Impact of formative assessment based on feedback loop model on high school students’ conceptual understanding and engagement with physics

Faith Celeste Ole; Marilou R. Gallos

doi:10.36681/tused.2023.019

Authors

Faith Celeste Ole Carlos Hilado Memorial State University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6248-4168
Marilou R. Gallos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.019

Keywords:

conceptual understanding, engagements, Feedback Loop Model, formative assessment, Physics

Abstract

This study examined the effects of using the Feedback Loop Model (FLM) in Grade 12 Senior High School (SHS) Physics classes. Using a one-group pretest-posttest design, 58 students identified from a simple random sampling method were tested for their conceptual understanding and engagement with in kinematics. The results showed that students’ engagement had been significantly affected when their physics teachers practised formative assessment (FA) using the Feedback Loop Model in their synchronous classes. These implications were supported by both quantitative and qualitative data in the study. With the use of Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test, statistical differences were obtained in the four dimensions of the engagement tool in terms of agentic engagement (Z = 3.37, p < .001), behavioural engagement (Z = 4.82, p < .001), emotional engagement (Z = 4.06, p < .001), and cognitive engagement (Z = 4.40, p < .001). Meanwhile, for students’ conceptual understanding, the difference between their pre-and posttests mean scores in kinematics revealed a significant difference (t (57) = 17.76, p < .001), suggesting that teachers’ classroom practices towards FA using FLM affected students’ level of conceptual understanding in Kinematics. Employing Cohen’s d to measure its practical significance also showed a large effect (d = 2.83). Thus, it is recommended that implementing FA based on FLM could significantly impact the engagement and learning process of high school physics students.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdullah, M. Y., Abu Bakara, N. R. & Mahboba. M. H. (2012). Student’s participation in classroom: What motivates them to speak up? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 516 – 522.

Ahmad, C. (2021). Causes of students’ reluctance to participate in classroom discussions. ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering Education, 1(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.17509/ajsee.v1i1.32407

Andersson, C. (2015). Professional development in formative assessment: Effects on teacher classroom practice and student achievement. Dean of the Science/Technology Faculty, Swedish Copyright Legislation (Act 1960:729)

Ash, D., & Levitt, K. (2003). Working within the zone of proximal development: Formative assessment as professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 23–48.

Avsar Erumit, B., Ozcelik, A., Yuksel, T. & Tekbiyik, A. (2021). Examining the views of preservice teachers about online science education during the Covid-19 lockdown: Expectations, Opportunities, Threats, Motivations, and Beliefs. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Covid-19 Special Issue, 2 -25. DOI no:10.36681/tused.2021.69

Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., Fors, U., & Knutsson, O. (2020). Engagement, disengagement, and performance when learning with technologies in upper secondary school. Computers & Education, 149, 103783.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Cahyadi, V. (2004) The effect of interactive engagement teaching on student understanding of introductory physics at the faculty of engineering. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 455-464, DOI: 10.1080/0729436042000276468

Cleofas, J.V. (2021). Self-care practices and online student engagement during Covid-19 in the Philippines: A mixed methods study. Issues in Educational Research, 31(3), 699-717. http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/cleofas.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad (PDF). Stanford, CA: National Staff Development Council and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University.

Dong, Y. & Liu, S. (2020). An investigation into students' agentic engagement in online English listening learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(3), 409-417, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1103.09

Dixson, M.D. (2015). Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning 19(4). 10.24059/olj.v19i4.561.

Espejo, N. N. D. (2018, June 20 – 22). Difference in Academic Engagement among College Students as a function of Learning Environment. DLSU Research Congress, Philippines.

Fanshawe, M., Burke, K., Tualaulelei, E. & Cameron, C. (2020, August 31). Creating Emotional Engagement in Online Learning. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/8/creating-emotional-engagement-in-online-learning

Fernandez, F. B. (2017). Action research in the physics classroom: the impact of authentic, inquiry-based learning or instruction on the learning of thermal physics. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 3(1), 1-20.

Furtak, E. M., Glasser, H. M. & Wolfe, Z. M. (2016). The Feedback Loop: Using formative assessment. Data for Science Teaching and Learning. National Science Teachers Association.

Hu, M. & Li, H. (2017). Student Engagement in Online Learning: A Review. 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), 39-43, doi: 10.1109/ISET.2017.17.

Jiao, H. (2015). Enhancing students' engagement in learning through a formative e-assessment tool that motivates students to take action on feedback, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 9-18. DOI: 10.7158/D13-002.2015.20.1

Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive children's achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 190–206.

Louwrens, N., & Hartnett, M. (2015). Student and teacher perceptions of online student engagement in an online middle school. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 19(1), 27 - 44.

Lu, C., & Cutumisu, M. (2022). Online engagement and performance on formative assessments mediate the relationship between attendance and course performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 19(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00307-5.

McLeod, S. (2019). What does effect size tell you? Retrieved January 24, 2022, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/effect-size.html

McNaught, C., Lam, P. & Cheng, K.F. (2012). Investigating relationships between features of learning designs and student learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research Development, 60, 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9226-1

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 377-390. doi: 10.1007/s10648- 006-9032-1

Ole, F.C.B. & Gallos, M. R. (2021). Development and Validation of a Physics Concept Test in Kinematics for Senior High School Students. IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 3(2), 95 – 104. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5090065

Pellegrino, M. A. & Sloan, A. (2021, September 15). How to Improve and Promote Student Engagement in the Online Classroom. Retrieved January 29, 2022 from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-student-engagement/how-to-improve-and-promote-student-engagement-in-the-online-classroom/

Pilotti, M., Anderson, S., Hardy, P., Murphy, P. & Vincent, P. (2017). Factors Related to Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral Engagement in the Online Asynchronous Classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 145 – 153.

Rakoczy, K. & Pinger, P. & Hochweber, J. & Klieme, E. & Schütze, B. & Besser, M. (2019). Formative assessment in mathematics: Mediated by feedback's perceived usefulness and students' self-efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 60 154-165. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.004.

Reeve, J. (2013). How Students Create Motivationally Supportive Learning Environments for Themselves: The Concept of Agentic Engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579 – 595.

Reeve, J. & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students' engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 3–19). Boston: Springer US Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1.

Rodgríguez, C. L., Mula-Falcón, J., Jesús Domingo Segovia, J. D., & Cruz-González, C. (2021). The effects of Covid-19 on science education: A thematic review of international research. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Covid-19 Special Issue, 26 - 45. DOI no:10.36681/tused.2021.70

Roth, K.J., Garnier, H.E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., and Wickler, N.I.Z. (2011). Video-based Lesson Analysis: Effective Science PD for Teacher and Student Learning [Abstract]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117-148.

Snowball, J. D., & Sayigh, E. (2007). Using the tutorial system to improve the quality of feedback to students in large class teaching. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(2), 321-333.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., and Thomas, S. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.

Syuhendri, S. (2020, September 3-4). Effect of conceptual change texts on physics education students’ conceptual understanding in kinematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Padang, Indonesia. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1876/1/012090.