Free download.
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment: SAGE Publications file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment: SAGE Publications book.
Happy reading SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment: SAGE Publications Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment: SAGE Publications at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment: SAGE Publications Pocket Guide.
SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. Share. AddThis Sharing November | pages | SAGE Publications, Inc. Download flyer.
Table of contents
When assessing her peer, Nea provided good-quality feedback, including both constructive critique and constructive compliment. The report that Nea assessed was rather good. Three out of four times, Nea marked correctly whether the assessee had achieved the requirements of the criteria, and in all four cases she provided constructive comments Figs. Nea not only marked the smiley face but also specified her thoughts. Her comment communicates to the assessee that assessor had put thought into it, which increases the validity of the mark.
This gave assessee guidance how to complete his work. Receiving feedback and making changes.
Nea received good feedback with one constructive compliment and one constructive critique Fig. The critique was valid; Nea had written unclearly about their measurements. After giving and receiving feedback, Nea reworked her report. She added a whole section to clarify how they had measured, which raised the quality of her work. In the interview, Nea explained her thoughts on receiving feedback:. Interviewer: Ok, then. You had finished it [the report] and it was like this [gives a copy of the original report] and then you got your feedback. Here, you can look at it [gives a copy of the feedback].
So, do you remember the moment you got the feedback and read it, what did you think?
Selected-response classroom assessment
Nea: Well, I thought that my text should have had that information and the feedback was good that I … like I was able to change my text with it. Nea was receptive and grateful for the feedback, and she eagerly expressed that it was easy to receive. She wanted to use the feedback for her own benefit. Nea had an open attitude toward feedback, which enabled her to improve her work. Other benefits. In the interview, Nea stated that she considered all feedback useful. She mentioned that besides the critique, it was also helpful to know when something went well. She acted effectively both in the roles of assessor and assessee and benefited from PA.
She had difficulties grasping the idea of conducting and reporting the inquiry, but it did not become a barrier to helping other students nor letting them help her. Many students made their inquiry carefully and provided good-quality feedback. Nevertheless, most of them did not improve their work.
Top Authors
Niko was one of these group 2 students. He put effort into his work, but still ended up making no improvements after PA Fig. Reporting inquiry and providing feedback. Niko worked hard to finish his lab report. Niko put effort into the original work. He had one clear incomplete regarding error analysis, which could have been improved, but otherwise his work was of excellent quality.
Receiving feedback. She marked only one criterion correctly and did not include a written comment there. Three other criteria were marked wrong and had unconstructive comments since the focus was off Fig. The criterion described the qualities of calculation. There was a place for reinforcing feedback. Niko did not receive it and instead was led to focus on unimportant criteria.
Regarding the incompleteness of his error analysis, Niko did not get corrective feedback Fig. The assessor had not noticed the incompleteness and instead marked a smiley face and complimented the work. In this case, Niko missed corrective feedback. He had another chance to notice the issue on the paper that he assessed since the error analysis was properly reflected there, but he missed that, too. Niko made one small change to his lab report after the PA, but it was a superficial one and did not improve the level of his work.
He changed two words in one sentence concerning materials. The feedback was not overly critical, but Niko took it seriously. Though two of four comments were positive, he gave more weight to the corrective feedback:.
Resources | All Things Assessment
Interviewer: Ok. So, when you got the feedback, what thoughts came up or how did you feel?
Niko: Well, I agree that it was heavy to read because it was all written together, I could have written things separately to make it clearer. Interviewer: So there was critique and you agreed with it, so … there were quite many positive comments, too. Did you agree with them also? Layout issues were the first thing Niko brought up. Even though he was open to making changes to his work, he did not improve his work.
The main factor was the quality of the feedback; it did not focus on the criteria.
References
In the interview, Niko stated that he considered PA useful and it gave him ideas for how to complete lab reports in the future. He put effort into his work and provided good feedback, but because of inadequate feedback received, he did not improve his work. Nevertheless, he determined the PA to be useful.
Some students did not put effort into conducting the inquiry and creating lab report. In all these cases, the lack of engagement also resulted in providing low-quality feedback and making no improvements. Ossi did not put effort into conducting inquiry or making the lab report. After the first lesson, he had written just the headline and the purpose of the work. Ossi provided low-quality feedback. In addition, the observer noted that Ossi finished the task quickly, which supports the interpretation. Ossi received constructive critique in all criteria, but did not use it to rework his report, which resulted in no changes.
In the interview, he explained this as follows:. Interviewer: For me, this all seems useful feedback that you got, that you could have improved your work with this. The main factor that kept Ossi from improving his work was not the quality of the peer feedback but his engagement with the work. First, he states that he had no intention of making changes and later explains that there was too much to do. This may be due to Ossi knowing that his report was far from the level he could reach.
He may have improved his work without any feedback by only investing more time and effort, and peer feedback did not change it. Despite the lack of effort, there was something positive. In the interview, Ossi expressed that he was reinforced by the feedback. It was not often that he had implied there was something good in physics class. Though his report was not his best effort, he was enlightened that it was not all bad. The benefit of this experience did not result in an improved lab report, but it may have given him confidence on future projects.
Every student who had problems engaging with the original work had a similar pathway. The feedback they provided was not constructive and they did not improve their reports. Nevertheless, they experienced other benefits of PA. Based on this data, lack of engagement in the original work and in providing feedback is not a barrier to benefiting from PA. The fourth group of students were students that did not experience any benefit from PA.
They made no changes to their work nor brought up any other benefits. There are different reasons for these pathways. Logically, the combination of unconstructive feedback and less-than-superior work of the assessee led to experiencing no benefits from PA. Milena put effort into making the lab report.