1 / 14

Alan Socha, Matthew S. Swain, & Donna L. Sundre

Do Examinees Want Their Test Scores? Investigating the Relationship between Feedback , Motivation , and Performance in Low-Stakes Testing Contexts. Alan Socha, Matthew S. Swain, & Donna L. Sundre. NERA 2013. Purpose.

shiela
Download Presentation

Alan Socha, Matthew S. Swain, & Donna L. Sundre

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. Do Examinees Want Their Test Scores? Investigating the Relationship between Feedback,Motivation, and Performance in Low-Stakes Testing Contexts Alan Socha, Matthew S. Swain, & Donna L. Sundre NERA 2013

  2. Purpose • Data collection for assessment and accountability purposes is ubiquitous • However, score information is not typically shared with test-takers • The Standards recommend providing interpretive feedback to test-takers • Providing feedback may have benefits to assessment practice (i.e., higher motivation) • In a 2009 study, ≈ 60% sought feedback when provided • What percentage of participants seek feedback? • Additionally, what are some of the mechanisms behind feedback-seeking behavior?

  3. Study Design • Participants were randomly assigned to testing rooms during an institutional assessment day • Participants completed: • A Quantitative & Scientific Reasoning test • A measure of test-taking effort • A measure of conscientiousness

  4. Study Design • Two months after assessments, all participants received an email inviting them to view their scores • The email informed them of two types of interpretive feedback available: • Their score compared to other students (norm-referenced) OR • Their score compared to faculty standards (criterion-referenced) • Then each participant was provided a unique link to their scores

  5. Landing Page

  6. Criterion-Referenced (Faculty) Norm-Referenced (Student)

  7. Method • We tracked each participant’s progression through the website • Ultimately, this resulted in 5 possible “classes” of feedback-seeking behavior: • Sought Student Feedback, but not Faculty • Sought Student Feedback and Faculty • Sought Faculty Feedback, but not Student • Sought Faculty Feedback and Student • Did Not Seek Feedback • Multinomial Logistic Regression was used to predict class membership using QR/SR, test-taking effort, and conscientiousness scores in three models

  8. Results • Remember, this is a low-stakes testing context—their scores do not count for a grade, only for institutional assessment and accountability 38.46% sought feedback

  9. Feedback-Seeking Class Predicted by Conscientiousness

  10. Feedback-Seeking Class Predicted by Test-Taking Effort

  11. Feedback-Seeking Class Predicted by QR/SR Performance

  12. Discussion • Although The Standards recommend providing feedback to test-takers, not many actually viewed their scores (38%) in our study • Perhaps our results are lower than the 2009 study due to smart phone use • Few participants were interested in Faculty feedback only • Interestingly, participants who scored poorly were more likely to seek Student comparison only • In general, participants who scored higher on the test, expended more effort, and were more conscientious were more likely to seek feedback • Future studies are planned to predict feedback-seeking behavior using other variables

  13. Thank You For a copy of the paper, please email: Matthew Swain swainms@jmu.edu

  14. Extra

More Related