Efact: Formative Assessment Of Classroom Teaching For Online Classes

Year 2012, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 68 - 78, 01.03.2012

Gina G. Berrıdge Samantha Penney Judith A. Wells

Abstract

As online degrees and programs increase in number and popularity so does the need for excellence and quality in the programs and courses offered. Becoming more scholarly in online course delivery, especially in the evaluation or assessment of those classes is essential for teaching and learning. This paper explores the pilot of an evaluation of student learning through anonymous feedback at mid-semester in seven online courses. Electronic Formative Assessment of Classroom Teaching (eFACT) is a process of gathering anonymous student feedback through a faculty consultant using e-mail. This process gives the online instructor the opportunity to make changes to the delivery of the course while the class is in session. Instructors felt they gained useful and meaningful information and were able to make changes in their delivery format midway through the semester. Student learning was helped through the use of online features that made the class more social and interactive. Perceived or real communication issues with the instructor and classmates hindered student learning. Although often citing the “nature” of online learning, the social aspect of learning seemed to be missing for many students. Assessments measures like eFACT can elicit detailed perceptions of student learning while the class is in session. It can affect the quality of the delivery method of the course by giving instructors immediate feedback as students reflect on their learning midway through the course.

Keywords

Distance Education, Assessment, Student Evaluations

Assistant professor Gina G. BERRIDGE Teacher Education in the Pott College of Science and Engineering at the University of Southern Indiana in Evansville. Director of Distance Education Samantha PENNEY, Indiana State University in Terre Haute. Department coordinator of instructors

Abstract

References

• Allen I. E. & Seaman, J. (2010, November). Class differences: Online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group: The Sloan Consortium.
• Bangert, A. W. (2006). The development of an instrument for assessing online teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 35(3). 227-224.
• Coffman, S.J. (1998). Small group instructional evaluations across disciplines. College Teaching, 46(3), 106-111.
• Dunn, K. E. & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7), 1-11.
• Frey, B. A., Alman, S.W. , Barron, D. & Steffens, A. (2004). Student satisfaction with the online MLIS program at the University of Pittsburgh. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(2), 82-97.
• Johnson, C. & Brescis, Jr., W. (2006). Connecting, Making Meaning and Learning in the electronic classroom: Reflections on facilitating learning at a distance. Journal of
• Scholarship of Teachingand Learning, 6(1), 56-74. Liu, J. (2005). School climate: Sense of classroom and school communities in online and on-campus education courses. Distance Education, 6(4), 361-374.
• Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage of Learning.
• National Center for Education Statistics (2010) Digest of education statistics. Retrieved
• May 8, 2011 from: http://nes.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_246.
• Nevgi, A., Virtanen, P., Niemi, H. (2006). Supporting students to develop collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 937-947.
• Nicol, D.J. & Macfarlane-Dick. D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
• Park, J-H. & Choi H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.
• Institute for Social Research. (2004). Using assessment to guide instructional planning for distance learners. Ann Arbor, MI: Project IDEAL Support Center.
• Pike, G. R., (2004). The student instructional report for distance education: e-SIR
• II. Assessment Update, 16(4), 11-12. Pribesh, S., Dickinson, G.K., Bucher, T. (2006). A comparison of online and face-to-face cohorts in a school library media specialist graduate program: A preliminary study.
• Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(4), 303-323. Pryor, J. & Crossouard, B. (2008). A socio-cultural theorization of formative assessment.
• Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 1-20. Rohleder, P., Bozalet, V., Carolissen, R., Leibowitz, B., Swartz, L., (2008). Students’ evaluations of the use of e-learning in a collaborative project between two South African universities, High Educ, 56.95-107
• Simonson, M. (2007). Accreditation and quality in distance education. Distance Learning, (3). 88.
• Tucker, S. & Hodge, E. (2004). Quality assurance of distance education: Multiple assessment measures used in a business, career, and technical education department.
• Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(2), 15-21.