Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Class Tournament as an Assessment Method in Physics Courses: A Pilot Study
1
Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, POLAND
2
Department of Biophysics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kracow, POLAND
3
Department of Econometrics and Operations Research, Cracow University of Economics, Krakow, POLAND
Online publication date: 2018-01-05
Publication date: 2018-01-05
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(4):1111-1132
KEYWORDS
team workcooperative learningcollaborative testingK-12 physicsassessment methodsassessment as learning
ABSTRACT
Testing knowledge is an integral part of a summative assessment at schools. It can be performed in many different ways. In this study we propose assessment of physics knowledge by using a class tournament approach. Prior to a statistical analysis of the results obtained over a tournament organized in one of Polish high schools, all its specifics are discussed at length, including the types of questions assigned, as well as additional self- and peer-evaluation questionnaires, constituting an integral part of the tournament. The impact of the tournament upon student improvement is examined by confronting the results of a post-test with pre-tournament students’ achievements reflected in scores earned in former, tests written by the students in experimental group and their colleagues from control group. We also present some of students’ and teachers’ feedback on the idea of a tournament as a tool of assessment. Both the analysis of the tournament results and the students’ and teachers’ opinions point to at least several benefits of our approach.
REFERENCES (83)
1.
Apostol, S., Zaharescu L., & Aleze, I. (2013). Gamification of Learning and Educational Games. eLearning & Software for Education, 2, 67.
2.
Banfield, J., & Wilkerson, B. (2014). Increasing Student Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Efficacy through Gamification Pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER) CIER, 7(4), 291. doi:10.19030/cier.v7i4.8843.
3.
Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning: A role for summative assessment? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 103-110. doi:10.1080/0969595980050106.
4.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.
5.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 215-232. doi:10.1080/09695941003696016.
6.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8-21. doi:10.1177/003172170408600105.
7.
Black, P., Harrison, P., Hodgen, C., Marshall, J., & Serret, N. (2011). Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 451-469. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.557020.
8.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., Madaus, G. F., & Baldwin, T. S. (1971). Handbook on the formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., Rodenbaugh, D. W., & Dicarlo, S. E. (2003). Student Retention Of Course Content Is Improved By Collaborative-Group Testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(3), 102-108. doi:10.1152/advan.00041.2002.
11.
Dahlström, O. (2012). Learning during a collaborative final exam. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(4), 321-332. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.674689.
12.
Dallmer, D. (2004). Collaborative test taking with adult learners. Adult Learning, 15, 4-7. doi:10.1177/104515950401500301.
13.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 2425). Vancouver, US. doi:10.1145/1979742.1979575.
14.
Dicheva, D., Dichev C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.
15.
Ding, L. (2014). Seeking missing pieces in science concept assessments: Reevaluating the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment through Rasch analysis. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010105.
16.
Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B., & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010105.
17.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935.
18.
Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. E., Mestre, J. P., & Ross, B. H. (2015). Conceptual problem solving in high school physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020106.
19.
Doran, R. L., Boorman, J., Chan, F., & Hejaily, N. (1993). Alternative assessment of high school laboratory skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1121-1131.
20.
Duane, B. T., & Satre, M. E. (2014). Utilizing constructivism learning theory in collaborative testing as a creative strategy to promote essential nursing skills. Nurse Education Today, 34(1), 31-34. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.005.
21.
Earl, L. M. (2004). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22.
Fakcharoenphol, W., & Stelzer, T. (2014). Physics exam preparation: A comparison of three methods. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010108.
23.
Fernandezbreis, J., Castellanosnieves, D., & Valenciagarcia, R. (2009). Measuring individual learning performance in group work from a knowledge integration perspective. Information Sciences, 179(4), 339-354. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2008.10.014.
24.
Franklin, S. V., & Hermsen, L. M. (2014). Real-time capture of student reasoning while writing. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020121.
25.
Garriso, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2007). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom. Retrieved on March 25, 2016 from http://www.amle.org/Publicatio....
26.
Gery, F. W. (1972). Does mathematics matter? In Research Papers in Economic Education, A. Welsh (Ed.), 142–157. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education.
27.
Gilley, B., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Research and Teaching: Collaborative Testing: Evidence of Learning in a Controlled In-Class Study of Undergraduate Students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 043(03), 83.
28.
Guest, K. E., & Murphy, D. S. (2000). In support of memory retention: A cooperative oral final exam. Education, 121, 350-354.
29.
Haberyan, A. & Barnett, J. (2010). Collaborative testing and achievement: are two heads really better than one? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 32-41.
30.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. doi:10.1119/1.18809.
31.
Halliday, D., Resnick, R. & Walker, J. (2001). Fundamentals of Physics, 3. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
32.
Hanus, M., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161.
33.
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379. doi:10.1080/0969594970040304.
34.
Hendrix, J. C. (1996). Cooperative Learning: Building a Democratic Community. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 69(6), 333-336.
35.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158. doi:10.1119/1.2343497.
36.
Hickey, D. T., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Cross, D. (2012). Assessment as learning: Enhancing discourse, understanding, and achievement in innovative science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1240-1270.
37.
Hitt, G. W., Isakovic, A. F., Fawwaz, O., Bawa’Aneh, M. S., El-Kork, N., Makkiyil, S., & Qattan, I. A. (2014). Secondary implementation of interactive engagement teaching techniques: Choices and challenges in a Gulf Arab context. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020123.
38.
Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2012). Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives. New York: Springer.
39.
Ives, J. (2014). Measuring the Learning from Two-Stage Collaborative Group Exams. In 2014 PERC Proceedings (p. 123). Minneapolis, US. doi:10.1119/perc.2014.pr.027.
40.
Jensen, M., Moore, R., & Hatch, J. (2002). Cooperative Learning: Part I: Cooperative Quizzes. The American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 29-34. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2002)064[0029:CLPICQ]2.0.CO;2.
41.
Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Putting it into practice. London: Paul Chapman.
42.
Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47, 12-15.
43.
Kapitanoff, S. H. (2009). Collaborative testing: Cognitive and interpersonal processes related to enhanced test performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1). http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.....
44.
Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010101.
45.
Kruglak, H. (1965). Experimental Study of Multiple-Choice and Essay Tests. I. Am. J. Phys. American Journal of Physics, 33(12). doi:10.1119/1.1971143.
46.
Lindsey, B. A., & Nagel, M. L. (2015). Do students know what they know? Exploring the accuracy of students’ self-assessments. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020103.
47.
Looney, J. (2011). Integrating Formative and Summative Assessment. OECD Education Working Papers, 58(5).
48.
Lusk, M. & Conklin, L. (2003) Collaborative testing to promote learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(3), 121-124.
49.
Madsen, A., McKagan, S. B., & Sayre, E. C. (2013). Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 9(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020121.
50.
Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2013). Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the test of understanding graphs in kinematics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020120 · Source: arXiv.
51.
McTighe, J., & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership, 63(10), 10+17.
52.
Moccozet, L., Tardy, C., Opperecht, W., & Leonard, M. (2013). Gamification-based assessment of group work. In Proceedings of the Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) Conference (p. 171). Kazan, RU.
53.
Moncada, S., & Moncada, T. (2014). Gamification of Learning in Accounting Education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14, 9.
54.
Pawl, A., Teodorescu, R. E., & Peterson, J. D. (2013). Assessing class-wide consistency and randomness in responses to true or false questions administered online. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020102.
55.
Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Kost, L. E. (2007). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010107.
56.
Rao, S. P., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2002). Collaborative testing enhances student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(1). doi:10.1152/advan.00032.2001.
57.
Rebello, N. S. (2011). Comparing students’ performance on research-based conceptual assessments and traditional classroom assessments. In 2011 PERC Proceedings (pp. 66-68). Omaha, US.
58.
Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., Stuart, P. E., & Merle-Johnson, D. (2013). Game-Based Curricula in Biology Classes: Differential Effects among Varying Academic Levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 479-499. doi:10.1002/tea.21085.
59.
Sandahl, S. S. (2010). Collaborative testing as a learning strategy in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(3), 142-147.
60.
Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1096-1121. doi:10.1002/tea.21050.
61.
Schuwirth, L. W., & Cees P M Van Der Vleuten. (2004). Different written assessment methods: What can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ Medical Education, 38(9), 974-979. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x.
62.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, 39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
63.
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
64.
Shindler, J. V. (2003). “Greater Than the Sum of the Parts?” Examining the Soundness of Collaborative Exams in Teacher Education Courses. Innovative Higher Education, 28(4), 273-283.
65.
Simpkin, M. G. (2005). An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Collaborative Testing in an Entry-Level Computer Programming Class. Journal of Information Systems, 16, 273-280.
66.
Slavin, R. E. (2000). Cooperative Learning: Theory, research, and practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
67.
Slepkov, A. D., & Shiell, R. C. (2014). Comparison of integrated testlet and constructed-response question formats. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020120.
68.
Stang, J. B. & Roll, I. (2014). Interactions between teaching assistants and students boost engagement in physics labs. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020117.
69.
Sung, H. & Hwang, G. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43-51.
70.
Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers’ assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 585-609. doi:10.1002/tea.21209.
71.
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – Summative and Formative – Some Theoretical Reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478.
72.
Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57-69. doi:10.1080/03098770802638671.
73.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
74.
Vercellati, S., Michelini, M., Santi, L., Sokolowska, D., & Brzezinka, G. (2013). Investigating MST curriculum experienced by eleven-year-old Polish and Italian pupils. In E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning (Vol. 10, pp. 180-189). Cyprus.
75.
Wilcox, B. R., & Pollock, S. J. (2014). Coupled multiple-response versus free-response conceptual assessment: An example from upper-division physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020124.
76.
Wilcox, B. R., & Pollock, S. J. (2015). Upper-division student difficulties with the Dirac delta function. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010108.
77.
Wilcox, B. R., Caballero, M. D., Baily, C., Sadaghiani, H., Chasteen, S. V., Ryan, Q. X., & Pollock, S. J. (2015). Development and uses of upper-division conceptual assessments. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020115.
78.
Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and Consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548.
79.
Wininger, S. (2005). Using Your Tests to Teach: Formative Summative Assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 164-166.
80.
Wooten, M. M., Cool, A. M., Prather, E. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2014). Comparison of performance on multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions in an introductory astronomy laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020103.
81.
Yu, H., & Li, H. (2014). Group-based Formative Assessment: A Successful Way to Make Summative Assessment Effective. TPLS Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 839-844. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.4.839-844.
82.
Zimbardo, P. G., Butler, L. D., & Wolfe, V. A. (2003). Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When Students Share Information and Grades. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 101-125. doi:10.1080/00220970309602059.
83.
Zwolak, J. P., & Manogue, C. A. (2015). Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020125.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
