THE EFFECTS OF INCORPORATING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT ON TESTING

Ronda Liebmann and Michael Sindberg





A Seminar Paper Submitted
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of

Master of Science in Education

Curriculum and Instruction





University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, WI 54901
May 2010

Approval April 20, 2010

Project Advisor: ______________________________________________
Dr. Eric Brunsell Date


 2


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….…3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Background……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Problem Statement …..………………………………………………………………….. 5

Literature Review…………….……………………………………………………………... 6
Methods…................................................................................................................. 11
Classroom Environment …………………………………………………………….... 11
Baseline Data …………………………………………………………………………. 13
Intervention ……………………………………………………………………………. 13

Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Question 1: Student Achievement in Physics ……………………………………….. 17
Question 2: Students Perceptions of Formative Assessment ……………………..21
Teacher Reflections ……………………………………………………………………. 25

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………… 30

References ………………………………………………………………………….……. 31
Appendix A: Informed Consent for Parent(s) or Guardian ………………………….. 33
Appendix B: Informed Consent for Students …………………………………………. 35
Appendix C: Triangulation Matrix ……………………………………………………… 36
Appendix D: Pre-Treatment Survey …………………………………………………… 37
Appendix E: Formative Assessment Probes …………………………………………. 38
Appendix F: Exit Slip Examples ……………………………………………………….. 41
Appendix G: Post-Treatment Survey …………………………………………………...42
Appendix H: Graphical Representation of Quantitative Study Design …………….. 43
Appendix I: Summative Assessment Example ……………………………………….. 44
Appendix J: Post-Interview Questions ………………………………………………… 47
Appendix K: Tables of Lickert Scale Pre-Survey Data……………………………….. 48
Appendix L: Tables of Lickert Scale Post-Survey Data……………………………….49
 3


Abstract

The purpose of this action research project was to determine if there would be a
significant effect on high school Physics and AP Physics student performance when
formative assessment probes were added to the classroom learning process. Also,
data about student perceptions was collected concerning the inclusion of these probes.
The traditional method of classroom assessment was summative assessment
administered at the end of a unit of instruction to measure what the students learned.
The frequent formative assessments informed instructors of their students’ level of
understanding and allowed for detailed feedback to the students while instruction was
ongoing. In this study, students received a pre-treatment survey to determine how they
approached studying for summative assessments. The sections of the courses were
divided into two groups which alternately received typical instruction or instruction
incorporating ungraded formative assessment probes. The formative assessment
instruments were brief checks of understanding which asked students to analyze
situations, describe patterns and trends, and explain the reasoning behind basic
concepts. Evidence of the students’ understanding was gathered by examining their
performance on biweekly summative tests. Post-surveys were given to the students for
their feedback on the action research process. A small selection of students was
interviewed for their reactions and viewpoints on the different instructional methods.
The quantitative portion of the study revealed that student test scores were marginally
affected by the inclusion of formative assessment probes. The qualitative portion of the
study uncovered that students appreciated and felt a deeper understanding for the
physics concepts when formative assessment probes were a part of the learning
process.
 4


INTRODUCTION
Background

Preble High School is located in Green Bay, Wisconsin, an industrial lower

income community with 102,313 residents of White Non-Hispanic (78%), Hispanic (7%),

Asian (4%), African American (1%), and 11% representing other races. The mean

income is $19,269 which is less than average for the U. S. The Green Bay area has

over 50% of their students receiving free or reduced lunch.

Participants in this study will be 11th and 12th graders enrolled in Physics classes

at Green Bay Preble High School consisting of over 2,187 students in 2009. For the

2009-2010 school year, there will be 4 sections of Physics and 4 sections of AP

Physics, with approximately 18-24 students per section. The student body consists of

diverse cultural backgrounds, such as Asian, African American, Hispanic, Native

American, and Caucasian. Traditionally, students of color represent less than 15% of

students in physics. For the past three years, the regular physics has been comprised

of 60% male and 40% female students, ranging in age from 16-18 years.

The instructors are concerned with the depth of understanding gained by

students within the Physics courses. The students’ algebraic problem solving skills

seem to be adequate; however, they seem to struggle with the ability to apply concepts

to real-life situations. Changes within the district staff professional development

program have emphasized a shift from high stakes summative assessment of learning

to formative assessment for learning. In our opinion, both are necessary. Formative is

generally ungraded but allows teacher and student to monitor progress and to modify
 5


instruction. Summative is “at the end” of a unit and determines how well learning goals

are met.

Through professional development activities offered within their district, the

instructors developed the idea that changing assessment format could motivate

students to examine their ideas more closely and could provide the added benefit of

formulating better critical thinking skills. Currently, the instructors administer summative

assessments once every two weeks, and propose to increase frequency through the

addition of formative assessments.

The students are currently formally assessed every two weeks with a summative

test, which takes the form of vocabulary questions, problem solving, equation solving,

and graph-based questions on a graded written test. Instructors define formative

assessment as non-graded probes of student understanding which include open-ended

questions and predictions about experimental results. Students receive feedback from

teachers after assessment and students will reflect individually on their progress.

Teachers use the results of formative assessment to shape and guide instructional

decisions.

Problem Statement

These issues led to an examination of our assessment practices. The instructors

wanted to know if students would benefit overall on assessments if frequency was

increased by including formative assessments. Also, the instructors hoped that

students’ conceptual understanding would improve with a shift from one summative test

per unit to more frequent, formative assessment approaches during the unit and a

summative assessment at the end of the unit.

 6


These instructor observations have led to the overall question: What is the

impact of formative assessment on students in a physics course?

Question 1: What impact does including formative assessment have on

student learning?

Question 2: What are student perceptions on including formative

assessments in the learning process?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The features that distinguish formative assessment from summative assessment

are outlined by Stiggins (2005). Traditionally, summative assessment is administered

after learning is supposed to have taken place in order to determine whether or not

learning occurred. Formative assessment, in contrast, is conducted while the learning

process is ongoing. It is meant to promote student achievement, rather than simply

measure or rank it. The formative assessment approach is qualitatively different from

summative assessment with students assuming a distinctively active role in the process.

Students are made aware of the intended learning objectives at the beginning of unit

instruction. The goal for students is to understand and operate within the “scaffolding”

structure of learning activities. They interact by monitoring their own progress toward

meeting the learning objectives. Most importantly, students will actively communicate

evidence of their own learning. As a result, formative assessment plays a different role

in the classroom. According to Stiggins (2005), correctly applied formative assessment

becomes assessment for learning.

The teacher’s tasks and responsibilities while incorporating formative

assessment are different from those in traditional assessment settings. Black, Harrison,
 7


Lee, Marshall, and William (2004) noted the benefits of improving questioning

techniques to clearly communicate and better assess learning objectives. The

techniques mentioned by the authors will assist teachers in gathering higher quality

information about students learning includes: planning questioning, building in “wait

time” for responses following questions, and requiring written responses from students.

In addition, Black et al. (2004) point out that teachers’ feedback on student work should

shift away from simply assigning a grade and move toward written comments that

inform students what was done well and what can be done to improve on aspects where

the students are still not meeting objectives. Even summative assessments can have

formative value if teachers engage students in reflective activities to evaluate the work

they completed and plan for improved future achievement.

Cowie and Bell (1999) raise an important point that opportunities for meaningful

formative assessment should occur in the classroom in addition to the teacher’s

planned tasks. “Interactive” formative assessments arise out of student-teacher

interactions during instructional activities and there should be no assessed specific

outcome. These interactions sometimes take the form of teacher questioning or

feedback on an overheard comment during a classroom activity. These interactions can

also occur between a single student and the teacher. These interactions can be very

valuable because they are responsive and non-threatening to that student’s learning.

Teachers must also be aware that formative assessment tasks will provide a

variety of responses from the students. Furtak and Ruiz-Primo (2008) found that using

more open-ended task structures, such as, asking “Why does this phenomenon occur?”

leads to a greater range of student ideas in written responses than more structured
 8


questions. As a result, the more open-ended tasks yield greater opportunities for the

teacher to provide feedback and to restructure activities to guide student learning.

Frequent assessment has been promoted as having a positive impact on student

learning and retention (Casem, 2006; Kika et al, 1992, Kling et al, 2005; Myers & Myers,

2006; Waite, 2007). However, a close examination of literature reveals conflicting

results. Findings in a meta-analysis of 40 research studies by Bangert-Drowns (1991)

reported that increasing the amount of testing increases the effectiveness of instruction

and encourages students to study more. It also allows instructors to correct errors

early, reward students who perform well, and indicates to students the class

expectations. Other studies in the meta-analysis reported that frequent testing takes

away from instruction time, students might reduce learning time but invest more time in

increasing their performance on tests, and there would not be adequate time to

integrate larger units of material into the curriculum. Students might also not respond

well to the continual routine of testing and this could reduce their interest in learning the

material. The important thing to note is that formative assessment may take on different

formats from traditional testing.

Furtak and Ruiz-Primo (2008) describe a variety of formats for formative

assessment probes. One format was questions based on graphs, in which students

were asked to interpret the meaning of a graph similar to ones developed during in-

class investigations. In predict-observe-explain (POE) format probes, students make a

prediction about the outcome of an experiment before viewing the experiment, and then

they try to reconcile their predictions with the actual results. These POE assessments

are intended to demonstrate students’ ability to transfer existing knowledge to new

 9


contexts in order to support correct reasoning about experiment outcomes. A third type

of probe, constructed response (CR), is simply an open-ended question directly based

on the major objective of the unit. With the fourth type of formative assessment probe

format, predict-observe (PO), students were challenged to connect existing knowledge

to an experiment which had an outcome beyond expectations of students’ current level

of understanding. In their investigation, Furtak and Ruiz Primo (2008) collected both

written responses from individual students and used the various assessment formats as

prompts for classroom discussions.

According to the University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research

Group, teachers that only use traditional assessment practices, which do not accurately

measure conceptual understanding, are not aware of the knowledge state of their

students (Leonard, Dufresne, Gerace & Mestre, 1999). They suggest four instructional

methods that inform rather than evaluate students: To explore different but not more

complicated contexts when introducing new and unfamiliar concepts, use compare and

contrast situations to understand students’ conceptual understanding, use multiple

representations like sketches or graphing, and finally, to have students explain their

reasoning behind their answers.

There are benefits that have been identified when tests are given more

frequently, such as: students study more often (Kika et al, 1992; Kling, McCorkle,

Miller, & Reardon, 2005; Tuckman, 1998; Waite, 2007), lower performing students

improve their grade (Casem, 2006; Keeley, 2008; Pikunas & Mazzota, 1965), the

severity of impact on their grade lessens as each test accounts for a lower proportion of

the total grade (Waite, 2007), shorter time between tests relieves anxiety for some
 10


students (Casem, 2006; Fulkerson & Martin, 1981; Kling, McCorkle, Miller, & Reardon,

2005), and students report a favorable attitude toward more frequent testing in teacher

evaluations (Burns & Vinchur, 1992; Fulkerson & Martin, 1981; Kika et al, 1992; Myers

& Myers, 2007; Waite, 2007).

Several other factors may affect the positive results of frequent testing in a

variety of ways. In some studies, a final comprehensive exam showed more significant

improvement by incorporating a single in-class test during the semester (Bangert-

Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1991).The same study mentions that beyond the addition of one

single test, the gains did not continue to increase. Mastery is not achieved with frequent

testing alone, but also needs expedient feedback and corrections based on test

performance (Cheung et al, 2006; Brosvic, Epstein, Cook, & Dihoff, 2006). Casem

(2006) analyzed student achievement on recall questions and found retention to be

high, however, when she examined application and analysis-type questions, students

did not display differences between high frequent and low frequent testing on the

comprehensive final exam.

When students experience success answering challenging questions, their

comfort and confidence level grows (Brookhart, Moss, & Long, 2008). Casem (2006)

concludes that “the most effective pedagogy is one that combines student-centered,

active-learning with frequent assessment.” Assessments should be focused on types of

questions, other than knowledge and comprehension, in order to be beneficial to

students for enduring understanding of the content. They must also, according to

Bloom’s taxonomy, encompass questions that constitute higher levels of learning such

as application, analysis and synthesis of material. Lord and Baviskar (2007) contend
 11


that multiple choice questions, often the most efficiently evaluated type of question, can

be worded in such a way as to address higher levels of learning.

Physics is cross disciplinary in nature and utilizes thinking skills from math and

science. Students are expected to make connections between concepts and real life

applications and represent those connections in a variety of ways including visually,

graphically, and mathematically (McDermott, 2001). Students may answer questions

and feel confident about their answers, however, as Whitman, Steinberg, and Redish

(1999) contend, students often fail to make connections when encountering a similar

question in a different context or setting. Referring to Ates and Cataloglu (2007),

students with a field-dependent cognitive style may not make associations or show

development leading to field–independence. High-order critical thinking questions and

application questions can reveal greater in-depth knowledge and understanding by the

student. Many units, within the Physics curriculum, build on previous knowledge and

provide a useful platform for the development of these skills.

METHODS

Classroom Environment

A typical school week consists of a daily schedule of eight 50-minute classes.

The teachers, who are also the researchers of this study, frequently collaborate to

guarantee that the same course material is covered in approximately the same amount

of time. The teachers have similar teaching styles, utilizing discussions and hands-on

laboratory techniques. Students have textbooks, which they may use as a reference.

However, the books are not the focus of the course and are used infrequently.

Currently, a variety of performance assessments are used, such as construction

 12


projects and lab skill practical quizzes. Students complete frequent problem sets,

participate in laboratory activities, and use computer-based investigations.

Students are placed into classes at the discretion of the Student Services

Department. Student Services base the placement upon two criteria: equalization of

section size and lack of conflict with student schedules. From responses on student

interest surveys given at the beginning of the year, we know students take physics for

many reasons. Some students take physics for college admission, some students enjoy

hands-on activities, and some take the class due to an interest in the topics. They have

a wide variety of background experience and math skill levels.

The participant pool in our research includes 2 sophomore, 25 junior, and 128

senior (16-18 years of age) physics students enrolled in Preble High School for the

2009-2010 school year. Within this group are 49 females and 106 males. The race and

ethnic groups consist of 129 Caucasian (83.2%), 8 Hispanic (5.2%), 16 Asian/Pacific

Islanders (10.3%), and 2 African American students (1.3%).

Parents will be notified about the study before it begins and will be invited to ask

questions or to contact the investigators about concerns (Appendix A). Students will

also be given an explanation on the procedures that will affect them concerning this

action research study. The students who agree to the guidelines, complete the student

consent form (Appendix B), and receive authorization from their parents via the parental

consent form, will become participants in the study. Those students who do not give

their consent, or whose parents were not comfortable with them becoming part of the

study, will still participate in the classroom activities outlined in the study but their

information will not be included in the analysis and results.

 13


Baseline Data

Baseline data will be established for all participants by examining student

performance during the time period before incorporating formative assessment. This

baseline will use the results from students’ first semester summative assessments in

order to establish that the two groups are approximately equivalent. A t test will be

performed to determine if there is a significant difference between the two groups. If a

significant difference exists between groups, data will be normalized. For example,

students who attend infrequently and other factors that may lead to skewed data will be

adjusted. This baseline should accurately reflect students’ ability and study skills over a

long term period covering several units before the treatment is applied. Students during

this time period will be tested every two weeks with a summative evaluation assembled

by the researchers from ancillary materials included with the district adopted textbook,

Conceptual Physics, 3rd Edition, by Paul Hewitt. The summative assessments consist

of multiple-choice, short answer, and problem solving questions.

Intervention

Classes will be divided into two alternating groups. Group A will consist of

Physics classes for periods 1 and 3 and AP Physics for periods 4 and 7. Group B will

consist of Physics classes for periods 2 and 8 and AP Physics for periods 5 and 8. A

triangulation matrix shows the various data sets that will be collected during the

intervention (Appendix C).

 14


All groups will complete a pre-treatment survey (Appendix D) to describe their

thoughts on assessment prior to the introduction of formative assessment into class

work. For the first two weeks of the treatment stages of the study, students within group

A will be given a formative assessment probe to introduce new material and another

formative assessment to monitor development of understanding during the course of

instruction. The formative assessments will be critiqued by the instructors and

corrections will be given as feedback to the students. The probes will be adaptations of

questions from Minds on Physics by Leonard et al (1999) and instructor designed

questions using formats described by Furtak and Ruiz-Primo (2008) (Examples in

Appendix E). At the end of the two weeks, the students will be given a summative

assessment. Group B will receive instruction without the inclusion of the specifically

designed formative assessment probes. The students in Group B will receive a

summative test identical to the test given to Group A at the end of the two week period.

During the weeks of intervention, all students will be given periodic exit slips from class

to solicit questions and comments they have concerning the instruction material

providing feedback to the instructors (Appendix F). The investigators will adjust

instruction to meet the needs of the students based upon exit slip information and

formative assessment outcomes. If students are encountering problems, the

investigators will take corrective steps to adjust and improve instruction. Questions will

be grouped and categorized by instructors for determining the differing types and quality

of questions the students will have during the differing instruction methods. Students

will also receive a post-treatment survey (Appendix G) concerning their thoughts on the

inclusion of formative assessment prior to summative assessment.

 15


For the second stage of treatment, the procedure will rotate with Group B

receiving the addition of formative assessments along with a summative test at the end

of the two week period. Group A will no longer receive the formative assessment

probes for this two week period, and will only be evaluated with one summative test.

This two week schedule will continue alternating for Group A and Group B for a total of

8 weeks. (See Appendix H for a graphical representation of this design).

Summative assessments will be designed using Bloom’s taxonomic levels of

hierarchy (Lord & Baviskar, 2007). The majority of questions will be based on levels

one and two assessing student comprehension and knowledge. The remaining test

items will consist of high level questions that require critical thinking in the forms of

evaluation, synthesis and analysis, as well as application (For an example of the

summative assessments, see Appendix I). The additional focus on this type of

questioning requires students to demonstrate a deeper understanding of tested

material. Comparisons between the collected baseline scores from the students’

previous grades and the results from summative scores with formative assessment

incorporated will be employed to demonstrate validity and reliability of the test

instruments, following the examples of Casem (2006) and Kling et al (2005).

Alternating treatment forms are necessary to make comparisons over similar

curriculum material for both Group A and Group B. Every two weeks, test data

collected will compare progress of students in Groups A and B. A t test will be

performed to determine if a significant difference exists between the group’s

assessment results.
 16


Predetermined questions on the summative tests will closely correspond to the

formative assessment probes. To check for developing critical thinking skills, other

higher level questions, in significantly different contexts, will also be given on summative

tests. In order to see effects of treatment versus non-treatment performance,

application and knowledge-based questions will be quantitatively compared for all

groups.

We will also interview students to understand the experience from the standpoint

of the participants. Candidates for the interviewing process will be chosen based upon

positive learning attitudes and varying grade point averages from the participant pool.

Using structured interview questions by the researchers (Appendix J), eight to ten

students will be interviewed for twenty minutes to describe their feelings and reactions

to the different forms of assessments and the impact on the development of their

understanding on the subject matter.

From interview transcripts, statements will be parsed. Each researcher will

separately characterize individual responses. Common themes will be grouped and

identified from the participants’ discourse. Correlation between student performance on

the quantitative data and their responses to the interview questions will be determined

for a measure of criterion validity. Selected quotes and comments will be identified to

characterize the range and patterns of participant experience to the assessment

variations.

DATA ANALYSIS

Results from this study examining the effects of the inclusion of formative

assessment were derived from students pre- and post-surveys, comparison of quiz
 17


scores, collection of exit slips, and student interviews. Two questions were analyzed:

First, what impact does including formative assessment have on student learning?

Second, what are student perceptions on including formative assessments in the

learning process? Through analysis of the data and teacher reflections on this action

research, we hope to gain insight on the following: What is the impact of formative

assessment on students in a physics course?

Question 1: Student Achievement in Physics

What impact does including formative assessment have on student learning? In

observing academic achievement, we compared groups that were receiving the

treatment of formative assessment probes to those without formative assessment

probes. To insure that meaningful comparisons could be drawn between the groups we

examined student scores on quizzes and tests for the first semester. These scores are

summarized in table 1. Adjustments were made concerning the number of student

participants. Data from two physics students were excluded due to habitual

absenteeism. In addition, the data from two AP physics students were also excluded,

one due to a medical condition resulting in homebound schooling and the other, due to

parental objection over the consent form. According to the t tests, similar averages

were confirmed, t (65) =.51, p=.61, between Physics groups A and B. AP Physics

groups showed no significant difference between groups A and B, t (77) = .36, p=.72.

As a result, during analysis group B data collected during the action research period

were multiplied by the ratio of the two groups’ first semester averages in order to

normalize the data. Beyond this normalization, the similarity of the averages and the

standard deviations led to comparable data.

 18


Table 1: First Semester Averages and t test for Group A versus Group B

Group Physics Average AP Physics Average

Number of Students in Group A 34 41
A Average 86.6% 89.7%
Std. Deviation 0.074 0.081
Number of Students in Group B 29 36
B Average 85.2% 91.2%
Std. Deviation 0.095 0.054
t test for A:B 0.5199 0.3610

The same summative assessments were given at the end of each two-week

period to both of the experimental groups. Both groups received similar instruction with

the same lab experiences and homework. One group received the additional treatment

of two or four formative assessment probes prior to the summative assessment. The

average scores for all groups per summative assessment are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Averages for Treatment versus Non-Treatment Groups

Physics AP Physics (Normalized)

Week 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8
Treat Non- Treat Non- Treat Non- Treat Non-
Treat Treat Treat Treat
Grp A 86.6% 87.5% 78.5% 83.6% Grp A 80.0% 88.0% 77.6% 83.0%
Std Std
0.109 0.122 0.122 0.103 0.136 0.088 0.114 0.106
Dev Dev
Non- Treat Non- Treat Non- Treat Non- Treat
Treat Treat Treat Treat
Grp B 86.2% 88.4% 76.6% 81.1% Grp B 79.9% 90.7% 78.5% 84.6%
Std Std
0.076 0.129 0.131 0.103 0.100 0.056 0.098 0.094
Dev Dev
 19


There appears to be no significant difference between the treatment groups and

the non-treatment groups. The variability within the groups, indicated by standard

deviations, is greater than the differences between the averages for the groups. The

third summative assessment period displays noticeably lower scores than the other

three periods. This week was prior to the school’s spring break week. To examine the

data for significant differences between groups on the summative assessment scores, a

two-tailed t test assuming equal variance was performed (Table 3). Most summative

assessment week results indicated little evidence of significant difference at a

reasonable confidence level. The one exception is AP Physics week 4, where the

treatment group outscored the non-treatment group by a slight margin.

Table 3. The t test Comparison of Treatment versus Non-Treatment

Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8

Physics 0.86, p=.39 0.78, p=.44 0.55, p=.58 0.35, p=.73
AP Physics 0.96, p=.34 0.12, p=.90 0.69, p=.49 0.47, p=.64

To identify whether the groups benefited from the use of the new treatment,

comparison was made within the groups. This comparison was intended to determine if

some students benefitted from the treatment addition of formative probes regardless of

the topic. The two sets of scores during each groups’ treatment period were pooled and

compared to the results obtained during non-treatment periods. In Table 4, the average

comparisons with their standard deviations are shown. While the t test results,

indicated in Table 5, would suggest significant difference, it is important to note that

Physics’ and AP Physics’ Group A did not appear to favor the treatment. These results

are not surprising when taking into account the overall depressed scores on the third
 20


summative assessment, as seen in Table 2. This anomaly would have skewed the

results during the treatment period for each class’s Group A.

Table 4. Comparison for Treatment versus Non-Treatment within Groups

Physics AP Physics
Treatment Non-Treatment Treatment Non-Treatment
Group A 82.6 % 85.5% 78.8% 85.5%
Std Deviation 0.101 0.104 0.126 0.100
Group B 84.7% 81.4% 87.7% 79.2%
Std Deviation 0.095 0.080 0.083 0.099

When considering the overall treatment to the non-treatment within groups for

Physics’ Group A (t (36)=.24, p=.81) and Group B (t (26)=.15, p=.88) displayed non-

significant differences. AP Physics’ Groups A (t (40) =.01, p=.99) and Group B

(t (36)=.00, p=1.00) showed no significant difference either.

For a final analysis of quantitative data, the results from both groups treatment

were pooled and compared to the combined non-treatment results. Overall averages for

both treatment and non-treatment groups indicate that there was no statistical difference

when taken as a whole (Table 6), however, as the data has indicated above, there was

unique variability due to matters of timing for the action research.

Table 6. Overall Averages for Broad Group Treatment versus Non-Treatment

Physics AP Physics
Non-Treatment 83.6% 82.6%
Std Deviation 0.095 0.092
Treatment 83.6% 82.9%
Std Deviation 0.098 0.105


 21


Question 2: Students Perceptions of Formative Assessment

What are student perceptions on including formative assessments in the learning

process? To identify student ideas for the new treatment process of including formative

assessments into their learning process, first, we needed to understand what types of

learning methods were important to the students in our classroom. Our Lickert scale

pre-treatment survey was given to all students in the study groups (Appendix D). When

scores were tallied, there were minute differences found between responses for Physics

(Figure 1) and for AP Physics (Figure 2). Most questions were found to have a

favorable response of either “always”, “often”, or “sometimes”. “Rarely” and “never”

were only used predominantly, about 50 – 60%, for question 3, “I rework questions from

the homework that were marked wrong”.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
 Never

50%
 Rarely

40%

Some8mes

30%

O;en

20%

10%
 Always

0%

1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11

Ques&on
Number


Figure 1.Physics pre-survey questions (N=67).

 22


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
 Never

50%
 Rarely

40%

Some8mes

30%

O;en

20%

10%
 Always

0%

1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11

Ques&on
Number


Figure 2. AP Physics pre-survey questions (N=76).

Answers to the free response questions varied in ways that students prepare for

summative assessments. Some of the more frequent responses included: reviewing

notes (Physics 51 students, AP Physics 45 students), making use of practice quizzes or

study guides with sample questions and problems (76, 33), reviewing or reworking past

homework problems (36, 28), using review games (33, 29), using whiteboards for group

study (22, 30), reviewing labs (18, 12), powerpoint review of major points/problems (19,

2), notecards for vocabulary (8, 6), and asking questions outside of the class (8, 2).

Following the treatment process, students were given a Lickert scale post-survey

(Apppendix G) after the treatment process had been administered. Predominantly,

students responded favorably to questions concerning the use of formative

assessments in the learning process in Physics (Figures 3 and 4) and in AP Physics

(Figures 5 and 6). Few to none of the students responded “strongly disagree”,

“disagree”, “never” or “rarely”. The Physics group in response to question 4 of the post-
 23


treatment survey, “I discussed questions on the probes with other classmates” was the

only area that responded negatively and this was still less than 30% of the students.

100%
 100%

Strongly

80%
 Disagree
 80%


60%
 Disagree
 60%
 Never


Rarely

40%
 Neutral
 40%

Some8mes

20%
 20%

O;en

Agree

0%
 0%

Always

1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6

Strongly
Agree

Ques&on
 Ques&on


Figure 3. Post-survey Physics (N=59). Figure 4. Post-survey Physics (N=59).

100%
 Strongly

 100%


80%
 Disagree
 80%

Disagree
 Never

60%
 60%

Rarely

40%
 40%

Neutral

Some8mes

20%
 20%

O;en

0%
 Agree
 0%

Always

1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6

Strongly
Agree

Ques&on
 Ques&on


Figure 5. Post-survey AP Physics (N=74). Figure 6. Post-survey AP Physics (N=74).

After the Lickert responses on the post-treatment survey, students were posed

free-response questions concerning how they felt the formative assessments were

meaningful to them. These responses included: formative probes were helpful for tests

and students used as a study guide (Physics students 51, AP Physics students 10), the

probes helped to focus on common misunderstandings (26,19), the probes let students

know if they were understanding questions or concepts sooner in the learning process
 24


(30, 8), the students appreciated being tested more frequently (8,16), the students

appreciated that the questions on the probes were similar to problems on upcoming

summative tests (6, 16), and the probes helped to organize information in a meaningful

way (12, 3).

One of the free response questions asked the students for improvements that

could be made to the formative assessment and its use in the classroom. Several of

the students suggested more variety of questions included in the probes. A few

students felt that the formative probes should have had more challenging problems or

involve more in-depth thought processes. Some of the AP Physics students felt that

there needed to be more elaborate group discussion as a follow-up to the probes.

Individual comments that the authors feel are of note included: More examples needed

to be given before the formative probe was administered, one student felt that the

formative probes should be formatted in a more step-by-step approach to the question,

another student felt that the questions should be more realistic and applicable to the

“real world”, and finally, another student felt that it was almost impossible to understand

the formative probe if you had missed the original lesson or lessons.

The final component of the triangulation matrix was for small group interviews to

be held by both instructors. During the interviews, there was an overwhelming

response that the formative assessment probes were of great benefit to them. Only a

couple of the AP Physics students expressed indifference about the process. Several

Physics students felt that the formative assessment probes kept the material “fresh in

their minds”. Another comment made by several students was the fact that they felt that

they were “better able to retain” the information. A general comment was that the
 25


students appreciated that the formative probes were not graded and that they felt no

fear about answering the questions during the learning process. One student phrased

this as, “a painless way to see if you are wrong.” Overall, students felt that the

formative probes led to more confidence when taking the summative assessment.

Students felt that due to the structure of the formative probes, a brief assessment

with more focus on one concept, the instructors were able to ask more detailed in-depth

questions. This single concept focus led another student to comment that the probes

prompted “better detail in the learning and thinking of physics.” Another comment about

detail was that there was “less confusion on the appropriate use of the equations”. One

student enjoyed learning “different ways to solve for correct answers”. According to still

another interview subject, the formative probes “cleared everything up and tied

everything together.”

During the interviews, some students made suggestions for improving the use of

the formative assessment probes. A student felt that the formative assessment probes

would be a great tool as a follow-up to hands-on labs. Another felt that the formative

probe would be useful at the beginning to see what students know and then given again

after learning the material “to see what we have learned”. Another suggested approach

was to give the same probe multiple times in order to “see if we better understand it

after ‘x’ days”.

Teacher Reflections

The quantitative data for this study did not show definitive advantage to using

formative assessment in either Physics or AP Physics for improving summative test

scores. The primary goal of the quantitative data collection was to address our first
 26


research question: What is the impact of including formative assessment on student

achievement? The results of the t tests did not support the hypothesis of a

measureable impact for any of the data collected. The data obtained from the week

prior to Spring Break certainly seems anomalous, and yet, the results from that week

impacted all groups equally in a negative way. The qualitative data collection addressed

our second research question: What are student perceptions on including formative

assessments in the learning process? The qualitative results from the surveys and

interviews displayed a positive reaction on the part of the students’ perceptions.

The time originally allotted for this study was much earlier than actually occurred. The

planned timing for this study was for the middle of January, however, due to unforeseen

circumstances, we were unable to begin data collection until the second week of

February. This timing issue resulted in data collection before and after Spring Break for

Preble High School. When first looking at the overall percentages, the data appeared

to have been skewed due to the week six data collection which occurred immediately

before Spring Break. Student scores dropped for all classes approximately 10%

whether with treatment or without treatment. Several students in Physics and AP

Physics were not present in the classroom to take the summative quizzes due to

personal travel plans. These quizzes were not taken until after Spring Break, resulting

in lower scores. When a t test was conducted without the data for the sixth week, there

was still no significant difference noted between the treatment and non-treatment quiz

performance for groups A and B.

The summative quizzes administered during this action research project may not

have been “high fidelity” measurements of student conceptual growth. Students may in
 27


fact have a better understanding, but just not measureable by these instruments. Of

course, it is also possible that there really was no difference. Proper instruments are a

challenge when conducting research.

Timing for the introduction of formative assessment into the course curriculum

should also be considered for the strongest benefit to the students. We have

considered the need to start at the beginning of school year to establish a routine for the

students to maximize benefit from the inclusion of formative assessment probes. In this

way, they would develop the use of the probes as learning tools. Students will develop a

routine from the beginning of the school year to judge their performance on the

formative assessment probes and evaluate their own learning needs prior to summative

assessments. We also felt that there would have been a smoother transition for

instructional use with the development of a year-long use of the formative assessment

probes, rather than a short developmental introduction mid-year. We wondered

whether the students’ reactions to a new assessment procedure later in the year could

have been impacted by the on-set of “Senioritis” or “Spring Fever”. If formative

assessments are administered in the fall, the students might react differently when there

is greater academic focus and lower demands on their time outside and inside of class.

During the period of the action research, several students experienced long-term

absences due to extra- and co-curricular activities. These absences of several days or

a week affected summative test results. These students had difficulty with the

background information underlying concepts and the development of higher level

thinking connections that occur during class discussions. Upon their return, they

received a cluster of formative assessment probes and attempted to take a summative

 28


assessment with inadequate thought processing time. Occasionally, a student needed

to take more than one summative assessment upon return and it was difficult for them

to understand all that they had missed. While these students were trying to catch up on

missed instruction and learning, they were falling behind with current class work

compounding the difficulty.

There were also unanticipated challenges for the instructors implementing the

formative assessment probes, but these obstacles may lead to future areas of research

focus. Due to the time delay for the start of the action research project, additional probe

development was necessary for the later subject material in the Physics and the AP

Physics classes. In developing the half page formative assessment sheets, we found it

difficult to address most misconceptions on a particular topic. Can multifaceted

misconceptions be diagnosed and addressed with these short learning activities? At

what point has enough time and attention been devoted to a topic? The development of

quality higher-level thinking probes is time consuming and challenging for a first-time

implementation. This development time interfered with the anticipated time commitment

needed for grading the students’ individual assessment probes 2-3 times per week for

daily feedback. During the action research process, we questioned whether feedback

could have been given to groups by discussing areas that were of particular difficulty for

the students. Is daily individual hand-written feedback the best approach to delivering

feedback to the students?

Other topics that we questioned were whether formative assessments could

replace or be used as supplement review material, like study guides and practice tests.

Are the students receiving sufficient practice with basic level knowledge skills with the
 29


formative probes or do the probes target less but more complex situations? Would the

inclusion of more or less probes lead to greater possibilities or lose importance to the

students if the probes are routine? In the data from this action research, the students

overall appreciated the new approach to the addition of formative assessment probes

prior to a summative assessment, however, would the students lose their enthusiasm

when the newness wears off? In interviews, students commented that they were

spending less individual time studying. This is an important finding – most grades were

relatively high to begin with – perhaps there really wasn’t much room for growth, but

could the learning have become more efficient? Were the students understanding

concepts on a deeper level with the use of formative assessment probes, or were the

probes doing the necessary development work that the students should have done for

themselves? Are the students making connections by devoting process time to the

concepts, such as evaluating, prioritizing topics, and synthesizing connections or are we

providing them with a short cut that in the end will not be of benefit to their on-going

education? Our current action research looked at a small window or learning to

determine short-term effectiveness of the inclusion of formative assessment probes in

addition to summative assessments. Time would be well-spent looking at student

answers on semester exams to determine if long-term retention was established.

These new understandings and questions deserve to be given follow-up attention on

future studies.

CONCLUSION

This action research study investigated the effect that including formative

assessment probes into instruction would have on student learning. Two facets were
 30


under scrutiny. One area of consideration was whether the numerical data supported a

positive effect on summative test scores when formative probes were included.

However, the data showed that no statistically significant difference existed between the

summative test scores of the treatment and non-treatment groups. The second facet

examined was based upon interviews and surveys of student perceptions concerning

this inclusion of formative assessment probes into the learning process. The student

comments were favorable and the students felt that the probes were helpful to them for

studying for tests and that they became aware of their misconceptions earlier in the

learning process. The students also felt that their understanding of concepts reached a

deeper level than had the instruction without the use of formative assessment probes

prior to the action research.

Future studies in the area of using formative assessment in the classroom should

include using the formative assessment probes from the beginning of the school year,

examining different methods of timely feedback to the students, different uses for the

formative assessment probes within the classroom setting, and impacts on the final

semester in terms of retention for physics concepts. Also worthy of investigation is the

balance of time to the development of quality assessment probes against the time

demands required for daily response on probes to individual students in the classroom.
 31


REFERENCES

Ates, S. A. & Cataloglu, E. (2007). The effects of students' cognitive styles on

conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 25 (2), 167-178.


Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom
testing. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (2), 89-99.


Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B, & William, D. (2004). Working inside the
black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (1), 9-
21.

Brookhart, S., Moss, C., & Long, B. (2008). Formative assessment. Educational
Leadership, 66 (3), 52-57.


Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., Cook, M. J., & & Dihoff, R. E. (2005). Efficacy of error for
the correction of initially incorrect assumptions and of feedback for affirmation of
correct reseponding: Learning in the classroom. Psychological Record, 5 (3),
401-418.


Burns, D., & Vinchur, A. (1992). Effects of evaluative quizzes on test performance.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19 (3), 148.


Casem, M. L. (2006). Active learning is not enough. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 35 (6), 52-57.


Cheung, C., Cody, A., Hirota, I., Rubin, J., & and Slavin, J. (2006). Moving beyond
grades and scores: Reconsidering assessment feedback. In M. McMahon, P.
Simmons, R. Sommers, D. DeBaets, & F. E. Crawley, Assessment in Science
(pp. 207-217). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.


Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101-116.

Fulkerson, F. E., & Martin, G. (1981). Effects of exam frequency on student

performance, evaluation of instructor, and test anxiety. Teaching of Psychology,
8 (2), 90-93.


Furtak, E., & Ruiz-Primo, M. (2008). Making students’ thinking explicit in writing and
discussion: an analysis of formative assessment prompts. Science Education, 92
(5), 799-824.


Hewitt, P. G. (2005). Conceptual Physics (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.


 32


Keeley, P. (2008). Science education - the times they are a-changin'. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 38 (1), 10-11.


Kika, F., McLaughlin, T. F., & Dixon, J. (1992). Effects of frequent testing of secondary
algebra students. Journal of Education Research, 85 (3), 159-162.


Kling, N., McCorkle, D., Miller, C., & Reardon, J. (2005). The impact of testing frequency
on student performance in a marketing course. Journal of Education for
Business, 81 (2), 67-72.


Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1999). Minds On
Physics. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

Lord, T., & Baviskar, S. (2007, March/April). Moving students from information recitation
to information understanding: Exploiting Bloom's taxonomy in creating science
questions. Journal of College Science Teaching , 36 (5), pp. 40-44.


McDermott, L.C. (2001). Oersted medal lecture 2001: Physics education research—
the key to student learning. American Journal of Physics, 69 (11), 1127-1137.

McMillan, J. H. (2002). What Teachers Need to Know About Assessment. (L. M.

Rudner, & W. D. Schafer, Eds.) Washington, D. C.: National Education
Association Professional Library.

Myers, C. B., & Myers, S. M. (2007). Assessing assessment: The effects of two exam
formats on course achievement and evaluation. Innovative Higher Education, 31,
227-236.


Pikunas, J., & Mazzota, D. (1965). The effects of weekly testing in the teaching of
science. Science Education, 49 (4), 373-376.

Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to

success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (4), 324-328.

Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Using tests as an incentive to motivate procrastinators to study.

Journal of Experimental Education, 66 (2), 141-148.


Waite, J. (2007, February). Weekly quizzing really works! Online software makes it
easy. Techdirections, 66 (7), 16-21.


Whitman, M.C., Steinberg, R. N., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Making sense of how
students make sense of mechanical waves. The Physics Teacher, 37 (1), 15-21.
 33


APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PARENT(S) OR GUARDIAN

Identification of Project: Effects of Increasing Frequency in Testing by Incorporating

Formative Assessment

Purpose of the Research: This research project will be used to identify whether adding
ungraded assessment of learning will impact student understanding. This project will cover
thirteen weeks of class time. The topic was chosen to maximize effectiveness learning for
students within the 11th and 12th grade Physics classes at Preble High School, Green Bay, WI.

Procedures: Students will be alternately given additional non-graded assignments to

determine student understanding during the learning process. Students will cover identical
material and questions similar in structure. Some students will be chosen for brief interviews to
determine personal preference with the additional learning method.

Benefits: There may be immediate benefits within the Physics’ classes during the research
study, if favorable results are found by including ungraded assessments for learning. Future
Physics students could benefit greatly from the findings of this study.

Drawbacks: There may be possible student preference for one method over the other. The
overall class grade consists of projects, labs, daily homework, as well as tests and quizzes.
Therefore, the impact on the student grade is not extensive.

Confidentiality: Your name will not be specifically mentioned in any documentation of this
study. Publication may occur, however, only group characteristics will be analyzed and
recorded.

Opportunity to Ask Questions: Since your child is a participant in this study, you have the
right to ask questions and have those questions answered. If you have questions or concerns,
please contact the investigators at Preble High School, during the school day, at 391-2400. You
may contact Ronda Liebmann, room 223, or e-mail rliebman@greenbay.k12.wi.us, Michael
Sindberg, room 229, or e-mail msindber@greenbay.12.wi.us or our faculty advisor, Dr, Eric
Brunsell at 920-424-3163 or brunsele@uwosh.edu. Additional questions regarding the rights of
human subjects may be directed to Dr. Frances Rauscher, Chairperson, University of
Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Participants,
Oshkosh, WI 54901 or at 920-424-7172.

Freedom to Withdraw: The student participation is completely voluntary in this study. If you
decide not to have your child participate, it will have no effect on their grade in this class.
However, all students will be given the additional assessments for understanding.

Consent, Right to Receive a Copy: You are voluntarily deciding whether or not your child will
participate in this research study. Your signature certifies that you have decided to allow your
child to participate. You will be given a copy of this consent form.
 34


Signature of Parent(s):

____________________________________ ________________________
Signature of Participant’s Parent or Guardian Date

____________________________________ _________________________
Signature of Participant’s Parent or Guardian Date

Name and Contact Information of investigators

Ronda Liebmann, Preble High School (920) 391-2400 rliebman@greenbay.k12.wi.us
Michael Sindberg, Preble High School (920)391-2400 msindber@greenbay.k12.wi.us
 35


APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR STUDENT

Identification of Project: Effects of Increasing Frequency in Testing by Incorporating

Formative Assessment

Purpose of the Research: This research project will investigate learning based upon
additional assignments to determine understanding of unit material. It will cover thirteen weeks
of class time.

Procedures: Most students will not participate in any activities outside of class. You will be
alternately given additional non-graded assignments to determine your understanding during the
learning process. All classes will cover identical material and questions similar in structure.
You may be chosen for brief interviews to determine personal preference with the additional
learning method.

Benefits and drawbacks: You may find the additional assignments beneficial to understanding
the unit material. Your grade consists of projects, labs, daily homework, as well as the tests and
quizzes. The impact of this study on your grade will be minimal, but the benefit to future
students could be great.

Confidentiality: Your name will not be specifically mentioned in any documentation of this
study.

Opportunity to Ask Questions: As participants in this study, you have the right to ask
questions. Please contact Mrs. Liebmann, room 223, rliebman@greenbay.k12.wi.us or you
can contact Mr. Sindberg, room 229, msindber@greenbay.12.wi.us.

Freedom to Withdraw: Your participation is this study is voluntary. If you, or your parent(s),
decide not to have you participate, or withdraw, it will have no effect on your grade. However,
you will be expected to participate in all classroom activities.

Consent, Right to Receive a Copy: You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to
participate in this research study. Your signature and your parent signature on the parental
consent form, certifies that you have decided to participate having read and understood the
information. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

Signature of Participant:

_______________________________ ________________________
Signature of Research Participant Date
 36


APPENDIX C: TRIANGULATION MATRIX

Research Questions Data Source

Data Set 1 Data Set 2 Data Set 3

1. Impact on Teacher Teacher Student exit slip

Student constructed constructed responses
Learning? summative summative
assessments assessments
following formative
probes

2. Student Student survey pre- Student survey Student interviews

perceptions? formative post-formative
 37


APPENDIX D: PRE-TREATMENT SURVEY

Please complete the following statements by circling the word in the “Responses” column that
best describes your approach to prepare for and take tests.
Statements Responses
1. While taking a test, I check to see if
answers on the same topic agree with Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

each other
2. I prefer longer time between tests to
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

practice and improve understanding
3. I rework questions from homework that are
marked wrong to prepare for quizzes and Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

tests
4. When I get a test back, I go over questions
marked wrong to figure out the correct Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

answers
5. I find it helpful when a teacher gives written
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

feedback on homework
6. I know in advance what kinds of questions
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

will appear on quizzes and tests
7. Upcoming quizzes and tests motivate me
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

to understand assignments and labs
8. I prefer taking frequent short quizzes
covering less information and it is fresh in Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

my mind
9. I feel confident in my understanding of a
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

topic before taking a quiz or test
10. Getting a good grade is more important
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

than understanding the topic
11. How I perform on a test is a good
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

indication of what I know
Name two or three ways you typically prepare for quizzes and tests:

Name two or three learning activities that would help you prepare for quizzes and tests:

What other questions and comments do you have?

 38


APPENDIX E: FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PROBES

Look out below! Name:___________________________________

While cleaning out and remodeling a hotel, construction workers drop the following items over an interior 10th floor balcony to the
dumpster on the ground level:
A. a 20 cm x 15 cm x 3 cm phone book
B. a plastic toothbrush
C. a little league baseball
D. a small paperback book
E. a square block of wood about as wide as a baseball
F. a 75 cm tall teddy bear
G. a large Styrofoam coffee cup

Which item encounters the greatest force of air resistance? _______

Explain why you think so. What characteristics of the falling object did you think about when making your decision?

Which item will be moving fastest just before landing in the dumpster? ______ Most slowly? _______
Explain why you think so. What characteristics of the objects did you think about while making your decisions?

Name Those Vectors Name____________________________________________

For the following pictures, draw vectors and label the forces in each situation.

















 39


The Force Source Name____________________________________________

Of the following, identify objects that are sources for forces by placing a  before the source. In other words, which objects
exert forces and differ from objects that do not legitimately exert forces.

____ string ____gravity ____Darth Vadar ____acceleration

____body ____black holes ____inertia ____momentum
____earth ____exhaust gas ____thrust ____air resistance
____magnetism ____floor ____neutron star ____feet
____centripetal acceleration ____water ____velocity ____air
____road ____current ____electric charge ____ Luke Skywalker
____table ____normal force ____magnets ____spring
____protons ____quarks ____tension ____centrifugal forces
____electrons ____muons ____hand ____friction
____red giant star ____nanomagnets ____lift ____neutrons
____electricity ____white dwarf star ____launcher after launch ____leptons

Scientists have identified only four fundamental forces. Of the sources that you previously identified, label the fundamental force
that each of your identified sources belong:
Gravitational Force Electro-Magnetic Force Strong Force Weak Force



 40




What’s Going On? Name____________________________________________

For the following force diagrams:

• Identify if the forces on the object are balanced or unbalanced
• Direction of movement if it applies
• Identify one scenario that matches the force diagram

Circle one: Balanced Unbalanced Circle one: Balanced Unbalanced

Direction of Movement: Direction of Movement:
None Up Down Right Left None Up Down Right Left
Possible Scenario: Possible Scenario:

_____________________________________________ ______________________________________________

_____________________________________________ ______________________________________________

Circle one: Balanced Unbalanced Circle one: Balanced Unbalanced

Direction of Movement: Direction of Movement:
None Up Down Right Left None Up Down Right Left
Possible Scenario: Possible Scenario:
_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________
 41


APPENDIX F: EXIT SLIP EXAMPLES

Exit Slip: Force on Vectors

Name ________________________ Hour _____ Date ________________
Summarize the main ideas on force vectors discussed in class today:

List 3 important details about force vectors:

1.
2.
3.
Write a question about force vectors:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exit Slip: Topic __________________________
Name ________________________ Hour _____ Date ________________
Summarize the main idea we covered in class today:

List three important details about this topic:

1.

2.

3.

Write a question about this main idea:

 42


APPENDIX G: POST-TREATMENT SURVEY

For some of the recent units covered in class, you completed some formative probes. The
following questions are about your reactions to those probes and the ways which you used
them.
Please complete the following statements by circling the word in the “Responses” column that
best describes your viewpoint.

Statements Responses
1. The formative probes were challenging Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

2. I felt more confident about my answers to
Strongly Strongly
test questions after seeing similar
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

questions on the probes
3. The feedback received on the probes was Strongly Strongly
helpful for test preparation Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

4. I discussed questions on the probes with
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

classmates
5. I recognized questions on the tests that
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

were similar to the ones in the probes
6. The probes helped me judge my level of
understanding on the topic before taking Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

the test

Make 2 or 3 comments summarizing your feeling on how formative probes were used in the
classroom:

Describe how the formative probes helped you:

List one or two ways that the probes could be improved:

What other questions or comments do you have?

 43


APPENDIX H: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE STUDY

DESIGN

Summative Alternative Traditional Alternative Traditional

Group A Baseline Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment

18 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks

Summative Traditional Alternative Traditional Alternative

Group B Baseline Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment

18 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks

Traditional assessment: One summative evaluation at end of two week period.

Alternative assessment: Formative Assessments followed by one summative
evaluation at the end of the two week period.
 44


APPENDIX I: SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE

1. A spring scale is used to slowly apply a horizontal force to a brick initially at rest. The spring scale reading goes
up steadily until the brick begins to slide. Once the brick slides, the spring scale has a lower reading than it did
prior to the brick moving. These observations indicate that the…
a) force of sliding friction is greater than the force applied by the spring scale
b) force of sliding friction is greater than the maximum force of static friction
c) maximum force of static friction is greater than the force of sliding friction
d) force of static friction is a maximum when no pulling force is applied by the spring scale
Forces on Air Hockey Puck
2. According to the force-time
graph for a puck on an air
4
hockey table to the right, during
which time interval was the puck 3
moving at constant speed?
2
Force (N)

a) 0 s -3 s 1
b) 3s-4s
c) 4 s -7 s 0
d) 7 s -10 s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
e) The puck was never moving at -1
constant speed
-2
Time (s)
3. A 0.50 kg Coca-Cola® bottle is
thrown out of the window of an
airplane flying over the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa. At time t =1.2 seconds after being thrown, an air
resistance force of 2.8 N acts on the bottle.

a) Draw a free body diagram showing all of the forces b) Draw a free body diagram showing the total force,
acting on the bottle at time t = 1.2 seconds in the space Ftotal, acting on the bottle at time t = 1.2 s in the
below. space below.

c) After a few more seconds, the bottle reaches terminal velocity. What is the magnitude of the air resistance force
when the bottle is falling at terminal velocity? Briefly explain how you know.
 45


4. A 3.1 kg toy truck is pulled to the left by a constant 12 N tension force in an experiment similar to the crash-
testing demonstrations we saw in class. The free-body diagrams are shown below:

FBD: All Forces FBD: Total Force

=
31
N


=

=
12
N
 =

3.1
kg
 3.1
kg






=
31
N
 __________

__________


a) If the toy truck accelerates at 1.8 m/s2, calculate the total force acting on the toy truck and fill in this value on
the total force FBD above.

b) Calculate the friction force that acts on the toy truck and fill in the value on the all forces FBD above.

5. Little Nellie Newton takes a 7.3 kg eggplant and a 96 kg pumpkin from her garden to the County Fair, hoping to
win some ribbons.
a) Calculate the weight of the eggplant and the weight
of the pumpkin?

b) The sketches show how the two County Fair judges used
spring scales to measure the produce weight. Fill in the
blanks to indicate the readings on the spring scales. (Note:
Each spring scale has a weight of 4.0 N)

6. You and your lab partner each hold a properly zeroed spring scale. The two spring scales are hooked together
and you hold your spring scale steady. Your lab partner pulls the other spring scale directly away from yours.
Which spring scale will have a greater force reading?
a) The pulled spring scale
b) The steady spring scale
c) The steady one for forces less than the weight of a spring scale
d) Both will read the same
 46


7. To start a car with a dead battery, some college students release the emergency brake to try to get a rolling start.
Assume that the force of friction is 200 N and the mass of the car is 770 kg.
a) Draw free body diagram of the car, labeling all forces.

20°

b) Calculate the horizontal and vertical component for gravity showing all of your work.

c) Calculate the coefficient of friction between the tires and the road, showing all of your work.

d) Determine Fnet showing all of your work.

e) Calculate acceleration, showing all of your work.

 47


APPENDIX J: POST INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Explain which method of testing you found more favorable.

2. How would you characterize your level of anxiety for testing?

Follow Up: Did one type of testing create or relieve anxiety?

3. How did the amount of time spent studying change when the testing method
changed?

Follow Up: Did your effort or approach change for studying?

4. Describe personal benefits to quicker feedback from the instructor.

5. Did you feel that the testing method affected your grade in Physics?

6. How did the testing method change the way you approached more challenging
questions on the summative tests?

Follow Up: Were some portions of the exam more difficult than others?
Follow Up: Were they content questions or was it the format of the question that
caused the difficulty?
7. What types of skills did you use efficiently on some of the tests?

Follow Up: Were there skills that you would have appreciated practicing in the
classroom before the final exam?
8. Were there portions of tests that you felt unprepared to answer?

Follow up: How did you feel unprepared for them and what would have been
assistance you would have found useful?
 48


APPENDIX K: TABLES OF LICKERT SCALE PRE-SURVEY DATA



Physics Pre-Survey N=67
Question
# Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
1 25.4% 50.7% 20.9% 3.0% 0.0%
2 34.3% 34.3% 19.4% 10.4% 1.5%
3 1.5% 10.4% 28.4% 41.8% 17.9%
4 16.4% 25.4% 38.8% 13.4% 6.0%
5 32.8% 34.3% 26.9% 4.5% 1.5%
6 13.6% 42.4% 33.3% 9.1% 1.5%
7 7.5% 28.4% 52.2% 10.4% 1.5%
8 31.3% 29.9% 22.4% 13.4% 3.0%
9 13.4% 43.3% 37.3% 4.5% 1.5%
10 19.4% 22.4% 23.9% 25.4% 9.0%
11 13.4% 35.8% 40.3% 7.5% 3.0%

AP Physics Pre-Survey N=76

Question
# Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
1 26.3% 60.5% 10.5% 2.6% 0.0%
2 25.0% 39.5% 26.3% 7.9% 1.3%
3 0.0% 20.0% 30.7% 40.0% 9.3%
4 34.2% 36.8% 21.1% 6.6% 1.3%
5 35.5% 35.5% 28.9% 0.0% 0.0%
6 13.2% 52.6% 30.3% 3.9% 0.0%
7 17.1% 47.4% 27.6% 7.9% 0.0%
8 34.2% 31.6% 27.6% 6.6% 0.0%
9 17.3% 46.7% 28.0% 8.0% 0.0%
10 10.5% 21.1% 43.4% 17.1% 7.9%
11 7.9% 52.6% 32.9% 6.6% 0.0%
 49


APPENDIX L: TABLES OF LICKERT SCALE POST-SURVEY DATA

Physics Post-Survey N=59

Strongly Strongly
Quest. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
1 1.7% 52.5% 35.6% 10.2% 0.0%
2 32.2% 54.2% 10.2% 3.4% 0.0%
3 33.9% 59.3% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Quest. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

4 3.4% 23.7% 45.8% 15.3% 11.9%
5 22.0% 54.2% 23.7% 0.0% 0.0%
6 28.8% 54.2% 15.3% 1.7% 0.0%



AP Physics Post-Survey N=74

Strongly Strongly
Quest. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
1 5.4% 58.1% 27.0% 9.5% 0.0%
2 20.3% 62.2% 12.2% 5.4% 0.0%
3 12.2% 68.9% 14.9% 4.1% 0.0%

Quest. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

4 9.5% 43.2% 37.8% 8.1% 1.4%
5 18.9% 51.4% 28.4% 1.4% 0.0%
6 17.6% 56.8% 24.3% 1.4% 0.0%