| 1. |
- Balan, Andreia, et al.
(author)
-
Effekten av fysisk aktivitet i matematikundervisningen
- 2019
-
In: Forskning om undervisning och lärande. - 2000-9674 .- 2001-6131. ; 7:3, s. 6-27
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Syftet med denna studie är att få en bättre förståelse för hur fysisk aktivitet kan användas i skolan för att skapa mer gynnsamma förutsättningar för elevernas lärande i matematik. I studien har det undersökts om det finns en effekt av fysisk aktivitet på lång sikt på elevernas koncentration, arbetsminne och kunskaper i matematik av ett återkommande kort pass med fysisk aktivitet. Studien genomfördes med 175 elever i årskurs 7 på fyra olika skolor. Ett inledande pass på sju minuter med pulshöjande övningar introducerades i fem av tio grupper i början på matematiklektionen. Resultaten visar en förbättring av elevernas koncentration och arbetsminne i interventionsgruppen i förhållande till kontrollgruppen. Elever med olika kön och prestationsnivå påverkas på samma sätt av den fysiska aktiviteten. Det finns inte heller någon skillnad i hur elever som kommer från olika skolkontext påverkas av den fysiska aktiviteten.
|
|
| 2. |
- Balan, Andreia, et al.
(author)
-
Effekten av fysisk aktivitet i matematikundervisningen
- 2019
-
In: Forskning om undervisning och lärande. - 2000-9674. ; 7:3, s. 6-27
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Syftet med denna studie är att få en bättre förståelse för hur fysisk aktivitet kan användas i skolan för att skapa mer gynnsamma förutsättningar för elevernas lärande i matematik. I studien har det undersökts om det finns en effekt av fysisk aktivitet på lång sikt på elevernas koncentration, arbetsminne och kunskaper i matematik av ett återkommande kort pass med fysisk aktivitet. Studien genomfördes med 175 elever i årskurs 7 på fyra olika skolor. Ett inledande pass på sju minuter med pulshöjande övningar introducerades i fem av tio grupper i början på matematiklektionen. Resultaten visar en förbättring av elevernas koncentration och arbetsminne i interventionsgruppen i förhållande till kontrollgruppen. Elever med olika kön och prestationsnivå påverkas på samma sätt av den fysiska aktiviteten. Det finns inte heller någon skillnad i hur elever som kommer från olika skolkontext påverkas av den fysiska aktiviteten.
|
|
| 3. |
- Jönsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Analytic or holistic : a study of agreement between different grading models
- 2018
-
In: Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. - 1531-7714 .- 1531-7714. ; 23:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research on teachers’ grading has shown that there is great variability among teachers regarding both the process and product of grading, resulting in low comparability and issues of inequality when using grades for selection purposes. Despite this situation, not much is known about the merits or disadvantages of different models for grading. In this study, a methodology for comparing two models of grading in terms of (a) agreement between assessors (reliability) and (b) justifications for the grades assigned (validity) was used with a small sample of teachers (n = 24). The design is experimental, with teachers being randomly assigned to two conditions, where they graded the same student performance using either an analytic or a holistic approach. Grades have been compared in terms of agreement and rank correlation, and justifications have been analyzed with content analysis. Findings suggest that the analytic condition yields substantively higher agreement among assessors as compared to the holistic condition (66 versus 46 percent agreement; Cohen's kappa .60 versus .41), as well as higher rank correlation (Spearman's rho .97 versus .94), without any major differences in how the grades were justified. On the contrary, there was a relatively strong consensus among most raters in the sample.
|
|
| 4. |
- Jönsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Analytic or holistic : a study of agreement between different grading models
- 2018
-
In: Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. - 1531-7714. ; 23:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research on teachers’ grading has shown that there is great variability among teachers regarding both the process and product of grading, resulting in low comparability and issues of inequality when using grades for selection purposes. Despite this situation, not much is known about the merits or disadvantages of different models for grading. In this study, a methodology for comparing two models of grading in terms of (a) agreement between assessors (reliability) and (b) justifications for the grades assigned (validity) was used with a small sample of teachers (n = 24). The design is experimental, with teachers being randomly assigned to two conditions, where they graded the same student performance using either an analytic or a holistic approach. Grades have been compared in terms of agreement and rank correlation, and justifications have been analyzed with content analysis. Findings suggest that the analytic condition yields substantively higher agreement among assessors as compared to the holistic condition (66 versus 46 percent agreement; Cohen's kappa .60 versus .41), as well as higher rank correlation (Spearman's rho .97 versus .94), without any major differences in how the grades were justified. On the contrary, there was a relatively strong consensus among most raters in the sample.
|
|
| 5. |
- Jönsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Effects on student motivation and performance by increased transparency in assessment : EARLI-konferensen
- 2017
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Research has shown that sharing explicit assessment criteria with student may positively affect student performance, reduce anxiety, as well as support students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013). Furthermore, it is suggested that students’ motivation for learning is positively affected by their understanding of learning goals and performance criteria (Ellis & Tod, 2015). But there are also indications of students becoming more performance oriented, as opposed to learning oriented, when being provided with explicit assessment criteria. Other fears voiced against the practice of sharing criteria with students is that students may not understand the criteria or that the use of criteria may turn students’ attention away from productive learning towards surface strategies and “criteria compliance” (e.g. Sadler, 2009; Torrance, 2007). Since there is a lack of studies systematically investigating how students are influenced by the use of explicit criteria, it is currently not fully understood under which circumstances it is productive for student learning and motivation to share explicit assessment criteria. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies making a distinction between how students with different goal orientations are affected by the use of explicit criteria. The aim of this study is therefore to investigate the influence of increased transparency in assessment on student motivation and performance, with a specific focus on students’ goal orientations.The overall design of this study is an intervention study, where the use of transparency in assessment is increased successively over four teaching sequences. During the first sequence, students are provided with feedback based on criteria, but the criteria are not shared with the students. During the second sequence, students are provided with exemplars, which are chosen to exemplify the criteria. But again, the criteria are not shared with the students. During the third sequence, students are provided with rubrics, which include explicit criteria. Finally, during the fourth sequence, students are provided with both rubrics and exemplars.The study uses a complex design, with a total of eight groups of students from four different primary schools (students 12-13 years old; n = 145). On each school, the same teacher teaches two classes of students. During the first sequence, all students are taught the same (science) content and experience the same level of transparency. During the second sequence, all students are also taught the same content, but while the level of transparency is increased for six of the groups, two groups remain on the first level. Similarly, during the third sequence, all students are taught the same content, but the level of transparency is increased for four of the groups, while two remain on the second level and two on the first. Finally, during the fourth sequence, all students are taught the same content, but the level of transparency is increased for two of the groups, while two remain on the third level, two on the second level and two on the first.Data collection will be carried out in relation to the four teaching sequences, which are spread over the academic year of 2016-17. For all of the groups, performance tests and motivation questionnaires are distributed before the intervention and after each sequence. The performance tests are composed of items from previous national tests in science, addressing a content similar (but not identical) to the sequence taught. The motivation questionnaire is composed of scales for self-efficacy, performance orientation, and self-regulation (except for one of the self-regulation scales, which has a low alpha value, internal consistency is acceptable for all scales used). There are also shorter questionnaires, with only six items, distributed during each teaching sequence, which target students’ perceptions of transparency.Data from performance tests and motivation questionnaires is analyzed with descriptive statistics, as well as with ANOVA based models, in order to track changes within each group, but also to compare between the groups. Analyses will be made with students’ goal orientations both as a dependent variable and as a moderating variable.Initial analyses show that:The correlations between students’ perceptions of transparency and self-efficacy/self-regulation are moderate to strong.One of the schools in the sample differs significantly from the others with respect to self-efficacy, self-regulation och achievement goals (i.e. means are lower on these scales). Since this is the school that will hold a constant (low) level of transparency during the study, it can be assumed that this observed difference will increase.Students generally rate their self-efficacy and perception of self-regulation strategies as relatively high (4.72 and 4.53 respectively, on a 6 point scale). Furthermore, according to the pre-test questionnaire students’ ratings on the achievement goals scale is substantially higher (5.38) as compared to the performance goals scale (3.14). If the use of explicit criteria makes students more performance oriented, this relationship is expected to change. According to previous research, ratings on the self-efficacy and self-regulation scales should also be expected to increase.Despite the widely spread practice of sharing explicit criteria with students, for instance in the shape of scoring rubrics, few studies have systematically addressed the question of how students are influenced by transparency in assessment. This study therefore have great significance for both future research and educational practice.
|
|
| 6. |
- Jönsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Effects on student motivation and performance by increased transparency in assessment : EARLI-konferensen
- 2017
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Research has shown that sharing explicit assessment criteria with student may positively affect student performance, reduce anxiety, as well as support students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013). Furthermore, it is suggested that students’ motivation for learning is positively affected by their understanding of learning goals and performance criteria (Ellis & Tod, 2015). But there are also indications of students becoming more performance oriented, as opposed to learning oriented, when being provided with explicit assessment criteria. Other fears voiced against the practice of sharing criteria with students is that students may not understand the criteria or that the use of criteria may turn students’ attention away from productive learning towards surface strategies and “criteria compliance” (e.g. Sadler, 2009; Torrance, 2007). Since there is a lack of studies systematically investigating how students are influenced by the use of explicit criteria, it is currently notfully understood under which circumstances it is productive for student learning and motivation to share explicit assessment criteria. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies making a distinction between how students with different goal orientations are affected by the use of explicit criteria. The aim of this study is therefore to investigate the influence of increased transparency in assessment on student motivation and performance, with a specific focus on students’ goal orientations. The overall design of this study is an intervention study, where the use of transparency in assessment is increased successively over four teaching sequences. During the first sequence, students are provided with feedback based on criteria, but the criteria are not shared with the students. During the second sequence, students are provided with exemplars, which are chosen to exemplify the criteria. But again, the criteria are not shared with the students. During the third sequence, students are provided with rubrics, which include explicit criteria. Finally, during the fourth sequence, students are provided with both rubrics and exemplars. The study uses a complex design, with a total of eight groups of students from four different primary schools (students 12-13 years old; n = 145). On each school, the same teacher teaches two classes of students. During the first sequence, all students are taught the same (science) content and experience the same level of transparency. During the second sequence, all students are also taught the same content, but while the level of transparency is increased for six of the groups, two groups remain on the first level. Similarly, during the third sequence, all students are taught the same content, but the level of transparency is increased for four of the groups, while two remain on the second level and two on the first. Finally, during the fourth sequence, all students are taught the same content, but the level of transparency is increased for two of the groups, while two remain on the third level, two on the second level and two on the first. Data collection will be carried out in relation to the four teaching sequences, which are spread over the academic year of 2016-17. For all of the groups, performance tests and motivation questionnaires are distributed before the intervention and after each sequence. The performance tests are composed of items from previous national tests in science, addressing a content similar (but not identical) to the sequence taught. The motivation questionnaire is composed of scales for self-efficacy, performance orientation, and self-regulation (except for one of the self-regulation scales, which has a low alpha value, internal consistency is acceptable for all scales used). There are also shorter questionnaires, with only six items, distributed during each teaching sequence, which target students’ perceptions of transparency. Data from performance tests and motivation questionnaires is analyzed with descriptive statistics, as well as with ANOVA based models, in order to track changes within each group, but also to compare between the groups. Analyses will be made with students’ goal orientations both as a dependent variable and as a moderating variable. Initial analyses show that: The correlations between students’ perceptions of transparency and self-efficacy/self-regulation are moderate to strong. One of the schools in the sample differs significantly from the others with respect to self-efficacy, self-regulation och achievement goals (i.e. means are lower on these scales). Since this is the school that will hold a constant (low) level of transparency during the study, it can be assumed that this observed difference will increase. Students generally rate their self-efficacy and perception of self-regulation strategies as relatively high (4.72 and 4.53 respectively, on a 6 point scale). Furthermore, according to the pre-test questionnaire students’ ratings on the achievement goals scale is substantially higher (5.38) as compared to the performance goals scale (3.14). If the use of explicit criteria makes students more performance oriented, this relationship is expected to change. According to previous research, ratings on the self-efficacy and self-regulation scales should also be expected to increase. Despite the widely spread practice of sharing explicit criteria with students, for instance in the shape of scoring rubrics, few studies have systematically addressed the question of how students are influenced by transparency in assessment. This study therefore have great significance for both future research and educational practice.
|
|
| 7. |
- Jönsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Formative feedback on primary students’ mathematical reasoning
- 2019
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study aimed to investigate the use of an approach, where heuristics for mathematical problem solving is taught by the use of process level formative feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). This means that (detailed, domain-specific, and situation-specific) feedback is provided on students’ attempts to solve mathematical problems, so that heuristics are taught not as general rules or in the abstract, and that the feedback only addresses those shortcomings that are identified in the specific situation, to avoid excessive and/or overwhelming information. Such an approach requires, however, that teachers are able to accurately assess students’ solutions, as well as their reasoning, and provide feedback that may aid the students in developing their problem-solving skills. In order to support the teachers, they were provided with a scoring rubric for mathematical reasoning, which could help them in assessing student performance, as well as supporting them in providing future-directed feedback (or “feedforward”) (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013; Smit & Birri, 2017). Specifically, this study investigated: (a) how the teachers provided feedback to the students with the support of a rubric, and (b) how students’ reasoning was affected by this feedback.
|
|
| 8. |
- Jönsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Formative feedback on primary students’ mathematical reasoning
- 2019
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This study aimed to investigate the use of an approach, where heuristics for mathematical problem solving is taught by the use of process level formative feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). This means that (detailed, domain-specific, and situation-specific) feedback is provided on students’ attempts to solve mathematical problems, so that heuristics are taught not as general rules or in the abstract, and that the feedback only addresses those shortcomings that are identified in the specific situation, to avoid excessive and/or overwhelming information. Such an approach requires, however, that teachers are able to accurately assess students’ solutions, as well as their reasoning, and provide feedback that may aid the students in developing their problem-solving skills. In order to support the teachers, they were provided with a scoring rubric for mathematical reasoning, which could help them in assessing student performance, as well as supporting them in providing future-directed feedback (or “feedforward”) (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013; Smit & Birri, 2017). Specifically, this study investigated: (a) how the teachers provided feedback to the students with the support of a rubric, and (b) how students’ reasoning was affected by this feedback.
|
|
| 9. |
- Jönsson, Anders, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
Increased explicitness of assessment criteria : effects on student motivation and performance
- 2018
-
In: Frontiers in Education. ; 3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of increased explicitness ofassessment criteria on students’ performance and motivation. Successive levels ofexplicitness, from feedback based on (implicit) criteria to a combination of exemplarsand explicit criteria, were implemented in eight classes at four schools (n = 153 students,12–13 years old) during four teaching sequences in science. Data was collected on: (a)student performance through knowledge tests, (b) student motivation (self-efficacy, goalorientations, and self-regulation) through questionnaires, and (c) perceived clarity of goalsand criteria through “exit tickets.” Findings show that student performance improvedfrom pre-, to post-tests at all schools (effect sizes from 0.82 to 1.38), but not in relationto the level of explicitness. There was also an increase in self-efficacy for low-performingstudents, but, again, not in relation to explicitness. These changes are instead assumedto be an effect of the formative feedback provided as part of the intervention. The onlychange related to the level of explicitness, was an increase in self-regulation scores byhigh-performing students when having access to both exemplars and explicit criteria.Findings therefore suggest that low to medium levels of explicitness in assessment haveno discernable effects on students’ performance or motivation.
|
|
| 10. |
- Jönsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Increased explicitness of assessment criteria : effects on student motivation and performance
- 2018
-
In: Frontiers in Education. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2504-284X. ; 3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of increased explicitness ofassessment criteria on students’ performance and motivation. Successive levels ofexplicitness, from feedback based on (implicit) criteria to a combination of exemplarsand explicit criteria, were implemented in eight classes at four schools (n = 153 students,12–13 years old) during four teaching sequences in science. Data was collected on: (a)student performance through knowledge tests, (b) student motivation (self-efficacy, goalorientations, and self-regulation) through questionnaires, and (c) perceived clarity of goalsand criteria through “exit tickets.” Findings show that student performance improvedfrom pre-, to post-tests at all schools (effect sizes from 0.82 to 1.38), but not in relationto the level of explicitness. There was also an increase in self-efficacy for low-performingstudents, but, again, not in relation to explicitness. These changes are instead assumedto be an effect of the formative feedback provided as part of the intervention. The onlychange related to the level of explicitness, was an increase in self-regulation scores byhigh-performing students when having access to both exemplars and explicit criteria.Findings therefore suggest that low to medium levels of explicitness in assessment haveno discernable effects on students’ performance or motivation.
|
|
