Formative Assessment Strategies by Monitoring Science Students’ Problem-Solving Skill Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To be able to support students’ competence development in solving physics problems over the course of a lesson series effectively, teachers need a proper appreciation of students’ deficiencies. As teachers commonly assess students’ competence by means of written tests, teachers are challenged to interpret students’ work on these tests and to intervene when some students fail to understand the proper application of solution methods in different contexts. This paper evaluates a formative assessment practice where teachers have been instructed to pinpoint students’ level of understanding of kinematics problems by means of a cognitive diagnostic instrument and to provide personalized hints that match students’ current level of understanding. The study is novel in this sense that the assessment of written tests results of students’ problem solving is not expressed in grades and pass rates, but in terms of cognitive level of understanding. The results show that teachers can determine and monitor shifts of performance of students’ cognitive level of understanding by using this instrument. Second, the results indicate that among students with low initial results, the group that received sufficient feedback via sticky notes made significantly more progress in solving problems than the group that did not receive feed forward on sticky notes. Third, the timing of feedback in the form of sticky notes did not affect on students’ progress in achieving mastery at the end of the instruction period. Our conclusion of this study is: Cognition develops through levels and tiers and support is essential to move to the Zone of Proximal Development. Subsequently, we evaluate group and subgroup implications for didactic interventions and propose suggestions for further investigations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".