東華大學圖書館 |

Formative Assessment in Postsecondary Quantitative Reasoning Courses.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Formative Assessment in Postsecondary Quantitative Reasoning Courses./
Author:	Budhathoki, Deependra.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2022,
Description:	409 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-05, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-05B.
Subject:	Mathematics. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30164314
ISBN:	9798352630532

Formative Assessment in Postsecondary Quantitative Reasoning Courses.
Budhathoki, Deependra.

Formative Assessment in Postsecondary Quantitative Reasoning Courses. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2022 - 409 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-05, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, 2022.

Quantitative reasoning is an individual's ability to understand quantitative information in context, represent and model such information in various forms, solve real-world problems using mathematical and statistical knowledge, and communicate ideas using quantitative arguments. Quantitative Reasoning (QR) courses are increasingly popular as gateway mathematics for students whose majors lie outside science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.Professional organizations and policy documents recommend incorporating innovative assessment approaches in QR courses, including continuous and formative assessment. However, many QR instructors are unsure about what types of assessments to use and how to implement such assessments to evaluate and support student learning. Moreover, previous studies, including my pilot research, have found that many QR instructors use traditional, summative assessments.In this dissertation study, I explored instructors' intentions, behaviors, and reflections on formative assessment, aiming to answer two sets of research questions: (a) What kinds of assessments do QR instructors use? To what extent do the instructors use their assessments as stated in their course syllabus? (b) How do QR instructors implement their assessments to support student learning? In particular, how do instructors implement questioning, feedback, and peer- and self-assessment? What are their related perceptions and experiences?To examine these questions, I employed a collective case study design, recruiting 8 instructors from eight public postsecondary institutions in Ohio that offered Ohio Transfer 36?approved QR courses. The data sources included the instructors' course documents, semi-structured interviews of the instructors, and observations of their teaching. I used six Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) rubrics for the class observations. I conducted individual and cross-case analyses to compare and contrast the instructors' perceptions and practices of formative assessments.The individual case analyses revealed that the QR instructors planned and implemented several categories of assessments with a wide range of frequencies and weights. Also, the instructors generally implemented one or more categories of assessments differently from how they were explained in the course syllabus. The instructors' implemented assessments were often innovative but not always collaborative. Still, there was a strong positive association between their collaborative and innovative assessments.After several failed attempts at discovering a key factor to use as the basis for grouping instructors for cross-case analysis, the post hoc individual case analyses revealed instructional autonomy as the critical variable for QR assessments. By instructional autonomy, I mean that the QR instructor had the freedom to select, develop, and implement assessments as they wished rather than being required to follow institutional or departmental mandates. Based on this variable, I placed each instructor into either the autonomous group or the nonautonomous group. I then conducted a cross-case analysis of the instructors of these two groups, comparing and contrasting their perceptions and practices about using formative assessments, mainly questioning, feedback, and peer- and self-assessment.Via this cross-case analysis, I developed 13 themes. The themes indicated that most instructors had positive experiences using the three formative assessment strategies of (a) questioning, (b) feedback, and (c) peer- and self-assessment in their QR teaching. However, some instructors in both groups were concerned about such assessment strategies' effectiveness in online teaching. In addition, the instructors in the autonomous and nonautonomous groups had substantial differences in their perceptions and practices of these three formative assessment strategies. Their perceptions and practices varied also depending upon whether they used individual or group projects. The autonomous instructors mainly selected and implemented collaborative and innovative assessments, made mid-term adjustments to their planned assessments, used cognitively rich tasks even in traditional assessments, and earned higher scores on the six IQA rubrics than the nonautonomous instructors.Post-hoc cross-case analysis revealed group projects as a critical variable for formative assessments in QR. The instructors using group projects provided open-ended, less-structured cognitively rich tasks, and employed more formative assessment strategies than those using individual projects. In addition, the group projects generally were the instructors? most collaborative and innovative assessments and addressed reasoning-based QR competencies.I confirmed and extended my initial conceptual model based on the findings of individual, cross-case, and post-hoc analyses. In the revised model, I use instructional autonomy and group projects as stimulants for formative assessments in QR teaching. I also refined my initial conceptualization of quantitative reasoning. Now, I perceive the ideal QR course as one that addresses the 4Cs: (a) Quantitative Content and Skills, (b) Critical Thinking, (c) Real-World Contexts, and (d) Collaboration.The key recommendations for future pedagogical practices include providing instructional autonomy to or involving QR instructors in deciding assessment categories for their QR sections and assigning group projects with cognitively rich tasks. The key recommendations for future research include examining the impact of instructional autonomy for other courses and at other instructional levels, examining the associations between collaborative and innovative QR assessments, and replicating this study among instructors with similar instructional settings.

ISBN: 9798352630532Subjects--Topical Terms:

515831
Mathematics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Quantitative reasoning

Formative Assessment in Postsecondary Quantitative Reasoning Courses.
LDR:07101nmm a2200433 4500 001 2400957
005 20241007100316.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2022 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798352630532
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30164314
035 $a (MiAaPQ)OhioLINKohiou165903392100886
035 $a AAI30164314
035 $a 2400957
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Budhathoki, Deependra. $3 3771019
245 1 0 $a Formative Assessment in Postsecondary Quantitative Reasoning Courses.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2022
300 $a 409 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-05, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Foley, Gregory.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, 2022.
520 $a Quantitative reasoning is an individual's ability to understand quantitative information in context, represent and model such information in various forms, solve real-world problems using mathematical and statistical knowledge, and communicate ideas using quantitative arguments. Quantitative Reasoning (QR) courses are increasingly popular as gateway mathematics for students whose majors lie outside science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.Professional organizations and policy documents recommend incorporating innovative assessment approaches in QR courses, including continuous and formative assessment. However, many QR instructors are unsure about what types of assessments to use and how to implement such assessments to evaluate and support student learning. Moreover, previous studies, including my pilot research, have found that many QR instructors use traditional, summative assessments.In this dissertation study, I explored instructors' intentions, behaviors, and reflections on formative assessment, aiming to answer two sets of research questions: (a) What kinds of assessments do QR instructors use? To what extent do the instructors use their assessments as stated in their course syllabus? (b) How do QR instructors implement their assessments to support student learning? In particular, how do instructors implement questioning, feedback, and peer- and self-assessment? What are their related perceptions and experiences?To examine these questions, I employed a collective case study design, recruiting 8 instructors from eight public postsecondary institutions in Ohio that offered Ohio Transfer 36?approved QR courses. The data sources included the instructors' course documents, semi-structured interviews of the instructors, and observations of their teaching. I used six Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) rubrics for the class observations. I conducted individual and cross-case analyses to compare and contrast the instructors' perceptions and practices of formative assessments.The individual case analyses revealed that the QR instructors planned and implemented several categories of assessments with a wide range of frequencies and weights. Also, the instructors generally implemented one or more categories of assessments differently from how they were explained in the course syllabus. The instructors' implemented assessments were often innovative but not always collaborative. Still, there was a strong positive association between their collaborative and innovative assessments.After several failed attempts at discovering a key factor to use as the basis for grouping instructors for cross-case analysis, the post hoc individual case analyses revealed instructional autonomy as the critical variable for QR assessments. By instructional autonomy, I mean that the QR instructor had the freedom to select, develop, and implement assessments as they wished rather than being required to follow institutional or departmental mandates. Based on this variable, I placed each instructor into either the autonomous group or the nonautonomous group. I then conducted a cross-case analysis of the instructors of these two groups, comparing and contrasting their perceptions and practices about using formative assessments, mainly questioning, feedback, and peer- and self-assessment.Via this cross-case analysis, I developed 13 themes. The themes indicated that most instructors had positive experiences using the three formative assessment strategies of (a) questioning, (b) feedback, and (c) peer- and self-assessment in their QR teaching. However, some instructors in both groups were concerned about such assessment strategies' effectiveness in online teaching. In addition, the instructors in the autonomous and nonautonomous groups had substantial differences in their perceptions and practices of these three formative assessment strategies. Their perceptions and practices varied also depending upon whether they used individual or group projects. The autonomous instructors mainly selected and implemented collaborative and innovative assessments, made mid-term adjustments to their planned assessments, used cognitively rich tasks even in traditional assessments, and earned higher scores on the six IQA rubrics than the nonautonomous instructors.Post-hoc cross-case analysis revealed group projects as a critical variable for formative assessments in QR. The instructors using group projects provided open-ended, less-structured cognitively rich tasks, and employed more formative assessment strategies than those using individual projects. In addition, the group projects generally were the instructors? most collaborative and innovative assessments and addressed reasoning-based QR competencies.I confirmed and extended my initial conceptual model based on the findings of individual, cross-case, and post-hoc analyses. In the revised model, I use instructional autonomy and group projects as stimulants for formative assessments in QR teaching. I also refined my initial conceptualization of quantitative reasoning. Now, I perceive the ideal QR course as one that addresses the 4Cs: (a) Quantitative Content and Skills, (b) Critical Thinking, (c) Real-World Contexts, and (d) Collaboration.The key recommendations for future pedagogical practices include providing instructional autonomy to or involving QR instructors in deciding assessment categories for their QR sections and assigning group projects with cognitively rich tasks. The key recommendations for future research include examining the impact of instructional autonomy for other courses and at other instructional levels, examining the associations between collaborative and innovative QR assessments, and replicating this study among instructors with similar instructional settings.
590 $a School code: 0167.
650 4 $a Mathematics. $3 515831
650 4 $a Mathematics education. $3 641129
650 4 $a Reading instruction. $3 2122756
650 4 $a Teacher education. $3 3172312
653 $a Quantitative reasoning
653 $a Rormative assessment
653 $a Postsecondary mathematics
653 $a Multiple case study
653 $a Ohio Transfer Module
653 $a Instructional autonomy
690 $a 0280
690 $a 0405
690 $a 0535
690 $a 0530
710 2 $a Ohio University. $b Curriculum and Instruction Mathematics Education (Education). $3 3342218
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-05B.
790 $a 0167
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2022
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30164314