Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 437–443 | Cite as

Rapid Feedback Assessment Methods: Can We Improve Engagement and Preparation for Exams in Large-enrollment Courses?

  • Sehoya H. Cotner
  • Bruce A. Fall
  • Susan M. Wick
  • J. D. Walker
  • Paul M. Baepler
Article

Abstract

Scratch-off immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT) forms and classroom response systems (clickers) can increase student engagement and interaction and help students prepare for exams by indicating the type and level of questions they will encounter. We used the IF-AT throughout the semester in three sections of a lower-division biology class; in two, students worked on IF-AT questions in small permanent groups, and in one, students alternated between IF-AT and clickers each week. At the end of the semester, students answered surveys about instant feedback techniques. Students appreciated prompt feedback on their understanding of course material, enjoyed the group interaction and opportunities to learn from each other, and continued to have positive perceptions of instant feedback activities and to take them seriously throughout the semester. While appreciating the versatility of clicker questions, we find that the ease of use, low cost, effectiveness, and improved classroom climate of the IF-AT method are particularly commendable.

Keywords

IF-AT Large lectures Immediate feedback Engagement Student perceptions 

References

  1. Angelo TA, Cross KP (1993) Classroom assessment techniques. Jossey-Bass, Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik CC, Kulik JA, Morgan M (1991) The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res 67:601–607Google Scholar
  3. Barab S, Squire K (2004) Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. J Learn Sci 13:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber M, Njus D (2007) Clicker evolution: seeking intelligent design. Cell Biol Educ—Life Sci Educ 6:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown AL (1992) Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J Learn Sci 2:141–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caldwell JE (2007) Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. Cell Biol Educ—Life Sci Educ 6:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carbone E, Greenberg J (1998) Teaching large classes: unpacking the problem and responding creatively. In: Kaplan M (ed) To improve the academy 17. New Forums Press and The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, Stillwater, OK, pp 311–326Google Scholar
  8. Chickering A, Gamson Z (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education, AAHE Bulletin, 3–7 MarchGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins A (1992) Toward a design science of education. In: Scanlon E, O’Shea T (eds) New directions in educational technology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  10. Cotner S, Baepler P, Kellerman A (2008) Scratch this!: the IF-AT as a technique for stimulating group discussion and exposing misconceptions. J Coll Sci TeachGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox AJ, Junkin WF (2002) Enhanced student learning in the introductory physics laboratory. Phys Educ 37:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69:970–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DiBattista D, Mitterer JO, Gosse L (2004) Acceptance by undergraduates of the immediate feedback assessment technique for multiple-choice testing. Teach Higher Educ 9:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Draper SW, Brown MI (2004) Increased interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. J Comput Assisted Learn 20:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epstein ML, Brosvic GM (2002) Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Psychol Rep 90:1136–1138Google Scholar
  16. Epstein ML, Lazarus AD, Calvano TB, Matthews KA, Hendel RA, Epstein BB, Brosvic GM (2002) Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. Psychol Rec 52:187–201Google Scholar
  17. Fink LD (2003) Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins R, Hartley P, Skelton A (2002) The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Stud Higher Educ 27:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Michaelson LK, Knight AB, Fink LD (2004) Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Stylus, Sterling, VAGoogle Scholar
  20. Pascarella E, Terenzini P (1991) How college affects students: findings and insights from twenty years of research. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. Sandoval WA, Bell P (2004) Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: introduction. Educ Psychol 39:199–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Slavin R (1991) Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educ Leadersh 48:71–82Google Scholar
  23. Walker JD, Cotner S, Baepler P, Decker M. A delicate balance: Integrating active learning into a large lecture course. Forthcoming in Cell Biol Educ—Life Sci Educ (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Wiggins G (1998) Educative assessment: designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood WB (2004) Clickers: A teaching gimmick that works. Dev Cell 7:796–798Google Scholar
  26. Wulff DH, Nyquist JD, Abbott RD (1987) Students’ perceptions of large classes. In: Weimer M (ed) New directions for teaching and learning 32. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sehoya H. Cotner
    • 1
  • Bruce A. Fall
    • 2
  • Susan M. Wick
    • 3
  • J. D. Walker
    • 4
  • Paul M. Baepler
    • 5
  1. 1.General Biology Program/Ecology, Evolution & BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Biology ProgramUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  4. 4.Digital Media CenterUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  5. 5.Center for Teaching and LearningUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations