- Award ID(s):
- 2201039
- PAR ID:
- 10445530
- Editor(s):
- Wiebe, E. N.; Harris, C. J.; Grover, S.
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
null (Ed.)Unlike summative assessment that is aimed at grading students at the end of a unit or academic term, formative assessment is assess- ment for learning, aimed at monitoring ongoing student learning to provide feedback to both student and teacher, so that learning gaps can be addressed during the learning process. Education research points to formative assessment as a crucial vehicle for improving student learning. Formative assessment in K-12 CS and program- ming classrooms remains a crucial unaddressed need. Given that assessment for learning is closely tied to teacher pedagogical con- tent knowledge, formative assessment literacy needs to also be a topic of CS teacher PD. This position paper addresses the broad need to understand formative assessment and build a framework to understand the what, why, and how of formative assessment of introductory programming in K-12 CS. It shares specific pro- gramming examples to articulate the cycle of formative assessment, diagnostic evaluation, feedback, and action. The design of formative assessment items is informed by CS research on assessment design, albeit related largely to summative assessment and in CS1 contexts, and learning of programming, especially student misconceptions. It describes what teacher formative assessment literacy PD should entail and how to catalyze assessment-focused collaboration among K-12 CS teachers through assessment platforms and repositories.more » « less
-
Abstract In response to Li, Reigh, He, and Miller's commentary,
Can we and should we use artificial intelligence for formative assessment in science , we argue that artificial intelligence (AI) is already being widely employed in formative assessment across various educational contexts. While agreeing with Li et al.'s call for further studies on equity issues related to AI, we emphasize the need for science educators to adapt to the AI revolution that has outpaced the research community. We challenge the somewhat restrictive view of formative assessment presented by Li et al., highlighting the significant contributions of AI in providing formative feedback to students, assisting teachers in assessment practices, and aiding in instructional decisions. We contend that AI‐generated scores should not be equated with the entirety of formative assessment practice; no single assessment tool can capture all aspects of student thinking and backgrounds. We address concerns raised by Li et al. regarding AI bias and emphasize the importance of empirical testing and evidence‐based arguments in referring to bias. We assert that AI‐based formative assessment does not necessarily lead to inequity and can, in fact, contribute to more equitable educational experiences. Furthermore, we discuss how AI can facilitate the diversification of representational modalities in assessment practices and highlight the potential benefits of AI in saving teachers’ time and providing them with valuable assessment information. We call for a shift in perspective, from viewing AI as a problem to be solved to recognizing its potential as a collaborative tool in education. We emphasize the need for future research to focus on the effective integration of AI in classrooms, teacher education, and the development of AI systems that can adapt to diverse teaching and learning contexts. We conclude by underlining the importance of addressing AI bias, understanding its implications, and developing guidelines for best practices in AI‐based formative assessment. -
Olanoff, D ; Johnson, K. ; Spitzer, S (Ed.)Administrators, educators, and stakeholders have faced the dilemma of determining the most effective type of data for informing instruction for quite some time (Pella, 2015). While the type of standardized assessment a teacher gives during instruction is often set at the district or state level, teachers often have autonomy in the formative and summative assessments that serve as the day-to-day tools in assessing a student’s progress (Abrams et al., 2016). Choices about in-class assessment and instruction are building blocks towards a student’s success on standardized assessments. The purpose of this phenomenological qualitative study is to explore how 4th-8th grade math teachers’ preparation and instructional practices are influenced by the types of assessments administered to their students in one school. Research questions are as follows: (a) How do 4th-8th grade math teachers describe the math assessments they use? (b) How do 4th-8th grade math teachers adjust their instructional practices as a result of their students completing formative, summative, and standardized math assessments?more » « less
-
‘Algorithms’ is a core CS concept included in the K-12 CS standards, yet student challenges with understanding different aspects of algorithms are still not well documented, especially for younger students. This paper describes an approach to decompose the broad middle-school ‘algorithms’ standard into finer grained learning targets, develop formative assessment tasks aligned with the learning targets, and use the tasks to explore student understanding of, and challenges with, the various aspects of the standard. We present a number of student challenges revealed by our analysis of student responses to a set of standards-aligned formative assessment tasks and discuss how teachers and researchers interpreted student responses differently, even when using the same rubrics. Our study underscores the importance of carefully designed standards-aligned formative assessment tasks for monitoring student progress and demonstrates the need for teacher content knowledge to effectively use formative assessments during CS instruction.more » « less
-
This paper describes a set of flipped learning materials that I created for emergency remote teaching of introductory linguistics. My goals were to create a set of asynchronous materials that would scaffold student progress through a syntax unit, require active engagement in the material, and enable students to receive incremental formative feedback. Assessment of formative and summative student progress in the unit demonstrates that these materials were as effective at supporting student learning as face-to-face pedagogical methods. The discussion touches on additional issues related to pedagogy of care that were overlooked.more » « less