1. Taking assessment as teaching and learning strategy for improving students’ e-Learning effectiveness Computers & Education, 54 (2010) 1157–1166 Tzu-Hua Wang Reporter : Yu Chih Lin

2. Outline  Introduction  Method  Conclusion  Suggestion

3. Introduction(1/3)  Combine 2 major instructional characteristics dynamic assessment a.Web-based dynamic assessment system (GPAM-WATA) b.Normal web-based test (N-WBT )  Based on assessment as teaching and learning strategy  Adopt the graduated prompt approach (GPA)

4. Introduction(2/3)  Design of GPAM-WATA  Two formats of dynamic assessment a)Sandwich format - Between the pre-test and the post-test b)Cake format - Administered in an individualized way

5. Introduction(3/3)  Argued that the domain-specific prior knowledge a)Impacted learner achievement b)Interacted with different phases of information processing c)Trouble in learning new information  Different designs and strategies to facilitate learning

6. Method(1/10)  3 elementary school teachers and the sixth grade students  Computer course - Nature and Life Technology  Randomly assigned to learn in two groups a)GPAM-WATA group b)N-WBT group

7. Method(2/10) GenderGroup N-WBTGPAM-WATASum Female302959 Male282957 Sum58 116 Participant distribution in the GPAM-WATA group and the N-WBT group

8. Method(3/10)  E-Learning materials are about Plant Photosynthesis A: Learning guide’ section B: Learning contents’ section C: Adobe Flash animation.

9. Method(4/10)  Graduated prompting assessment module system IP Instructional Prompts Item START END Item A B C D F E

10. Method(5/10)

11. Method(6/10)  Data collection a)Pre-test scores of the summative assessment b)Post-test scores of the summative assessment c)Scores of prior knowledge assessment

12. Method(7/10)  According to the scores of prior knowledge assessment a)Low-level prior knowledge groups b)Middle-level prior knowledge groups c)High-level prior knowledge groups

13. Method(8/10) SourceSSdfMSFvaluePostHoc^a Pre-test scores of the summative assessment 4131.8141 38.347** Different types of Web-based assessment (A) 25425.8031 235.974** GPAM-WATA > N-WBT** Different levels of prior knowledge (B) 1728.2842864.1428.020**Middle-level prior knowledge > low-level prior knowledge ** High-level prior knowledge > low-level prior knowledge ** AXB901.7792450.8904.185* Error11744.576109107.748 Corrected total50306.364115  Two-way ANCOVA

14. Method(9/10)  Different levels of prior knowledge GroupVariableLevelMean^a (std.error)F valuePostHoc^b GPAM-WATA (n = 58) Pre-test scores of the summative assessment 4.863* Different levels of prior knowledge Low-level prior Knowledge Middle-level prior Knowledge High-level prior knowledge 75.644(2.636) 81.032 (1.947) 83.359 (2.285) 2.046 N-WBT (n = 58)Pre-test scores of the summative assessment 29.508** Different levels of prior knowledge Low-level prior Knowledge Middle-level prior Knowledge High-level prior knowledge 42.892(2.404) 52.281 (2.995) 59.456 (2.907) 9.164**M > L* H > L**

15. Method(10/10)  Prior knowledge groups GroupVariableLevelMean^a (std. error) F valuePostHoc^b Low-level prior knowledge (n = 41) Pre-test scores of the summative assessment Different types of Web-based assessment GPAM-WATA N-WBT 75.431(3.005) 37.558(2.371) 12.074** 92.267** GPAM-WATA > N- WBT** Middle-level prior knowledge (n = 36) Pre-test scores of the summative assessment Different types of Web-based assessment GPAM-WATA N-WBT 81.666(2.125) 50.312(2.523) 10.646** 88.589** GPAM-WATA > N- WBT** High-level prior knowledge (n = 39) Pre-test scores of the summative assessment Different types of Web-based assessment GPAM-WATA N-WBT 87.636(2.206) 62.966(2.390) 15.978** 55.507** GPAM-WATA > N- WBT**

16. Conclusion  Construction of an assessment-centred e-learning environment  Graduated prompt approach is effective in facilitating learning  May not be generalizable to other subjects

17. Suggestion  Recommend teachers develop dynamic assessment items and IPs focusing on the learning contents  Investigate how the types and dimensions of prior knowledge affect learning effectiveness