make the formative assessment process integral to science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 475-494. • Crumrine, T., & Demers, C. (2007). Formative assessment: Redirecting the plan. Science Teacher,74(6), 64-68. • Doubet, K. J. (2012). Formative assessment jump-starts a middle grades differentiation initiative. Middle School Journal, 43(3), 32-38.

  22. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37-73. • Follman, J. (1992). Secondary school students' ratings of teacher effectiveness. The High School Journal, 75(3), 168-178. • Gardner, H. (2011). Promoting learner engagement using multiple intelligences and choice-based instruction. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(2), 97-101. • Haertel, E. H., & Herman, J. L. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. Yearbook (National Society For The Study Of Education), (2), 1-34. • Jain, A. (2014). Effect of students' feedback and teaching experience on teacher effectiveness of secondary school teachers. Learning Community: An International Journal of Education & Social Development, 5(1), 77-89. • Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Formative assessment probes: uncovering students' ideas in science. Science Scope, 28(4), 18-21. • Kern, L., Bambara, L., & Fogt, J. (2002). Classwide curricular modification to improve the behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27,317-326. • Kern, L., Mantegna, M. E., Vorndran, C. M., Bailin, D., & Hilt, A. (2001). Choice of task sequence to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(1), 3. • Kern, L., & State, T. M. (2009). Incorporating choice and preferred activities into class wide instruction. Beyond Behavior, 18(2), 3-11. • Lee, S. F. (2013). Adapting cognitive task analysis to explore young children's thinking competence. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(2), 208-223. • Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275. • McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399-414. • Mertler, C. A. (1999). Teacher perception of students as stakeholders in teacher evaluation. American Secondary Education, 27(3), 17-30. • Mertler, C. (2013). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (4th ed.).

  23. Pat-El, R., Tillema, H., Segers, M., & Vedder, P. (2013). Validation of assessment for learning questionnaires for teachers and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 98-113. • Phelan, J., Choi, K., Vendlinski, T., Baker, E., & Herman, J. (2011). Differential improvement in student understanding of mathematical principles following formative assessment intervention. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 330-339. • Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 4-11. • Raupach, T., Brown, J., Anders, S., Hasenfuss, G., & Harendza, S. (2013). Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Medicine, 11, 61-61. • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. • Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31. • Sagan, L. L. (2010). Students' choice: Recommendations for environmental and instructional changes in school. Clearing House, 83(6), 217-222. • Servilio, K. L. (2009). You get to choose! Motivating students to read through differentiated instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(5), 1-11. • Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E., Ruiz-Primo, M., & Yue, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education,21(4), 295-314. • Shevin, M., & Klein, N. K. (2004). The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(3), 161-168.

  24. Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271-286 • Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappan,90(9), 640-644. • Trauth-Nare, A., & Buck, G. (2011). Using reflective practice to incorporate formative assessment in a middle school science classroom: a participatory action research study. Educational Action Research, 19(3), 379-398. • Weurlander, M., Söderberg, M., Scheja, M., Hult, H., & Wernerson, A. (2012). Exploring formative assessment as a tool for learning: students’ experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 747-760. • Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 49-65. • Wilson, M. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. • Smith, M. K. (2001) ‘Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential learning and action research’, the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm • Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappa, 86(1), 22-27.

  25. Contact Information • Maggie Demarse • Email: demarse.2@wright.edu • Mariah Vraniak • Email: vraniak.2@wright.edu • Michael Fmura • Email: fmura.2@wright.edu • Nick Davis • Email: davis.470@wright.edu

More Related