Validity of multiple-choice digital formative assessment for assessing students’ (mis)conceptions: evidence from a mixed-methods study in algebra

ZDM Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1007/s11858-024-01556-0
Katrin Klingbeil, Fabian Rösken, Bärbel Barzel, Florian Schacht, Kaye Stacey, Vicki Steinle, Daniel Thurm
{"title":"Validity of multiple-choice digital formative assessment for assessing students’ (mis)conceptions: evidence from a mixed-methods study in algebra","authors":"Katrin Klingbeil, Fabian Rösken, Bärbel Barzel, Florian Schacht, Kaye Stacey, Vicki Steinle, Daniel Thurm","doi":"10.1007/s11858-024-01556-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Assessing students’ (mis)conceptions is a challenging task for teachers as well as for researchers. While individual assessment, for example through interviews, can provide deep insights into students’ thinking, this is very time-consuming and therefore not feasible for whole classes or even larger settings. For those settings, automatically evaluated multiple-choice (MC) items could be a solution. However, it is a challenge to design those items and to adapt them for other countries in a way that they adequately reveal students’ (mis)conceptions. In this article, we investigate the question whether it is valid to use a German adaption of a multiple-choice test developed in Australia for formative assessment of the <i>letter-as-object</i> misconception in Germany. For this, first semi-structured interviews with five German Year 8 students were conducted, and second, 616 students were asked for short written explanations. These data were analysed with regards to the students’ (mis)conceptions and compared with their automatic online diagnosis. In general, a high concordance between online SMART test results and students’ explanations was observed, confirming that useful diagnoses of student misconceptions can be obtained from such a short well-designed MC test.</p>","PeriodicalId":501335,"journal":{"name":"ZDM","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZDM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01556-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessing students’ (mis)conceptions is a challenging task for teachers as well as for researchers. While individual assessment, for example through interviews, can provide deep insights into students’ thinking, this is very time-consuming and therefore not feasible for whole classes or even larger settings. For those settings, automatically evaluated multiple-choice (MC) items could be a solution. However, it is a challenge to design those items and to adapt them for other countries in a way that they adequately reveal students’ (mis)conceptions. In this article, we investigate the question whether it is valid to use a German adaption of a multiple-choice test developed in Australia for formative assessment of the letter-as-object misconception in Germany. For this, first semi-structured interviews with five German Year 8 students were conducted, and second, 616 students were asked for short written explanations. These data were analysed with regards to the students’ (mis)conceptions and compared with their automatic online diagnosis. In general, a high concordance between online SMART test results and students’ explanations was observed, confirming that useful diagnoses of student misconceptions can be obtained from such a short well-designed MC test.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估学生(错误)概念的多选题数字形成性评估的有效性:来自代数混合方法研究的证据
对教师和研究人员来说,评估学生的(错误)概念都是一项具有挑战性的任务。虽然通过访谈等方式进行个别评估可以深入了解学生的思维方式,但这非常耗时,因此对于全班甚至更大的环境来说并不可行。在这种情况下,自动评估的多项选择(MC)项目不失为一种解决方案。然而,如何设计这些项目并将其适用于其他国家,从而充分揭示学生的(错误)概念,却是一项挑战。在这篇文章中,我们研究了一个问题,即在德国使用澳大利亚开发的多选题测试的德文改编版来对 "字母即物体 "的错误概念进行形成性评估是否有效。为此,我们首先对五名德国八年级学生进行了半结构式访谈,其次要求 616 名学生提供简短的书面解释。我们分析了学生的(错误)概念,并将这些数据与他们的自动在线诊断进行了比较。总体而言,在线 SMART 测试结果与学生的解释高度一致,这证实了可以从这样一个精心设计的简短 MC 测试中获得对学生错误概念的有用诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ZDM
ZDM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative analysis between three theoretical approaches through empirical experiences at university level Measurement invariance between subjects: what can we learn about subject-related differences in teaching quality? Mathematics teachers’ multiple perspectives on adaptive tasks: task evaluation and selection as core practices for teaching quality What do university mathematics students value in advanced mathematics courses? The PRIUM qualitative framework for assessment of proof comprehension: a result of collaboration among mathematicians and mathematics educators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1