1887

Student Buy-In Toward Formative Assessments: The Influence of Student Factors and Importance for Course Success

    Authors: Kathleen R. Brazeal1, Brian A. Couch1,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 05 September 2016 Accepted 25 January 2017 Published 21 April 2017
    • ©2017 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

    • Supplemental materials available at http://asmscience.org/jmbe
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska, 204 Manter, Lincoln, NE 68588-0118. Phone: 402-472-8130. Fax: 402-472-2083. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1235
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    81.77 Kb
  • PDF
    472.92 Kb
  • XML
    111.34 Kb

    Abstract:

    Formative assessment (FA) techniques, such as pre-class assignments, in-class activities, and post-class homework, have been shown to improve student learning. While many students find these techniques beneficial, some students may not understand how they support learning or may resist their implementation. Improving our understanding of FA buy-in has important implications, since buy-in can potentially affect whether students fully engage with and learn from FAs. We investigated FAs in 12 undergraduate biology courses to understand which student characteristics influenced buy-in toward FAs and whether FA buy-in predicted course success. We administered a mid-semester survey that probed student perceptions toward several different FA types, including activities occurring before, during, and after class. The survey included closed-ended questions aligned with a theoretical framework outlining key FA objectives. We used factor analysis to calculate an overall buy-in score for each student and general linear models to determine whether certain characteristics were associated with buy-in and whether buy-in predicted exam scores and course grades. We found that unfixed student qualities, such as perceptions, behaviors, and beliefs, consistently predicted FA buy-in, while fixed characteristics, including demographics, previous experiences, and incoming performance metrics, had more limited effects. Importantly, we found that higher buy-in toward most FA types predicted higher exam scores and course grades, even when controlling for demographic characteristics and previous academic performance. We further discuss steps that instructors can take to maximize student buy-in toward FAs.

Key Concept Ranking

Lead
0.8333334
Stems
0.6831687
0.8333334

References & Citations

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action: a summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, July 15–17, 2009 Washington, DC
2. National Research Council (NRC) 2003 Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics The National Academies Press, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Washington, DC
3. Eddy SL, Hogan KA 2014 Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE Life Sci Educ 13 453 468 10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050 25185229 4152207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
4. Reimer LC, Schenke K, Nguyen T, O’Dowd DK, Domina T, Warschauer M 2016 Evaluating promising practices in undergraduate STEM lecture courses RSF Russell Sage Found J Soc Sci 2 212 233
5. Freeman S, Haak D, Wenderoth MP 2011 Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology CBE Life Sci Educ 10 175 186 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105 21633066 3105924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105
6. Black P, Wiliam D 2009 Developing the theory of formative assessment Educ Assess Eval Account Former J Pers Eval Educ 21 5 31 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
7. Kay RH, LeSage A 2009 Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature Comput Educ 53 819 827 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
8. Keough SM 2012 Clickers in the classroom: a review and a replication J Manag Educ 36 822 847 10.1177/1052562912454808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1052562912454808
9. Vickrey T, Rosploch K, Rahmanian R, Pilarz M, Stains M 2015 Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review CBE Life Sci Educ 14 es3 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198 25713095 4353089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
10. Brazeal KR, Brown TL, Couch BA 2016 Characterizing student perceptions of and buy-in toward common formative assessment techniques CBE Life Sci Educ 15 ar73 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0133 27909023 5132370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0133
11. Seidel SB, Tanner KD 2013 “What if students revolt?”— Considering student resistance: origins, options, and opportunities for investigation CBE Life Sci Educ 12 586 595 10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190 24297286 3846509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
12. Prosser M, Trigwell K 2014 Qualitative variation in approaches to university teaching and learning in large first-year classes High Educ 67 783 795 10.1007/s10734-013-9690-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9690-0
13. Welsh AJ 2012 Exploring undergraduates’ perceptions of the use of active learning techniques in science lectures J Coll Sci Teach 42 80 87
14. Wolter BH, Lundeberg MA, Kang H, Herreid CF 2011 Students’ perceptions of using personal response systems (“clickers”) with cases in science J Coll Sci Teach 40 14 19
15. Birenbaum M, Feldman RA 1998 Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats Educ Res 40 90 98 10.1080/0013188980400109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188980400109
16. Gok T 2011 An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of instructors and students Turk Online J Educ Technol 10 4 67 83
17. Hoekstra A 2008 Vibrant student voices: exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses Learn Media Technol 33 329 341 10.1080/17439880802497081 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880802497081
18. Kay RH 2009 Examining gender differences in attitudes toward interactive classroom communications systems (ICCS) Comput Educ 52 730 740 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.015
19. Hillyard C, Gillespie D, Littig P 2010 University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation Act Learn High Educ 11 9 20 10.1177/1469787409355867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787409355867
20. Terrion JL, Aceti V 2012 Perceptions of the effects of clicker technology on student learning and engagement: A study of freshmen chemistry students Res Learn Technol 20 2 16150 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16150 10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16150 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16150
21. Zeidner M 1987 Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: the student’s perspective J Educ Res 80 352 358 10.1080/00220671.1987.10885782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1987.10885782
22. Preszler RW, Dawe A, Shuster CB, Shuster M 2007 Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses CBE Life Sci Educ 6 29 41 10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190 17339392 1854854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190
23. Trees AR, Jackson MH 2007 The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems Learn Media Technol 32 21 40 10.1080/17439880601141179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141179
24. Crossgrove K, Curran KL 2008 Using clickers in nonmajors-and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material CBE Life Sci Educ 7 146 154 10.1187/cbe.07-08-0060 18316817 2262112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-08-0060
25. Akerlind GS, Trevitt AC 1999 Enhancing self-directed learning through educational technology: when students resist the change Innov Educ Train Int 36 96 105 10.1080/1355800990360202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1355800990360202
26. Taylor M 1986 Learning for self-direction in the classroom: the pattern of a transition process Stud High Educ 11 55 72 10.1080/03075078612331378461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075078612331378461
27. Birenbaum M 1997 Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations High Educ 33 71 84 10.1023/A:1002985613176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1002985613176
28. Jones A, Kember D 1994 Approaches to learning and student acceptance of self-study packages Program Learn Educ Technol 31 93 97
29. Felder RM, Brent R 1996 Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction Coll Teach 44 43 47 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425
30. Keeley SM, Shemberg KM, Cowell BS, Zinnbauer BJ 1995 Coping with student resistance to critical thinking: what the psychotherapy literature can tell us Coll Teach 43 140 145 10.1080/87567555.1995.9925537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1995.9925537
31. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ 1999 Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research Psychol Methods 4 272 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
32. Osborne JW, Costello AB 2009 Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis Pan-Pac Manag Rev 12 131 146
33. Theobald R, Freeman S 2014 Is it the intervention or the students? Using linear regression to control for student characteristics in undergraduate STEM education research CBE Life Sci Educ 13 41 48 10.1187/cbe-13-07-0136 24591502 3940461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-07-0136
34. Terenzini PT, Springer L, Yaeger PM, Pascarella ET, Nora A 1996 First-generation college students: characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development Res High Educ 37 1 22 10.1007/BF01680039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01680039
35. Warburton EC, Bugarin R, Nunez AM 2001 Bridging the gap: academic preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES 2001-153) National Center for Education Statistics, US Government Printing Office Washington, DC
36. Stephens NM, Fryberg SA, Markus HR, Johnson CS, Covarrubias R 2012 Unseen disadvantage: how American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students J Pers Soc Psychol 102 1178 10.1037/a0027143 22390227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027143
37. Collier PJ, Morgan DL 2008 “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in first-generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations High Educ 55 425 446 10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5
38. Pascarella ET, Pierson CT, Wolniak GC, Terenzini PT 2004 First-generation college students: additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes J High Educ 249 284 10.1353/jhe.2004.0016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2004.0016
39. Pike GR, Kuh GD 2005 First-and second-generation college students: a comparison of their engagement and intellectual development J High Educ 276 300 10.1353/jhe.2005.0021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0021
40. Stebleton M, Soria K 2013 Breaking down barriers: academic obstacles of first-generation students at research universities
41. Lundberg CA, Schreiner LA, Hovaguimian K, Slavin Miller S 2007 First-generation status and student race/ethnicity as distinct predictors of student involvement and learning NASPA J 44 57 83 10.2202/0027-6014.1755 http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1755
42. Soria KM, Stebleton MJ 2012 First-generation students’ academic engagement and retention Teach High Educ 17 673 685 10.1080/13562517.2012.666735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.666735
43. Luo W 2008 Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) improves students’ performance in classes—adaptation of JiTT in four geography courses J Geosci Educ 56 166 171 10.5408/1089-9995-56.2.166 http://dx.doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-56.2.166
44. Marrs KA, Novak G 2004 Just-in-Time Teaching in biology: creating an active learner classroom using the internet Cell Biol Educ 3 49 61 10.1187/cbe.03-11-0022 22039345 3203712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-11-0022
45. Simkins S, Maier M 2004 Using Just-in-Time Teaching techniques in the principles of economics course Soc Sci Comput Rev 22 444 456 10.1177/0894439304268643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439304268643
46. Cavanagh AJ, Aragón OR, Chen X, Couch B, Durham M, Bobrownicki A, Hanauer DI, Graham MJ 2016 Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course CBE Life Sci Educ 15 ar76 10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212 27909026 5132373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212
47. Lizzio A, Wilson K, Simons R 2002 University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice Stud High Educ 27 27 52 10.1080/03075070120099359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359
48. Struyven K, Dochy F, Janssens S 2005 Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review Assess Eval High Educ 30 325 341 10.1080/02602930500099102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099102
49. Trigwell K, Prosser M 1991 Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes High Educ 22 251 266 10.1007/BF00132290 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00132290
50. Davidson RA 2003 Relationship of study approach and exam performance J Account Educ 20 29 44 10.1016/S0748-5751(01)00025-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0748-5751(01)00025-2
51. Elias RZ 2005 Students’ approaches to study in introductory accounting courses J Educ Bus 80 194 199 10.3200/JOEB.80.4.194-199 http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.4.194-199
52. Holschuh JP 2000 Do as I say, not as I do: high, average, and low-performing students’ strategy use in biology J Coll Read Learn 31 94 108 10.1080/10790195.2000.10850105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2000.10850105
53. Silverthorn DU 2006 Teaching and learning in the interactive classroom Adv Physiol Educ 30 135 140 10.1152/advan.00087.2006 17108239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00087.2006
54. Biggs J 1996 Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment High Educ 32 347 364 10.1007/BF00138871 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
55. Blumberg P 2009 Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types of knowledge Innov High Educ 34 93 103 10.1007/s10755-009-9095-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9095-2
56. Allen D, Tanner K 2007 Putting the horse back in front of the cart: using visions and decisions about high-quality learning experiences to drive course design CBE Life Sci Educ 6 85 89 10.1187/cbe.07-03-0017 17548870 1885907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-03-0017
57. Wiggins G, McTighe J 2005 Understanding by design Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria, VA
58. Allen D, Tanner K 2002 Approaches to cell biology teaching: questions about questions Cell Biol Educ 1 63 67 10.1187/cbe.02-07-0021 12459794 128545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-07-0021
59. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP 2008 Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology CBE Life Sci Educ 7 368 381 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 19047424 2592046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
60. Krathwohl DR 2002 A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview Theory Pract 41 212 218 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
61. Tanner K, Allen D 2005 Understanding the wrong answers— teaching toward conceptual change Cell Biol Educ 4 112 117 10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068 15917868 1103711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068
62. Miri B, David B-C, Uri Z 2007 Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical thinking Res Sci Educ 37 353 369 10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2
63. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT 2009 Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions Science 323 122 124 10.1126/science.1165919 19119232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919
64. Benford R, Gess-Newsome J 2006 Factors affecting student academic success in gateway courses at Northern Arizona University Cent Sci Teach Learn North Ariz Univ ERIC Document No ED495693
65. Graham CR, Tripp TR, Seawright L, Joeckel G 2007 Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems Act Learn High Educ 8 233 258 10.1177/1469787407081885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787407081885
66. Oakley B, Felder RM, Brent R, Elhajj I 2004 Turning student groups into effective teams J Stud Centered Learn 2 9 34
67. Tanner KD 2009 Talking to learn: why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how to make it happen CBE Life Sci Educ 8 89 94 10.1187/cbe.09-03-0021 19487494 2689152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0021
68. Knight JK, Wise SB, Southard KM 2013 Understanding clicker discussions: student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues CBE Life Sci Educ 12 645 654 10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090 24297291 3846515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090
69. Novak GM 2011 Just-in-Time Teaching New Dir Teach Learn 2011 63 73 10.1002/tl.469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.469
70. Benfield G 2002 Designing and managing effective online discussions Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development Oxford Brookes University Oxford, UK
71. Fishman EJ 2014 With great control comes great responsibility: the relationship between perceived academic control, student responsibility, and self-regulation Br J Educ Psychol 84 685 702 10.1111/bjep.12057 25251935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12057
72. Vermunt JD, Vermetten YJ 2004 Patterns in student learning: relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations Educ Psychol Rev 16 359 384 10.1007/s10648-004-0005-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0005-y
73. Trigwell K, Prosser M, Waterhouse F 1999 Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning High Educ 37 57 70 10.1023/A:1003548313194 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003548313194
74. Vermunt J, Verschaffel L 2000 Process-oriented teaching 209 225 Simons RL, van der Linden J, Duffy T New learning Kluwer Academic Publishers Netherlands 10.1007/0-306-47614-2_11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47614-2_11
75. Vermunt JD, Verloop N 1999 Congruence and friction between learning and teaching Learn Instr 9 257 280 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0
76. Tanner KD 2012 Promoting student metacognition CBE Life Sci Educ 11 113 120 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033 22665584 3366894 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033
77. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ 1996 The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective Instr Sci 24 1 24 10.1007/BF00156001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00156001
78. Schraw G, Crippen KJ, Hartley K 2006 Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning Res Sci Educ 36 111 139 10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1235
2017-04-21
2019-07-22

Abstract:

Formative assessment (FA) techniques, such as pre-class assignments, in-class activities, and post-class homework, have been shown to improve student learning. While many students find these techniques beneficial, some students may not understand how they support learning or may resist their implementation. Improving our understanding of FA buy-in has important implications, since buy-in can potentially affect whether students fully engage with and learn from FAs. We investigated FAs in 12 undergraduate biology courses to understand which student characteristics influenced buy-in toward FAs and whether FA buy-in predicted course success. We administered a mid-semester survey that probed student perceptions toward several different FA types, including activities occurring before, during, and after class. The survey included closed-ended questions aligned with a theoretical framework outlining key FA objectives. We used factor analysis to calculate an overall buy-in score for each student and general linear models to determine whether certain characteristics were associated with buy-in and whether buy-in predicted exam scores and course grades. We found that unfixed student qualities, such as perceptions, behaviors, and beliefs, consistently predicted FA buy-in, while fixed characteristics, including demographics, previous experiences, and incoming performance metrics, had more limited effects. Importantly, we found that higher buy-in toward most FA types predicted higher exam scores and course grades, even when controlling for demographic characteristics and previous academic performance. We further discuss steps that instructors can take to maximize student buy-in toward FAs.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/18/1/jmbe-18-6.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1235&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Distributions of FA buy-in scores for each FA type. Central bars represent medians, boxes represent inner quartiles, and whiskers represent the 5 and 95 percentiles. FA = formative assessment; JiTT = Just-in-Time Teaching; OTP-pre = online textbook program pre-class assignments; CQ = clicker questions; ICA = in-class activities; OTP-post = online textbook program post-class assignments; HW/Q = homework assignments/quizzes.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1235
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Model-predicted exam grade z-scores (A) and course grades (B) of students with differing FA buy-in. Bars represent point estimate predictions from the general linear models for grades of three hypothetical students with very high, medium, and very low buy-in (i.e., resistant), at the 95, 50, and 5 percentile buy-in scores, respectively, for each FA type. Asterisks indicate FAs for which buy-in significantly influenced grades ( < 0.05; Table 5 ), while controlling for demographic variables, incoming GPA, and course section. FA = formative assessment; JiTT = Just-in-Time Teaching; OTP-pre = online textbook program pre-class assignments; CQ = clicker questions; ICA = in-class activities; OTP-post = online textbook program post-class assignments; HW/Q = homework assignments/quizzes.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1235
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error