Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
test
Awareness Test
Why this research
● Inspection has low perceived value● Inspection has low attendance● Student focus on the assessment as a
whole, not just on their deficiencies
Possible solution
● Use data from summative assessment as formative feedback (Learning Analytics)
– important to define the gap between knowledge of the student vs the required knowledge
Introduction
● HAN University of Applied Sciences, The Nederlands, Nijmegen
Introduction
● Teachers for secondary education● Educational Sciences / Didactics
Background / Literature Review
● Most powerful feedback focuses on the task (Hattie & Timperly, 2007)
● Feedback is most effective when given separately, unaccompanied by grades (Lipnevich & Smith, 2008)
Research Question(s)
Main goal: ● In our study we focused mainly on higher
achievement, learning strategies and students’ beliefs on feedback
Questions:● Does formative feedback, generated by
investigated data on summative assessment, improve students’ learning?
● What are student beliefs about formative feedback without awarding grades?
● What is the influence of formative feedback on self-regulated learning?
Experiment
Control
Sit
ResitPassed
Failed
Passed
Failed
inter-vention
inspection
Experiment
Passed
Failed
Control
Passed
Failed
MSLQlearning strategies
MSLQlearning strategies
MSLQlearning strategies
FBQ
MSLQlearning strategies
FBQ
Check for group equality
There was no significant difference in:● Grades● Learning strategies for the experiment
and control groups (MSLQ)
After intervention Grade (Findings/Data)
● Experimental group had significant higher grades at the resit
● No more students passed the pass mark
● 22 students in the intervention group● 62 students in the control group
for the experiment (M=6,54, SD=1,20)and control(M=5,84, SD=1,17)conditions; t(82)=2,40 , p =,02
After intervention MSLQ (Findings/Data)
Significant differences between experimental and control for MSLQ on the resit?
● 21 students in the intervention group● 37 students in the control group
Only for rehearsal (metacognitive strategie) for experiment (M=2,99, SD=,40)and control (M=2,73, SD=,47)conditions; t(56)=2,14 , p =,04
Paired MSLQ (Findings/Data)
Significant differences between sit and resit for MSLQ?
● 16 students in the intervention group● 26 students in the control group
Only for experiment group● Resource management strategy effort
regulation (less)for the experiment before (M=3,05, SD=,49) and after (M=2,80, SD=,55) conditions; t(15)=3,04 , p =,01
After intervention FBQ (Findings/Data)
Significant differences between experimental and control for FBQ on the resit?
● 21 students in the intervention group● 32 students in the control group
There was only a significant difference in enhancing self- regulation level for the experiment (M=3,06, SD=,50) and control (M=2,66, SD=,74) conditions; t(51)=2,18 , p =,03
Additional findings
● Large differences between pass and fail on self- regulation strategies on first sit
Significant positive differences between students who passed (n=154) and failed (n=84) on the first sit
● organisational strategies – between students passed (M=2,79, SD=,58) and failed
(M=2,59, SD=,65); t(237)=2.46 , p =,02
● self-regulation – between students passed (M=2,75, SD=,30) and failed
(M=2,65, SD=,34); t(237)=2.21, p =.03
● time-study environment – between students passed (M=2,85, SD=,51) and failed
(M=2,69, SD=,44); t(237)=2.55, p =.01
● effort regulation – between students passed (M=3.09, SD=,56) and failed
(M=2,80, SD=,56); t(173.34)=3.88, p =.00
Conclusion(s)
Experimental group ● Scores higher grades at resit● Applied more rehearsal strategies at
resit ● Shows higher self-regulation levels
after resit● Shows less effort at resit
Question / Discussion
What to do: prevent or cure?● What is the influence of self
regulation on assessment outcome?● What is the influence of formative
feedback data?
Questions?
Thank you for your attention
ReferencesBangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in
test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238. doi:10.2307/1170535
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment,
Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and
achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1.
doi:10.1080/00098650903267784
Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2010). Tegenintuïtief. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 211-232.
doi:10.2307/1170128
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students' perceptions of quality and effectiveness.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 1. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203792899
Sluijsmans, D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2013). Toetsen met leerwaarde. ().
Heerlen/Maastricht:
ReferencesTorrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to
explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 615-631.
doi:10.1080/01411920120095780
Van Berkel, H., Bax, A., & Joosten-ten Brinke, D. (2014). Toetsen in het hoger onderwijs (3rd ed.). Houten:
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum. doi:10.1007/978-90-368-0239-0
Van der Linden, J. (2015). Korte bevindingen OWKVT1a-1 nieuwe stijl. Nijmegen: Hogeschool van Arnhem en
Nijmegen.
Van Schilt-Mol, T., Peters, M., & Van der Linden, J. (2013). Eindrapportage bij ‘stimuleringsregeling learning
analytics 2013’. (). Utrecht: SURF.
Wilbrink, B. (1995). Studiestrategieën die voor studenten èn docenten optimaal zijn: Het sturen van
investeringen in de studie. Retrieved from http://benwilbrink.nl/publicaties/95StudiestrategieORD.htm
