Peter Morris & Shane Dowdall Dept. Computing & Mathematics, Dundalk Institute of Technology

transcript

Student self-assessment and independent learning in a 1st year mathematics module: identifying and responding to needs and challenges through technology

Peter Morris & Shane Dowdall

Dept. Computing & Mathematics,

Dundalk Institute of Technology

Background

Where the project started…

Background

Image credit: http://www.promathtutoring.com/regents.html

Background

SIF 2 ERA ‘Repositioning Learner Assessment Project’ Research

Grants 2009

Educational Context

B.Sc. in Computing

Level 7

Common 1st Year

Approx 100 students

Mathematics for Computing 1

Semester 1 module

Lectures & Tutorials

No Computers!

Student Cohort 67% from Leaving Certificate

1% > 350 points

11% > 300 points

7% < 200 points

Student Cohort 16% Mature Students

7% International

7% Further Education

Issues

Minimum entry requirements (Leaving Certificate Maths):

B2 grade at Foundation Level

D3 at Ordinary level

E at Higher Level.

Mature students not studied maths for many years

Students entering from further education have no maths requirements

Minimum requirements vs. lecturer’s requirements

AimThe aim of this initiative was to

improve mathematical fundamentals,

for a diverse 1st year student cohort,

through the introduction of software

that incorporates

self-directed online tutorials and

assessments for learning.

Key Objectivesa. Inform students of their initial maths competency.

b. Promote independent learning.

c. Offer flexible timing of assessments.

d. Enable students to be assessed quickly.

c. Build students’ confidence in mathematics.

d. Improve engagement in mathematics.

e. Analyse the effect of initiative on students.

Literature Assessment for Learning Petty(2006)

“the most powerful single moderator that enhances achievement is feedback” Hattie (1999)

Benefit of using computers in teaching mathematics

for students who “lack foundation in basic mathematics” Bennett, F. (1999)

Multimedia Learning

Multiple Representation Principle

Contiguity Principle Mayer & Moreno (1998)

Tutorials & Tests Alessi & Trollip (2001)

Literature Variables influencing mathematics

achievement Pajeres (1996)

Cognitive ability, socio-economic status, prior mathematics achievement…

Mathematical self-efficacy the student’s self-belief in

their ability to solve mathematical problems

Ayotola & Adedeji (2009), Hackett (1985), Lent & Hackett (1987)

Mathematical Anxiety occurs when maths “is performed

under timed, high-stakes conditions”, Ashcraft & Moore (2009)

Hoffman (2010), Aiken (1970), Ashcraft (2002, 2005)

What did we do?

Introduced mathematics software

Understanding Mathematics

Visual Tutorials & Cumulative Assessments

Algebra

Fractions

Powers

2-hour weekly supervised computer sessions

20% of assessment mark

Diagnostic Test 1 & Survey 1

Inform students of their initial competency

Surveyed them on their response (40 responses)

About half were “surprised” with their result

About ¼ expected to do BETTER

About ¼ expected to do WORSE

Students did not have an accurate perception of their own self-efficacy

62.5% result acted “as an incentive” to engage with initiative

0% were not incentivised by their result

Test 1 – Sample Questions

Supervised Sessions

Wednesday 3pm-5pm

Initially two computer labs (about 40 PCs)

Introduce students to software

Students complete tutorials & assessments

Formal assessments:

Students indicate they want to take assessment

Supervised exam setting

Marks are recorded by supervisor

The Software

Evaluation: Diagnostic Tests

Diagnostic Test 1: before initiative

Diagnostic Test 2: after initiative

Both tests were similar:

36 Questions

Paper based

Topics covered by software

No attempt mark

48 students completed both Tests

For 48 students who sat both tests

Average mark changed from 20.1 to 24.52 marks

12% increase

Evaluation: TestsGroup Test 1 Test 2 Improvem

A – 22 students

20+ 20+ Small

B – 16 students

<=20 20+ Big

C – 6 students

Less than 20

D – 4 students

Less than 20

Evaluation: Survey 2

Last 3 weeks of initiative

Gauge perceived changes in

Mathematical Self-Efficacy

Mathematical Anxiety

Mathematical Competency

Get students’ response to software

Evaluation: Survey 2

Are you less fearful of maths?

63% Yes

Has your confidence

in doing maths improved?

70% Yes

Survey 2: Comments

Helping build confidence:

“I as a mature student who had been out of school over 25 years found it very good.It allowed me to practice and gain in confidence.”

“i would advice people to use as it gives you a confidence boost and reminds you of the maths you may have forgotten from school.”

“…good for reminding old stuff from the school”

“i thought it was very useful because i hadn't done maths in appox 8 years…”

Survey 2: Comments

Mixed comments for “weak” students:

“its a good system to cherry pick the parts of each subject you are weak on and brush up on them.”

“it should not be relied upon to teach students who are already weak at maths”

“…favors those already good with maths as they fly through it and takes up a good lot of free time for others not so good.”

Survey 2: Comments

On setting 20% of module’s assessment mark for initiative:

“Don't force students to sit this subject by marking them on it. It is unfair if they have no choice but to sit the classes. They are extra classes meant to help those who don't know how or want to get better at maths. Forcing those who are already competent enough makes things [annoying].”

“i dont like those classes doin them jst because of 20% [otherwise] wouldn't be there”

Reflections & Findings

Decoupling of fundamentals from module content

Positive effect on programme in general

Particularly strong effect on mature students

Time consuming for supervisors

Recording of assessments

Providing guidance in using software

Reflections & Findings

Poor attendance

Delay in installation

Timetabling issues

Supervised session not on timetable

Competing with clubs & societies

Long gaps in timetable

Split of group into two 1-hour slots

Only 40% of students had undertaken any assessments by week 9 (of 12)

Some did all 3 assessments in one session

Issues & Recommendations

Compatibility of software

Issue with IE6

Use of Virtual Machine

Early Installation

Prepare introductory material

Build confidence from start

Spend more time profiling students

Accessibility of Software

Limited access to the labs

No access at home

Must be considered!

Issues & Recommendations

Consider time allocation for supervisor

Video tutorials for introduction to software

Automating capture of results

Identify students who’ll benefit

Is the initiative worth running for all students?

Can you quickly assess students already competent?

Other benefits, e.g. independent learning

Future Considerations

Use of IT Learning Centre ONLY for the delivery of the software

Changing class contact hours for module to include practical lab classes

Other degree programs, e.g. engineering

Access to 3rd level courses

Life-long learning & Schools

Institute-wide induction programmes

Pre-entry skills tests (literacy & numeracy)

Questions

12% increase for group as a whole

38.5% to 66.5% - Group B’s improvement

Mature students gained in confidence

Improvements in mathematical self-efficacy & anxiety

Thank you for listening!

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Test 1

ScatterPlot: test 2 vs. test 1

4 no improvement and not proficient (Group D)

Over 61.5% of those who initially <=20

6 improved but still not proficient (Group C)

16 proficient (Group B)

22 proficient (Group A)

Peter Morris & Shane Dowdall Dept. Computing & Mathematics, Dundalk Institute of Technology

Documents