Student-Suggested
Instruction on
Assessment Outcomes
Mariah Vraniak
Michael Fmura
Maggie Demarse
Nicholas Davis
Wright State University, Graduate Students
Rationale
 Engage students in learning
 Provide opportunities for students to determine
instructional methods
 Identify students’ misunderstandings
 Make the education process transparent
 Build rapport with students
 Nurture students’ investment in learning
Assessment
 The evolution of assessment
 Methods determined by teacher
 Teacher’s preferences and attitudes
 Teacher’s understanding and time-management of
assessment
 Used to measure student growth
 Various types of assessment
Formative Assessment
 Cyclical Process
 Effective way to gather data on student learning
 Opportunity to provide effective feedback
 Low stakes
Formative Assessment: Benefits
 Increased awareness of student misconceptions
 Increased student self-efficacy
 Increased student learning gains
 Reduced student anxiety
 Increased student motivation
 Provided opportunities for students to reflect on their
learning as it happened
 Increased academic performance
Formative Assessment: Benefits
 Teachers re-teaching missed content
 Valuable feedback for teachers
 Modifying instruction
 Students provide honest appraisal
 Everyone wins
Student Choice
 Typical opportunities for student choice

Benefits:

lends itself to differentiation of instruction

helped produce a more productive classroom community

increased motivation to learn the material

encouraged participation from students in classroom learning

increased student self-determination

increased student engagement

reduced problem behavior
Participants
School
Male
Female White
NonWhite
504
IEP
FRL
School
Population
Clarinet
7
18
6
19
0
0
100%
881
Piano
21
9
21
9
0
0
58%
911
French
Horn
12
11
16
7
0
0
66%
626
Pre-Survey
Strongly
Agree
Ex. I like pizza
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
X
2. I would like to see varied
methods of teaching in this
class.
4. I learn in a different way
than how my teacher
instructs.
1. How do you feel that you learn best?
2. How do teaching methods impact your test scores?
Strongly
Disagree
Who’s the Boss
Strongly Agree I do not Disagree Strongly
Agree
know
Disagree
2. I enjoy having input on the
instruction for re-teaching in this
class.
3. I feel more engaged in lessons
when I have input for the Monday reteaching sessions.
5. I feel that I do better on quizzes
when I have input for the Monday reteaching sessions.
1. How do you feel your input for the Monday re-teaching sessions is
affecting your learning?
2. What do you like and/or dislike about being able to provide input
for the Monday re-teaching sessions?
Focus Group
1. Do you feel that the different methods of re-teaching
on Mondays benefit you? Why or why not?
2. How do you feel that providing suggestions for the re-
teaching on Mondays is affecting your learning in *
class?
3. How does providing suggestions for the re-teaching
methods used on Mondays make you feel about the
learning * and motivate you to learn? Why?
Data Instruments & Procedures
Pre-Survey
Instruction
Formative Assessment
(re-teaching suggestions)
Re-teaching
Monday
Friday Formative
Assessment
(re-teaching
suggestions)
Instruction
Thursday
Instruction
MondayWednesday
Survey / Focus
Group
Wednesday
Results: Pre-Survey
Combined Pre-Survey Data
Statement
#1 Teaching methods are varied
#2 Want to see varied methods
#3 Motivated to learn subject
#4 I Learn in different way
Strongly
Strongly
Agree Undecided Disagree
Agree
Disagree
34
51
34
23
41
36
38
25
18
13
20
25
7
0
3
22
2
2
7
7
Total
102
102
102
102
Results: Pre-Survey
 Question 1: How do you feel that you learn best?
Visual
Audio
Hands on
Interpersonal
“I learn best from videos
and graphic organizers…”
“…putting my
headphones on and
listening to music…”
“Hands on learning
…”
“…getting up and “acting
out” plays rather than just
reading it.”
“I learn best when a
similar equation is
solved...”
“I like listening to
music…”
“I learn best with
hands-on
experiments…”
“I learn best when I am
active”
“Watching a teacher do
an example on the
board…”
“I learn best listening to a
video or music”
“Like labs, hands
on…”
“… I would learn best with
partner’s”
“I learn best when shown
examples of what we are
talking about…”
“I feel like I learn when
it’s quite or soft/quite
music”
“I learned best by
doing hands on
activities.”
“…by talking as a class”
“I find it better when I
whatch videos of people
doing it”
“I learn best by listening
to pentatonics…”
“hands on! with things
I can hae interactive
notebook… yeaa”
“I think I learn best by
experience.”
Results: Who’s the Boss
Who's the Boss Combined Data
Strongly
Strongly
Agree Undecided Disagree
Total
Agree
Disagree
75
#1 Suggestions are represented
18
36
17
0
4
75
#2 Enjoy giving input
38
31
6
0
0
73
#3 Feel more engaged
33
27
9
3
1
74
#4 Understand material better
29
27
16
2
0
75
#5 Do better on quizzes
25
26
19
5
0
Statement
Results: Who’s the Boss
 Question 1: How do you feel your input for the Monday
re-teaching sessions is affecting your learning?
Content understanding
Addresses learning
preferences
Student investment
“I feel like going over it again
gave me a better
understanding of what I was
learning and it answered all
the questions I had.”
“I feel like its helping me
understand it more because I
am leaning it my way and the
teachers way.”
“I feel like if I input the types
of ways I want to learn, I
learn better because I’m doing
something interesting.”
“It is affecting my learning
because when you reteach it
refreshes my memory on
Fridays topic.”
“It helps me because I pick the
way we learn and get to tell
the way I learn best.”
“I think I feel a little more
confident in my work.”
“It affected my learning
because I got higher scores
than what I usually would
have gotten.”
“lets get down to the diddly
darn point. I do totes better
working alone. So yes.”
“I think that it makes me feel
like my opinions matter so , yes,
it affects my learning
positively.”
Results: Who’s the Boss
 Question 2: What do you like and/or dislike about being
able to provide input for the Monday re-teaching sessions?
Student investment
Content understanding
“I like that we get to choose what is best
for us and choose things to do that we
will understand. I don’t have any
dislikes.”
“I like that it helps me understand the
material not just memorize it for a test.”
“I like being involved.”
“I like it cause I understand it better.”
“we can tell you what to do
MWAHAHA”
“I like it because it help me learn stuff
things”
Results: Focus Group
Student investment
Review of material
Meeting students’
needs
“I like the choice because you
know how our class is quiet but
when you give us choices I feel like
it engages our classroom more”
“Umm I think it’s very beneficial
because of how we might forget
something that we were taught last
week and we get the re-teach the
week of the test. So yeah, it helps
us, I can’t get the word for it…
remember what we covered the
week before.”
“So like umm if people have
certain ways they like to learn on
reteach Mondays you could switch
it up a bit to benefit them.”
“We are more invested since we
chose and engaged”
“And we forget over the weekend”
“So I think that it lets the kids
express themselves or like helps
them be able to do what they need
to do to get better grades or
whatnot. So it’s really beneficial.”
“Most teachers like to be a dictator
but like since we get to choose it
involves us more in the class and
we feel like a democracy”
“I gotta say something right here, I
think this is really fun, when we
get to choose what we want and do
what we want, and relearn what
we might have forgot over the
weekend. It’s really good stuff.”
“And that’s maybe how we learn
better say some people learn
visually or from a game or learn
more from actually doing stuff so
that can help since we have a
choice for once.”
Homerun Hitters
 Student choice and learning preferences
 Student confidence and self-efficacy
 Student investment and engagement
 Student summative assessment scores
Implications
 Time management
 Data-based instruction
 Classroom Management
 Ease of implementation
References

Adediwura, A. A. (2012). Effect of peer and self-assessment on male and female students' self-efficacy and self-autonomy in the learning of
mathematics. Gender & Behaviour, 10(1), 4492-4508.

Ali, A., & Ali, U. (2010). Educational measurement and testing: Historical perspectives. Journal Of Educational Research, 13(2), 216-221.

Alkharusi, H., Aldhafri, S., Alnabhani, H., & Alkalbani, M. (2013). The impact of students' perceptions of assessment tasks on self-efficacy and
perception of task value: A path analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(10), 1681-1692.

Bakula N. (2010). The benefits of formative assessments for teaching and learning. Science Scope, 34(1), 37-43.

Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: the science teacher's role in formative assessment. School Science Review,
82(301), 55-61.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). Feedback that fits. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 54-59.

Buck, G. A., & Trauth-Nare, A. E. (2009). Preparing teachers to make the formative assessment process integral to science teaching and
learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 475-494.

Crumrine, T., & Demers, C. (2007). Formative assessment: Redirecting the plan. Science Teacher, 74(6), 64-68.

Doubet, K. J. (2012). Formative assessment jump-starts a middle grades differentiation initiative. Middle School Journal, 43(3), 32-38.

Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment,
4(1), 37-73.

Follman, J. (1992). Secondary school students' ratings of teacher effectiveness. The High School Journal, 75(3), 168-178.

Gardner, H. (2011). Promoting learner engagement using multiple intelligences and choice-based instruction. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(2), 97-101.

Haertel, E. H., & Herman, J. L. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. Yearbook (National Society For The Study Of
Education), (2), 1-34.

Jain, A. (2014). Effect of students' feedback and teaching experience on teacher effectiveness of secondary school teachers. Learning Community: An International
Journal of Education & Social Development, 5(1), 77-89.

Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Formative assessment probes: uncovering students' ideas in science. Science Scope, 28(4), 18-21.

Kern, L., Bambara, L., & Fogt, J. (2002). Classwide curricular modification to improve the behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 27,317-326.

Kern, L., Mantegna, M. E., Vorndran, C. M., Bailin, D., & Hilt, A. (2001). Choice of task sequence to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 3(1), 3.

Kern, L., & State, T. M. (2009). Incorporating choice and preferred activities into class wide instruction. Beyond Behavior, 18(2), 3-11.

Lee, S. F. (2013). Adapting cognitive task analysis to explore young children's thinking competence. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(2), 208-223.

Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275.

McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom:
The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399-414.

Mertler, C. A. (1999). Teacher perception of students as stakeholders in teacher evaluation. American Secondary Education, 27(3), 17-30.

Mertler, C. (2013). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (4th ed.).

Pat-El, R., Tillema, H., Segers, M., & Vedder, P. (2013). Validation of assessment for learning questionnaires for teachers and
students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 98-113.

Phelan, J., Choi, K., Vendlinski, T., Baker, E., & Herman, J. (2011). Differential improvement in student understanding of
mathematical principles following formative assessment intervention. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 330-339.

Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 4-11.

Raupach, T., Brown, J., Anders, S., Hasenfuss, G., & Harendza, S. (2013). Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of
student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Medicine, 11, 61-61.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.

Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.

Sagan, L. L. (2010). Students' choice: Recommendations for environmental and instructional changes in school. Clearing
House, 83(6), 217-222.

Servilio, K. L. (2009). You get to choose! Motivating students to read through differentiated instruction. Teaching Exceptional
Children Plus, 5(5), 1-11.

Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E., Ruiz-Primo, M., & Yue, Y. (2008). On the impact of
curriculum-embedded assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement
in Education, 21(4), 295-314.

Shevin, M., & Klein, N. K. (2004). The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe disabilities. Research & Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(3), 161-168.

Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 22(4), 271-286

Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 640-644.

Trauth-Nare, A., & Buck, G. (2011). Using reflective practice to incorporate formative assessment in a middle school
science classroom: a participatory action research study. Educational Action Research, 19(3), 379-398.

Weurlander, M., Söderberg, M., Scheja, M., Hult, H., & Wernerson, A. (2012). Exploring formative assessment as a
tool for learning: students’ experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 37(6), 747-760.

Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student
achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 49-65.

Wilson, M. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Smith, M. K. (2001) ‘Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential learning and action research’, the encyclopedia of informal
education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm

Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappa, 86(1), 22-27.
Contact Information
 Maggie Demarse
 Email: demarse.2@wright.edu
 Mariah Vraniak
 Email: vraniak.2@wright.edu
 Michael Fmura
 Email: fmura.2@wright.edu
 Nick Davis
 Email: davis.470@wright.edu