1 / 16

SLO Assessment with online classes and action research

SLO Assessment with online classes and action research. Joan Thomas-Spiegel, PhD 2012. The Process. Identify an SLO item concern Gather data Institute an innovation or “tweak” Regather data Evaluate and Share Look for surprises in analysis Return to the beginning.

titus
Télécharger la présentation

SLO Assessment with online classes and action research

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. SLO Assessment with online classes and action research Joan Thomas-Spiegel, PhD 2012

  2. The Process • Identify an SLO item concern • Gather data • Institute an innovation or “tweak” • Regather data • Evaluate and Share • Look for surprises in analysis • Return to the beginning

  3. Formative and Summative Data • Gathering right or wrong answers at the end of a semester or when there is no further assessment on an item is summative data. • Gathering data that can guide a student with feedback before a final measure is formative.

  4. Formative Data Setup • “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” • Consider your discussions, assignments, quiz questions, and summative data. (More is better when it comes to data.) • What feedback can you give the students? • What will you measure and compare?

  5. An Example • The SLO: • basic research methodology • The item within that SLO: • able to identify the independent and dependent variables in an hypothesis • The concern or problem: • Students seem to struggle with this topic even into higher levels of psychology. • Materials already involve a written lecture, examples in a worksheet, a video, examples in an assignment, and the textbook.

  6. The Question With so many aids to teach students this concept and multiple measures, is there any tweak to an assignment or measure that will improve student understanding?

  7. Before Tweaking • Current assignments asked students to create an hypothesis and label the variables. They received private message and discussion feedback while they formed the base for an imaginary experiment.

  8. “Tweak” • Since students are in a freshman class and since summative data is a multiple choice question, change the assignment to provide an hypothesis and ask for a short answer response about the variables. In the scoring of that response, students will be given specific details to correct any misconceptions.

  9. Gather Data • Formative • DQ class percentage • Assignment feedback and score • Chapter quiz questions % right • Summative • Final test question % right • Surprises (what makes it hard or easy) • DQ’s were scored more on participation than correct identification • The assignment rubric was not consistently easy to obtain • One semester the test item did not appear in the final (randomized questions)

  10. Pre and Post Data Comparison • DQ 85% • Higher than some other discussions, but… • Assignment • An oops moment for gathering data in the post section • Feedback was reviewed to determine percentage of corrections, but… • Chapter quiz items • 66% right • (both pre and post innovation) • Final (post only) • 65% (Were they the same 66% that got it the first time?)

  11. The Unexpected • Setup for the assignment did not yield easy analysis. • What about how the question item (65%) compared with other final items?

  12. It Turns Out… • 65% is pretty average (68% mean) • There were at least three other items that surprised me with very poor correct percentages.

  13. I began grouping the types of items that scored high (often related to more common terms, such as PTSD and phobias) • Other higher scores were related to the student’s assignment on dreams and sleeping and stress.

  14. Low scores were: • Only 3% correct on treatment of a suicidal client who does not respond to medication or therapy; 19% on Piaget’s volume conservation at 7 years; 38% on a pseudoscience question, and 42% on neural communication

  15. Each of these low scores were surprising to me because they also had formative discussions and assignments. They were covered in lectures, videos, and with the exception of pseudoscience, covered in the textbook.

  16. Evaluation and Return to Beginning • The two different approaches to IV/DV were not significantly different. However, they also were not the biggest struggles for students. My observations had been biased! • While I plan on returning for another “tweak” in the future, right now, I want to refocus on two new areas more. Development needs more depth than the current assignment and most especially, transcranial stimulation needs better emphasis. • I am returning to my lectures to determine whether these two areas are sufficiently covered and then will work my way through the data collections and learning moments for the students.

More Related