Simple formative assessment, high learning gains in college general chemistry

Problem Durumu: Literatürde biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin öğrencilerin performansını artırmadaki yararı çokça tartışılmış ve genel olarak kabul görmüştür. Biçimlendirici değerlendirme öğrenci gelişiminin ve algısının sıkça, etkileşimli olarak değerlendirilmesi ve öğrencilerin ihtiyaçlarının belirlenerek öğretimin buna göre yeniden düzenlenmesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin yararlı olabilmesi için kaliteli dönütler verilmesi, bu dönütlerin öğrenciler tarafından uygun bir şekilde kullanılması gereklidir. Fakat üniversite seviyesindeki fen derslerinde, çoğu zaman, hem öğretmenler hem de öğrenciler üzerinde eğitim-öğretim ve ölçme-değerlendirme açısından yoğun bir yük vardır. Bu nedenle kaliteli dönütler vermek, bu dönütleri uygun bir şekilde kullanmak ve öğretim uygulamalarını değiştirmek beklendiğinden daha zor olabilir. Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu çalışmanın amacı biçimlendirici değerlendirme için kolay uygulanabilir bir düzeyde fırsatlar oluşturulmasının, öğrencilerin başarılarını ve üniversite seviyesindeki fen derslerine yaklaşımlarını, öğretim uygulamalarında fazla bir değişikliğe gerek kalmadan, olumlu bir şekilde etkileyebileceğini göstermektir.

Üniversite genel kimya derslerinde basit biçimlendirici değerlendirme, yüksek öğrenme kazanımları

Problem Statement: The utility of formative assessment for improving student performance is acknowledged in the literature. For formative assessment to be useful, quality feedback, the proper use of feedback by students and revision of practice to accommodate formative assessment is necessary. However, in the contexts of university level science courses, where, in many cases, there is a heavy load of teaching and assessment on both students and instructors, providing quality feedback, using feedback properly, and changing practice may not be as forthcoming as hoped. Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study is to show that providing opportunities for formative assessment, even at a relatively simple and manageable level, could significantly impact students’ achievement and also their attitude toward university level science classes without a considerable change in practice. Methods: This study was conducted in an undergraduate general chemistry course with an emphasis on organic chemistry taken by pre-service middle school science teachers over the period of two spring semesters in two consecutive years. In total, 163 students participated in the study. A qualitative research methodology accompanied quantitative methods for more in-depth understanding. Summative exam results, responses to a questionnaire, observations, and interview transcripts provided the data for the study. Findings and Results: Quantitative results showed statistically significant improvement in experimental group students’ exam grades, which was an indication of improvement in achievement and learning. Through qualitative data, positive student reactions toward the formative assessment process used in the study were observed. Insight into students’ perceptions of the formative assessment methods and their use of feedback were obtained. Conclusions and Recommendations: The relatively simple formative assessment process utilized in this study has the potential to improve both student achievement and learning and also students’ attitudes toward the courses they take. Therefore, university level instructors, who teach science courses, should consider using formative assessment methods, at least at a simple level without a too heavy a load of extra work, to improve student achievement and attitude. However, it is not possible to claim that formative assessment methods will improve student achievement and attitude in all cases.

PDF

___

Ahmed, N. & W. Teviotdale (2007). The Value of Formative Assessment in Higher Education. Education in a Changing Environment, Greater Manchester, UK, Informing Science Press.
Akbaş, A. (2010). Attitudes, self-efficacy and science processing skills of teachign certificate master’s program (ofmae) students. Egitim Arastirmalari – Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 1-12.
Black, P. (2003, April). Formative and Summative Assessment : Can They Serve Learning Together? Paper presented at the Amercian Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Hogden, J., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Dissemination and evaluation: a response to Smith and Gorard. Research Intelligence, 93, 7.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-73.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2002). Qualitative research in education. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Carless, D. (2007). Conceptualizing pre-emptive formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(2), 171-184.
Carrillo-de-la-Pena, M. T., E. Bailles, Caseras, X., Martinez, A., Ortet G. & Perez, J. (2009). "Formative assessment and academic achievement in pre-graduate students of health sciences." Advances in Health Sciences Education 14(1): 61- 67
CERI. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD.
Costa, D. S. J., B. A. Mullan, et al. (2010). "A web-based formative assessment tool for Masters students: A pilot study." Computers & Education 54(4): 1248–1253.
Dobson, J. L. (2008). "The use of formative online quizzes to enhance class preparation and scores on summative exams." Advances in Physiology Education 32(4): 297-302.
Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: possibilities, boundaries and limitations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 215-232.
Erdem, M. (2008). The effects of the blended teaching practice on prospective teachers’ teaching self-efficacy and epistemological beliefs. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 30, 81-98.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(14), 14-26.
Johnson, R. B. and A. J. Onwuegbuzie (2004). "Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come." Educational Researcher 33(14): 14-26.
Kibble, J. (2007). "Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: effects of incentives on student participation and performance." Advances in Physiology Education 31(3): 253-260.
Lawson, D. (1999). "Formative assessment using computer-aided assessment." Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications 18(4): 155-158.
Liu, N., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
Nicol, D. J. (2007). Principles of good assessment and feedback: Theory and practice. International Online Conference sponsored by the REAP Project: Assessment design for learner responsibility. Retreived April 05, 2010, from http://www.reap.ac.uk/public/Papers/Principles_of_good_assessment_and _feedback.pdf
Nicol, D. J. (2009). "Assessment for learner selfregulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34(3): 335-352.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Oosterhof, A. (2001). Classroom applications of educational measurement. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Merrill.
Peat, M. and S. Franklin (2002). "Supporting student learning: The use of computerbased formative assessment modules." British Journal of Educational Technology 33(5): 515-523.
Perrenoud, P. (1998). From Formative Evaluation to a Controlled Regulation of Learning Processes. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 85-102.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84.
Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the Quantitative- Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477-501.