Are Classical Assessments Offering Adequate Insight into Post-Pandemic Teaching Methods?

Kyle McLean
{"title":"Are Classical Assessments Offering Adequate Insight into Post-Pandemic Teaching Methods?","authors":"Kyle McLean","doi":"10.56103/nactaj.v67i1.111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Educators must continuously assess and adjust to maximize the amount of information students retain. One way to evaluate teaching effectiveness is thru pre- and post-semester assessments. Factors such as individual willingness to participate can affect the validity of these assessments. Our hypothesis was that students will more actively participate in a group activity compared with written pre- and post-semester assessments. In this study, we evaluated 3 different types of pre- and post-assessments to assess knowledge retention and participation. Participation decreased as the semester progressed resulting in only 31 of 57 students who completed all 6 of the assessments. There was an interaction (P < 0.001) between the type (individual, team, or activity) and time of assessment.  The percentage of correct answers increased (P < 0.001) between pre-semester (average 32.92 ± 1.58) and post-semester assessments (average 47.54 ± 1.58). There was a correlation (P = 0.04) between the final course grade and the post-semester individual written assessment. In conclusion, participation throughout the semester is a major issue in assessing teaching quality and knowledge retention and the utilization of group activities does not appear to impact that participation. However, the best assessment for knowledge learned remains the classical written individual assessment.","PeriodicalId":421640,"journal":{"name":"NACTA Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NACTA Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v67i1.111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Educators must continuously assess and adjust to maximize the amount of information students retain. One way to evaluate teaching effectiveness is thru pre- and post-semester assessments. Factors such as individual willingness to participate can affect the validity of these assessments. Our hypothesis was that students will more actively participate in a group activity compared with written pre- and post-semester assessments. In this study, we evaluated 3 different types of pre- and post-assessments to assess knowledge retention and participation. Participation decreased as the semester progressed resulting in only 31 of 57 students who completed all 6 of the assessments. There was an interaction (P < 0.001) between the type (individual, team, or activity) and time of assessment.  The percentage of correct answers increased (P < 0.001) between pre-semester (average 32.92 ± 1.58) and post-semester assessments (average 47.54 ± 1.58). There was a correlation (P = 0.04) between the final course grade and the post-semester individual written assessment. In conclusion, participation throughout the semester is a major issue in assessing teaching quality and knowledge retention and the utilization of group activities does not appear to impact that participation. However, the best assessment for knowledge learned remains the classical written individual assessment.
经典评估是否为大流行后的教学方法提供了充分的洞见?
教育工作者必须不断地评估和调整,以最大限度地提高学生保留的信息量。评估教学效果的一种方法是通过学期前和学期后的评估。个人参与意愿等因素会影响这些评估的有效性。我们的假设是,与学期前和学期后的书面评估相比,学生会更积极地参与小组活动。在本研究中,我们评估了三种不同类型的前评估和后评估,以评估知识保留和参与。随着学期的进展,参与的人数减少,导致57名学生中只有31人完成了所有6项评估。评估类型(个人、团队或活动)和评估时间之间存在交互作用(P < 0.001)。正确率在学期前(平均32.92±1.58)和学期后(平均47.54±1.58)之间增加(P < 0.001)。期末成绩与学期后个人书面评估之间存在相关性(P = 0.04)。总之,整个学期的参与度是评估教学质量和知识保留的一个主要问题,而小组活动的利用似乎并不影响参与度。然而,对所学知识的最佳评估仍然是经典的书面个人评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信