Lichtenberger Andreas, Hofer Sarah I, Stern Elsbeth, Vaterlaus Andreas
Laboratory for Solid State Physics, ETH Zurich, John-Von-Neumann-Weg 9, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland.
Chair of Education and Educational Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Leopoldstrasse 13, 80802 Munich, Germany.
Educ Assess Eval Account. 2025;37(1):5-33. doi: 10.1007/s11092-024-09445-6. Epub 2024 Dec 27.
While formative assessment is a widely valued instructional approach to support meaningful learning, putting it into classroom practice remains a challenge, also because the time resources required may conflict with other goals. In a cluster-randomized controlled intervention study with 29 teachers and 604 students (mean age 15.6 years) at secondary school level, we examined the yield of formative assessment with regard to students' conceptual understanding and quantitative problem-solving skills in physics. Ten teachers applied formative assessment (FA group) in a 14-lesson curriculum on kinematics after having undergone a training that focused on the implementation of multiple-choice concept questions together with monitoring tools, clicker sessions, and reflective lessons. In the frequent testing group (FT group), ten teachers had no training on formative assessment but implemented the same concept questions as those used in the FA group. Nine teachers taught kinematics in their traditional way (TT group). The results revealed that students in the FA group outperformed students in the other two groups in a test on conceptual understanding immediately after the intervention as well as 3 months later, whereas students from the FT group and the TT group did not differ. Importantly, a better conceptual understanding in the FA group was not at the expense of performance in quantitative problem solving, as students of this group better integrated both kinds of knowledge. Our study has shown that a short but well-structured formative assessment teacher training could unfold its potential in terms of students' learning of challenging content.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11092-024-09445-6.
虽然形成性评估是一种广受重视的支持有意义学习的教学方法,但将其应用于课堂实践仍然是一项挑战,这也归因于所需的时间资源可能与其他目标相冲突。在一项针对29名教师和604名中学生(平均年龄15.6岁)的整群随机对照干预研究中,我们考察了形成性评估在学生对物理概念的理解和定量问题解决能力方面的成效。十位教师在接受了关于实施多项选择题概念问题以及监测工具、课堂点击器环节和反思性课程的培训后,在一门关于运动学的14节课课程中应用了形成性评估(FA组)。在频繁测试组(FT组)中,十位教师没有接受形成性评估培训,但实施了与FA组相同的概念问题。九位教师以传统方式教授运动学(TT组)。结果显示,在干预后立即以及3个月后的概念理解测试中,FA组的学生表现优于其他两组,而FT组和TT组的学生表现没有差异。重要的是,FA组对概念的更好理解并没有以定量问题解决的表现为代价,因为该组学生能更好地整合这两种知识。我们的研究表明,简短但结构良好的形成性评估教师培训在学生学习具有挑战性的内容方面能够发挥其潜力。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s11092-024-09445-6获取的补充材料。