Methodology Student Course Performance with Objectives Based Assessment Todd A Zimmerman, Gabriel Hanna - University of Wisconsin-Stout Question: Does.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Teaching Freshman Calculus-Based Physics Using the LOGIC Model Amin Jazaeri, Ph.D. COS Science Accelerator & School of Physics, Astronomy and Computational.
Advertisements

POGIL vs Traditional Lecture in Organic I Gary D. Anderson Department of Chemistry Marshall University Huntington, WV.
Self-Efficacy in a General Education Mathematics Course Dr. Laura Schmidt University of Wisconsin – Stout OPID Spring Conference.
Redesign of PSYC 1101 into a 50% Online (Hybrid) Course Sue Spaulding, UNC Charlotte Pearson Education March 9, 2012 Boston Office.
Introduction to Financial Management. Overview of Financial Management Introduction Keys to Success Recitations Class Structure - Syllabus Text – Financial.
Physics 102 Introduction Instructor Dr. Moza Al-Rabban Office Phone: Spring 2007.
A case study of A Campus-Base Course Taught and Assessed Using e-learning John Fothergill.
COURSE REDESIGN MANAGERIAL FINANCE Dr. Shannon Donovan, Professor, Accounting and Finance, Bridgewater State University
Strategies for Math Success Russell Conwell Learning Center Online Workshop.
The Hybrid Mathematics Class: The best of both worlds, or No Man’s Land? Mary Hudachek-Buswell Catherine Matos Clayton State University 1.
Enhancing Student Learning Through Error Analysis
Blended Courses: How to have the best of both worlds in higher education By Susan C. Slowey.
Techniques for Improving Student Learning Outcomes Lynn M. Forsythe Ida M. Jones Deborah J. Kemp Craig School of Business California State University,
Improving Learning via Tablet-PC-based In-Class Assessment Kimberle Koile, MIT CS and AI Lab David Singer, MIT Brain & Cognitive Sciences Classroom Presenter.
…improves student performance! “I use the LearnSmart modules within Connect Management to get students familiar with the material and engaged with the.
METHODS Study Population Study Population: 224 students enrolled in a 3-credit hour, undergraduate, clinical pharmacology course in Fall 2005 and Spring.
 Do non-majors learn genetics at a different rate than majors?  What factors affect how students think about and learn difficult genetics concepts? Jenny.
ENVS& 100 Survey of Environmental Science Instructor: Tom Broxson Library 138 Office Hours: 11:00-12:00 M,T,W,Th, F and by appointment
Thank you for joining us for Small Group Instruction The presentation will begin momentarily. RIGHT REASON TECHNOLOGIES YOUR SOLUTION FOR STUDENT SUCCESS.
Instructional Shifts for Mathematics. achievethecore.org 2 Instructional Shifts in Mathematics 1.Focus: Focus strongly where the Standards focus. 2.Coherence:
Using WAMAP to Facilitate a Mastery Approach to Developmental Math
7-Sep-15 Physics 1 (Garcia) SJSU Conceptual Physics (Physics 1) Prof. Alejandro Garcia Spring 2007.
Implementing Active Learning Strategies in a Large Class Setting Travis White, Pharm.D., Assistant Professor Kristy Lucas, Pharm.D., Professor Pharmacy.
Student Centered Teaching Through Universal Instructional Design Part II.
Welcome to Physics 110 Instructor: Dr. Jeff Saul Course Philosophy: Anyone can learn physics if willing to make an effort The hard part is learning how.
Flipping the Large Intro Bio Class, Round 2 Jung H. Choi, School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA Abstract In fall 2011.
Professional Development Topics that help students demonstrate Proficiency in State Standards on the CST.
ENHANCING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING THROUGH VIDEO LECTURES AND QUIZZING AMY RUTLEDGE, SPECIAL INSTRUCTOR OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS OAKLAND.
Lack of Learning or Lack of Studying? An Inquiry into Low Exam Scores Katherine M. Sauer Metropolitan State College of Denver February.
Teaching Thermodynamics with Collaborative Learning Larry Caretto Mechanical Engineering Department June 9, 2006.
A Pre-Calculus Course: From classroom to online to MOOC Sarah Eichhorn Associate Dean, Distance Learning & Faculty, School of Physical Sciences.
Teaching Freshman Calculus Based Physics Using the LO-GIC Model Amin Jazaeri, Ph.D. COS Science Accelerator & School of Physics, Astronomy and Computational.
Philip W. Young Dept. of Chemistry & Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Platteville, WI Correlation between FCI Gains and.
Learning Gains, Student Attitudes, and impacts on LA’s in Phys 1110 (Sp ‘03) S. Pollock With NSF/STEM-TP support.
CIS 842: Specification and Verification of Reactive Systems Lecture ADM: Course Administration Copyright , Matt Dwyer, John Hatcliff, Robby. The.
Michigan State University Gathering and Timely use of Feedback from Individualized On-Line Work. Matthew HallJoyce ParkerBehrouz Minaei-BigdoliGuy AlbertelliGerd.
Comparison of Student Learning in Challenge-based and Traditional Instruction in Biomedical Engineering Others: Taylor Martin, Stephanie D. Rivale, and.
The Use of Formative Evaluations in the Online Course Setting JENNIFER PETERSON, MS, RHIA, CTR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SCIENCES.
Teaching Business: BADM Major Requirements Six Foundational Courses BADM 101 Introduction to Business BADM 110 Foundations of Management BADM 226 Organizational.
08/29/2006 Introduction INTRODUCTION Instructor: Petru S. Fodor Class webpage: PHYSICS 243H.
Survey Results. Setting CS3114 during Fall, 2011 VT Lecture-based class Students had recently spent one week using our hashing tutorial in.
Physics 101: Lecture 27, Pg 1 Welcome to Physics 101! Lecture 01: Introduction to Forces l Forces l Kinematics l Energy/Momentum l Rotations l Fluids l.
Proficiency Based Physics Brooke Schmidt and Eric Hawker Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.
Instructional Plan | Slide 1 AET/515 Instructional Plan For Associate’s Degree in Library Skills (Donna Roy)
Blended Learning Strategies in a First- Year Engineering Program AMBER KEMPPAINEN, MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY HOUGHTON, MI Keywords:
Philip W. Young Dept. of Chemistry & Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Platteville, WI Correlation between FCI Gains and.
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction instructor’s name
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING-I ACCT 2003
The Beginning of Our Journey Through History
Information Systems in Organizations Course Introduction Steve Sclarow
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Leonard Nelson
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction: Carey O’Donnell
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Courtney Minich
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction instructor’s name
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction instructor’s name
English Communication
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Carey O’Donnell
Lecture Demonstrations and the Force Concept Inventory
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Amy Lavin
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Carey O’Donnell
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Mart Doyle
Introduction to Law.
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Mary Muldoon
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction: Carey O’Donnell
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Steve Sclarow
Information Systems in Organizations Introduction Adam Alalouf
Welcome to Physics 1D03 !.
Office hours: By Appt
Information Systems in Organizations
Presentation transcript:

Methodology Student Course Performance with Objectives Based Assessment Todd A Zimmerman, Gabriel Hanna - University of Wisconsin-Stout Question: Does an learning objectives based grading system produce different student performance than a points based grading system? Learning Objectives Based Assessment (LOBA) is a grading paradigm, based on Standards Referenced Grading, where student grades are based on demonstrating proficiency of key learning objectives. Students in a LOBA course are given a list of the learning objectives they must demonstrate proficiency on and are given weekly assessments (quizzes) to show their proficiency. A student that has not mastered a learning objective is allowed to reassess as often as needed to master a learning objective. Their final course grade is determined by the number of learning objectives they have demonstrated proficiency on. The benefits of LOBA are: 1)Students know what skills and concepts they must study. 2)Students can learn from their mistakes without any penalty. 3)Students have a stronger incentive to make use of feedback from instructor. 4)More frequent assessment leads to better student outcomes 2. Students are held accountable for demonstrating understanding on the learning objectives in the hopes that they will be more motivated to make take a more active role in their education and to make use of instructor feedback to help master the material. Introduction 1) Marzano, Robert J. Formative assessment & standards-based grading. Solution Tree, ) Bangert-Drowns, Robert L., James A. Kulik, and Chen-Lin C. Kulik. "Effects of frequent classroom testing." The Journal of Educational Research 85.2 (1991): Thanks to OPID Wisconsin Teaching Fellows and Scholars program and UW-Stout Provost’s office for financial support Conclusions Four sections of University Physics I where split into a control group (points based) and a LOBA group. All lecture sections taught by same instructor Different lab/discussion instructors but all activities dictated by lead instructor During assessment days, points based class did group problem solving on related problems. Common midterm and final given to both groups Force Concept Inventory (FCI) – a 30 question conceptual survey on topics related to Newton’s Laws and Kinematics Given pre- and post-instruction Study habit survey given after midterm and final exams Data analysis: Comparison of FCI scores Comparison of study habit survey results Comparison of exam problem solving skills (in progress). Results - Survey 1) Time spent on reworking problems from exams/ assessments you already took P value = Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) More than 3 hours54 (2) From 2 to 3 hours07 (3) From 1 to 2 hours410 (4) Less than an hour166 (5)Did not use68 Mean = References 2) Time spent on looking at solutions to practice assessments/exams (without working through the problems) P value = Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) More than 3 hours05 (2) From 2 to 3 hours85 (3) From 1 to 2 hours135 (4) Less than an hour114 (5)Did not use96 Mean = ) Time spent on reading the list of topics/learning objectives that will be on the assessment/exam P value = Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) More than 3 hours13 (2) From 2 to 3 hours74 (3) From 1 to 2 hours83 (4) Less than an hour419 (5)Did not use611 Mean = ) Time spent on asking the instructor questions about the material outside of class P value = Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) More than 3 hours02 (2) From 2 to 3 hours22 (3) From 1 to 2 hours57 (4) Less than an hour09 (5)Did not use2415 Mean = ) Time spent on working problems from online homework P value = Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) More than 3 hours53 (2) From 2 to 3 hours104 (3) From 1 to 2 hours412 (4) Less than an hour07 (5)Did not use129 Mean = ) Time spent reading the textbook material covered by the exam/assessment P value =.0042 Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) More than 3 hours22 (2) From 2 to 3 hours65 (3) From 1 to 2 hours59 (4) Less than an hour211 (5)Did not use168 Mean = ) Time spent viewing video lectures P value = Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) More than 3 hours11 (2) From 2 to 3 hours72 (3) From 1 to 2 hours46 (4) Less than an hour010 (5)Did not use1916 Mean = ) I use comments on previous assessments to study for assessments/exams. P value =.0035 Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) Not at all like me20 (2) Somewhat unlike me114 (3) Somewhat like me1219 (4) Just like me612 Mean = ) When studying for assessments/exams, I have a good idea what things I need to focus on. P value =.0023 Points (N=31) LOBA (N=35) (1) Not at all like me40 (2) Somewhat unlike me1310 (3) Somewhat like me1318 (4) Just like me17 Mean = Results - FCI No significant difference between groups in improvement in following topics: Free fall Impulse Balanced forces Projectile motion TopicPoints (Percent Improvement) LOBA (Percent Improvement) Differences Unbalanced Forces0.20± ±0.08Points slightly better Circular and tangential motion0.19± ±0.09LOBA slightly better Newton’s Third Law0.27± ±0.08LOBA slightly better Kinematics0.11± ±0.13LOBA slightly better LOBA students may show better performance on topics related to circular and tangential motion, Newton’s Third Law, and kinematics. LOBA students more likely to spend study time on looking at previous assessments and interacting with instructor. With the exception of online homework, Points students more likely to use passive techniques like reading text or viewing videos. LOBA students more likely to make use of instructor feedback and feel better informed of material on assessments. Future research involves analyzing and comparing problem solving skills on exams and comparison to LOBA class with required homework. The FCI measures student understanding of Newton’s Laws and other basic physics principles using a 30 question multiple-choice survey given at start and end of term. ‘Percent Improvement’ is a measure of the fraction of questions initially missed that are answered correctly on post-semester FCI