Are intermediate constraint question formats useful for evaluating student thinking and promoting learning in formative assessments?

Meir, Eli; Wendel, Daniel; Pope, Denise S.; Hsiao, Ling; Chen, Deborah; Kim, Kerry J.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103606

Cited by 14 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The provision of feedback in project-based assessment has a positive impact on learning activities and also develops students' thinking habits (Christensen & Lynch, 2020;Meir et al, 2019;Steen-Utheim & Wittek, 2017;Yu & Wu, 2020). This is supported by previous research which showed that in relation to mathematics learning outcomes, students' interest in basic statistics courses provide immediate feedback which are higher than those that usually receive delayed response (Seruni & Hikmah, 2015).…”

Section: Assessment As Learning Instrument To Improve Student Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Project-Based Learning Assessment System to Improve Students’ Competence

Rahayu

Hidayatin

Churiyah

2020

JPEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to develop a project-based learning assessment system to improve students’ competence. Data were obtained using the Research and Development (R&D) methods adopted from Borg & Gall which comprised of 8 stages. The research products were tested by using the construct and content validations conducted by 2 lecturers and 1 teacher, respectively. Furthermore, students’ competence was analyzed by measuring their cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The product developed obtained highly valid criteria in the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains with scores of 84.6%, 84.2% and 84%, respectively. In addition, the results of content validation obtained highly valid criteria in the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains with scores of 90%, 93.3%, and 92%. Furthermore, the results of field testing obtained a score of 82% by 1 archival teacher and 82.77% by 30 students which showed that the assessment instrument received a good response and feasible for use in learning. The improvement in competence was measured by projects made in the instrument, and it led to a significant improvement in competence before using the assessment as learning instrument.

show abstract

Section: Assessment As Learning Instrument To Improve Student Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Project-Based Learning Assessment System to Improve Students’ Competence

Rahayu

Hidayatin

Churiyah

2020

JPEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A key difference in digital assessment tools is the suite of affordances and constraints not present in the blank canvas of a piece of paper and a pen (or generic writing and drawing software). Constraints are almost inevitable with a digital assessment tool when autoscoring is desired, as the tool will only have a limited set of functionality, and a certain degree of constraint on student actions increases the accuracy and preciseness of scoring algorithms (Scalise and Gifford, 2006;Kim et al, 2017;Meir et al, 2019). However, those constraints can also impact learning to be measured by the assessment (Meir et al, 2019;Cromley et al, 2020).…”

Section: Revealing and Assessing Student Science Practice Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Constraints are almost inevitable with a digital assessment tool when autoscoring is desired, as the tool will only have a limited set of functionality, and a certain degree of constraint on student actions increases the accuracy and preciseness of scoring algorithms (Scalise and Gifford, 2006;Kim et al, 2017;Meir et al, 2019). However, those constraints can also impact learning to be measured by the assessment (Meir et al, 2019;Cromley et al, 2020). Constraints can preclude measurement of certain aspects of higher-order thinking, but can also help reveal aspects of thinking that were hidden by other confusions in a more lightly constrained pen-and paper assessment.…”

Section: Revealing and Assessing Student Science Practice Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Constraints can preclude measurement of certain aspects of higher-order thinking, but can also help reveal aspects of thinking that were hidden by other confusions in a more lightly constrained pen-and paper assessment. For instance, auto-scored question formats that are intermediately open, between multiple choice and short essays, can help students express their thinking more precisely than in either multiple choice or essay format (Meir et al, 2019). Similarly, affordances of a digital tool may change the graphing practice the students demonstrate due to different or novel aspects of the tool (e.g., Sinclair and Yurita, 2008).…”

Section: Revealing and Assessing Student Science Practice Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The digital tool was embedded in several pages of text and images that introduced the context, research question and data, as well as some multiple choice, intermediate constraint (Meir et al, 2019), and essay questions before and after the graphing task. We do not discuss data from the other questions here.…”

Section: Context For the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biology Undergraduate Students’ Graphing Practice in Digital Versus Pen and Paper Graphing Environments

Gardner

Suazo‐Flores²,

Maruca

et al. 2021

J Sci Educ Technol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Graphing is an important practice for scientists and in K-16 science curricula. Graphs can be constructed using an array of software packages as well as by hand, with pen-and-paper. However, we have an incomplete understanding of how students’ graphing practice vary by graphing environment; differences could affect how best to teach and assess graphing. Here we explore the role of two graphing environments in students’ graphing practice. We studied 43 undergraduate biology students’ graphing practice using either pen-and-paper (PP) (n = 21 students) or a digital graphing tool GraphSmarts (GS) (n = 22 students). Participants’ graphs and verbal justifications were analyzed to identify features such as the variables plotted, number of graphs created, raw data versus summarized data plotted, and graph types (e.g., scatter plot, line graph, or bar graph) as well as participants’ reasoning for their graphing choices. Several aspects of participant graphs were similar regardless of graphing environment, including plotting raw vs. summarized data, graph type, and overall graph quality, while GS participants were more likely to plot the most relevant variables. In GS, participants could easily make more graphs than in PP and this may have helped some participants show latent features of their graphing practice. Those students using PP tended to focus more on ease of constructing the graph than GS. This study illuminates how the different characteristics of the graphing environment have implications for instruction and interpretation of assessments of student graphing practices.

show abstract

Imagining, designing, and interpreting experiments: Using quantitative assessment to improve instruction in scientific reasoning

Coleman

Lorenzo

McLamb

et al. 2023

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectively teaching scientific reasoning requires an understanding of the challenges students face when learning these skills. We designed an assessment that measures undergraduate student abilities to form hypotheses, design experiments, and interpret data from experiments in cellular and molecular biology. The assessment uses intermediate-constraint free-response questions with a defined rubric to facilitate use with large classes, while identifying common reasoning errors that may prevent students from becoming proficient at designing and interpreting experiments. The assessment measured a statistically significant improvement in a senior-level biochemistry laboratory course, and a larger improvement between the biochemistry lab students and a separate cohort in a first-year introductory biology lab course. Two common errors were identified for forming hypotheses and using experimental controls. Students frequently constructed a hypothesis that was a restatement of the observation it was supposed to explain. They also often made comparisons to control conditions not included in an experiment. Both errors were most frequent among first-year students, and decreased in frequency as students completed the senior-level biochemistry lab. Further investigation of the absent controls error indicated that difficulties with reasoning about experimental controls may be widespread in undergraduate students. The assessment was a useful instrument for measuring improvement in scientific reasoning at different levels of instruction, and identified errors that can be targeted to improve instruction in the process of science.

show abstract

Are intermediate constraint question formats useful for evaluating student thinking and promoting learning in formative assessments?

Cited by 14 publications

References 30 publications

Development of a Project-Based Learning Assessment System to Improve Students’ Competence

Development of a Project-Based Learning Assessment System to Improve Students’ Competence

Biology Undergraduate Students’ Graphing Practice in Digital Versus Pen and Paper Graphing Environments

Imagining, designing, and interpreting experiments: Using quantitative assessment to improve instruction in scientific reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About