Engaging the control-value theory: a new era of student response systems and formative assessment to improve student achievement
Keywords:
educational technology, student response systems, formative assessment, student achievement, mobile technology
Abstract
The use of student response systems (SRS) in the form of polling and quizzing via multiple choice questions has been well documented in the literature (Caldwell 2007). This study addressed the gap in the literature and considered content-generating SRS, such as Socrative and Google Slides, during formative assessment activities in college composition courses. Content-generating SRS display student responses to formative assessment questions, and instructors are able to evaluate and adjust course material and feedback in real-time. Quantitative data measuring student perception using Likert-scale surveys and student achievement using essay scores were collected. The statistically significant results between the treatment and control groups for essay scores are objective measurements of student achievement and have implications for how to support both students and faculty in innovative curriculum design. Content-generating SRS allow for a more robust illustration of student understanding and can be adopted for larger lecture classes.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change’, Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
Boyle, J. T. & Nicol, D. J. (2003) ‘Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings’, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 43–57. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v11i3.11284
Buil, I., Catalan, S. & Martínez, E. (2016) ‘Do clickers enhance learning? A control-value theory approach’, Computers & Education, vol. 103, pp. 170–182. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.009
Caldwell, J. E. (2007) ‘Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips’, CBE-Life Sciences Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
Carmines, E. & Zeller, R. (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment (Quantitative applications in the social sciences; no. 07-017), Newbury Park, CA. doi: 10.4135/9781412985642
Chua, Z. & Jiang, Z. (2006) ‘Effects of anonymity, media richness, and chat-room activeness on online chatting’, Proceedings of 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Sweden, vol. 153, pp. 2336–2348, [online] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5524/b4e0ba77491091af62fd8c47900bafb6402a.pdf
Conley, D. T. & French, E. M. (2014) ‘Student ownership of learning as a key component of college readiness’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 1018–1034. doi: 10.1177/0002764213515232
Davis, S. (2003) ‘Observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 298–307. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00031.x
Fies, C. & Marshall, J. (2006) ‘Classroom response systems: a review of the literature’, Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 101–109. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J. & Blanchard, C. (2000) ‘On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS)’, Motivation and Emotion, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 175–213. doi: 10.1023/a:1005614228250
Hamari, J., et al., (2016) ‘Challenging games help students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 170–179. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
Hoekstra, A. (2008) ‘Vibrant student voices: exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses’, Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 329–341. doi: 10.1080/17439880802497081
Jackson, S. A. & Marsh, H. W. (1996) ‘Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: the flow state scale’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 17–35. doi: 10.1123/jsep.18.1.17
Kaleta, R. & Joosten, T. (2007) ‘Student response systems’, Research Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.4135/9781483346397.n281
Kettanurak, V. N., Ramamurthy, K. & Haseman, W. D. (2001) ‘User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 541–583. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457
Kulasegaram, K. & Rangachari, P. K. (2018) ‘Beyond “formative”: assessments to enrich student learning’, Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 5–14. doi: 10.1152/advan.00122.2017
Laxman, K. (2011) ‘A study on the adoption of clickers in higher education’, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1291–1303. doi: 10.14742/ajet.894
Myers, C. B., et al., (2004) ‘Emerging online learning environments and student learning: an analysis of faculty perceptions’, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 78–81, [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.7.1.78.pdf?casa_token=Bk1fzvlHmrgAAAAA:7sq6ovuEaXKUHhOPgwXCvlGXsgzlUuwm6zbTpYEzfJKU96Ly7zY4vXLVV6mR9Dr7Fr9BPuIR_x1KprYKvGAWMYtLIjrenx0bDVWZ0KgzWxoqiL5PGw
National Research Council. (2000) ‘Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning’, National Academies Press Washington, DC.
Ndoye, A. (2017) ‘Peer/self-assessment and student learning’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 255–269, [online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1146193.pdf
Noel, D., Stover, S. & McNutt, M. (2015) ‘Student perceptions of engagement using mobile-based polling as an audience response system: implications for leadership studies’, Journal of Leadership Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 53–70. doi: 10.12806/v14/i3/r4
Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994) Psychometric Theory. Series in Psychology, vol. 3, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pekrun, R. (2000) ‘Motivational Psychology of Human Development’, Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Pekrun, R. (2006) ‘The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 315–341. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J. & Maier, M. A. (2006) ‘Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: a theoretical model and prospective test’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 98, no. 3, p. 583. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583
Pekrun, R., et al., (2007) ‘The control-value theory of achievement emotions: an integrative approach to emotions in education’, in Emotion in Education, Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 13–36. doi: 10.1016/b978-012372545-5/50003-4
Pekrun, R., et al., (2011) ‘Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ)’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 36–48. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
Pekrun, R., Götz, T. & Perry, R. P. (2005) Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ), User’s manual, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Munich, Munich. doi: 10.1037/t21196-000
Perry, R., et al., (2001) ‘Academic control and action control in college students: a longitudinal study of self-regulation’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 93, pp. 776–789. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.776
Pintrich, P., et al., (1991) A Manual for the Use of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, [online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338122.pdf
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000) ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Spotts, T. H. (1999) ‘Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education’, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 92–99, [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.2.4.92.pdf?casa_token=KiQWblZnwv4AAAAA:gGiXxOe25zkKk9QSJyj_b1ftzmXhP2fwmd4UvOlSP-mlnW6OsZkSuAWp9Gc63-uZE1ZvtlMGTeCQQP4nE676ihIa58QrTohXgkr6v4qIY7cDo-y9pg
Weimer, M. (2013) Defining Teaching Effectiveness, [online] Available at: https://www.teachingprofessor.com/topics/for-those-who-teach/defining-teaching-effectiveness/
Wiggins, G. P. (1993) Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Yoon, C. & Rolland, E. (2012) ‘Knowledge-sharing in virtual communities: familiarity, anonymity and self-determination theory’, Behavior & Information Technology, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1133–1143. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2012.702355
Published
2020-12-10
How to Cite
Paul M. W., Torgerson C., Tracz S., Coy K., & Wahleithner J. (2020). Engaging the control-value theory: a new era of student response systems and formative assessment to improve student achievement. Research in Learning Technology, 28. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2454
Issue
Section
Original Research Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Research in Learning Technology retain the copyright of their article and at the same time agree to publish their articles under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that appropriate credit is given, that a link to the license is provided, and that you indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
.png){kind=spacer}
