1. Improving Course Completion and Success Rates Easily: Leverage Summative Assessment for Formative Purposes Robert E. Vaden-Goad, PhD Southern Connecticut State University Student Motivation Effectance motivation – a belief that the goal is achievable Valuation – a belief that the goal is worth achieving Affective Factors – enjoyment of the task itself Source: Pintrich, Paul R., and Elisabeth V. de Groot. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, (1) (03): 33-40. Results Over 1000 mathematics students were involved in a study in which two degrees of retesting (quiz/test/exam vs. test/exam) were used with vs. without the replacement method. Degrees of retesting made no real difference but the replacement method raised course averages by ten percentage points. Only 3.7 of these percentage points can be attributed to the curving effect of the method. Course completion rates went from 69% to 92% with the replacement method. A 2 x 2 analysis of variance design (Averaging Method X Testing Frequency) is utilized to explore the effects of the two independent variables on student achievement. To explore group differences in frequency with regard to student retention, Chi-Square analyses are used. ANOVA results for the overall model clearly support the contention that, together, testing replacement schemes and testing frequency are related to student achievement (F (3, 1107) = 64.30, p<.001). Looking more closely, there is a main effect for averaging methods (F (1, 1107) = 74.96, p<.001) but no real effect for testing frequency (F (1, 1107) = 3.36, ns). Students’ average scores in replacement sections were 78.73 (SD = 12.39), whereas their average scores in non- replacement sections were 68.60 (SD = 12.02), an effect size of 10.05. The effects of replacement schemes also were significant with regard to student retention (χ2 1 = 103.41, p<.001). Two Examples A. Three units tests and a comprehensive final exam: The final exam provides three scores corresponding to the three units. If the score from the exam is higher than the score from the test, the exam score replaces the test score and the result is used in computing course average. B. Five quizzes, two tests and a final exam As above, portions of the final exam replace the unit tests if higher. In addition, unit tests (or the result of replacing tests with the exam) replace quizzes if higher. Course average is computed using the replaced scores. Suggestions to Enhance the Effect To keep abler but cynical students on board, the method could be modified to, for instance, a 70% replacement. The explanation might be that the quiz would still count like a homework assignment or the test would count like a quiz. Students must be reminded of the replacement practice, for instance, when tests are returned or whenever they are reminded of their course standing. Colleagues and administrators must be reminded that the replacement method is not a curve. Instead, it is a more accurate assessment of student learning for the course since it is based at the time when grades are submitted. Critics should compare it to an ordinary curve, the use of “filler” items on tests, credit for attendance, credit for effort, etc. Administrators should be prepared to deal with students who feel cheated by having stayed in the course, ultimately to fail. Spreadsheets are easily programmed (“=max(T,F)” in Excel) Why it works Of the three factors in student motivation, valuation and affective factors receive a great deal of attention from publishers and professors. However, students know that their potential grade is reduced with each point missed. Further, it is considered good practice to keep students informed of their standing. The unintended consequence is that students gradually lose whatever belief they may have had in their potential for success. The method presented here interferes with that process. How it works The method requires that material be tested more than once. The method itself simply compares scores on comparable material and, provided it is higher, uses the later score in place of the earlier one. In order to encourage long-term learning that will serve the student in future courses, early scores do not replace later scores For example, with three unit tests and a comprehensive final exam, each unit test is compared with the corresponding part of the exam. Each student walks into the final with a potential “A” for the course. Caveats Some abler students may see this as an opportunity to reduce effort on early tests, setting themselves up for failure and the professor for criticism. Students must eventually demonstrate course competency. Without reminders, the pattern of grades rather than the potential grade may be the biggest factor in effectance motivation. Students who persist, but ultimately fail will have invested additional effort for (in their opinion) no reward. Faculty colleagues may interpret the method as lowered standards. At-risk students will still be in class for course evaluation. Their disproportionate tendency toward externalizing may adversely affect the evaluation. Contact Robert E. Vaden-Goad Department of Mathematics Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 203-392-5578 VADENGOADR1@SOUTHERNCT.EDU