Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

台湾の目標準拠評価の国際会議のスライド

195 views

Published on

台湾の目標準拠評価の国際会議のスライド

Published in: Science
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

台湾の目標準拠評価の国際会議のスライド

  1. 1. Class-size and Standard-based Assessment Formative Feedback Interaction on Academic Achievement Change Koyo Yamamori Senior Researcher of Educational Psychology National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan
  2. 2. Lecture Outline • Japanese system • Classroom assessment • Class size standard • Overview of previous studies about class size • Class size puzzle • Individual difference in class size effect • Presenter’s recent study about class size • Class-size and standard-based assessment formative feedback interaction on academic achievement change
  3. 3. Japanese system
  4. 4. Japanese system Classroom Assessment 4 National Level 4 viewpoints provided Conation (関心・意欲・態度) Problem solving thought (思考・判断・表現) Skills and Strategies (技能) Factual Knowledge (知識・理解) Classroom Level Set by teachers Referring both national level viewpoint intent and lesson content Class-specific standards(規準) Scoring guideline(基準) Class-specific standards(規準) Scoring guideline(基準) Class-specific standards(規準) Scoring guideline(基準) Class-specific standards(規準) Scoring guideline(基準)
  5. 5. Japanese system Class size: Features • Students are assigned to homerooms. • Members of the homeroom remain the same over several years. • Students spend most of the time together all year round. 5 Academic Year Starts Academic Year Ends
  6. 6. Japanese system Class size: Features 6 Morning Greeting Afternoon Lesson • Classroom as the place of both academic learning and daily life. • Homeroom teacher have the responsibilities for both enhancing academic achievement and developing social-emotional skills.
  7. 7. Japanese system Class size: Legal standards 7 1957 (CS>50) 75 students assigned in this picture 1991 (CS=40)
  8. 8. Class-size research
  9. 9. Class-size research Effect on student achievement • Experimental study: STAR Project • Comparing small-size class (n~15), regular-size class(n~25) with a full-time teacher’s aide, and regular- size class. • Small-size class was advantageous for pupils’ achievement. • Other investigative studies reported similar findings (US, England, Australia, etc.) 9
  10. 10. Class-size research Class-size puzzle • Inconsistency of study findings • Not all class-size studies showed the advantage of small class size in relation to students’ academic achievement. • Hanushek (1999) : 14% of the studies showed positive effects of smaller Pupil-Teacher Ratio(PTR)s, another 14% indicated the opposite result and 72% indicated no contribution of smaller PTRs. • These inconsistency is called “Class-size puzzle” 10
  11. 11. Class-size research Individual differences in class-size effect • Class-size puzzle seems to come from students’ individual difference. • Prior achievement seems to be one of the moderators of class- size effect (Blatchford, Bassett, Goldstein, and Martin, 2003; Nye and Hedges, 2002) 11 Class size Achievement Prior Achievement
  12. 12. Class-size research Student engagement and teacher behavior 12 Student engagement Smaller class • Better classroom attitude • Less disruptive behavior • More engagement Teacher behavior • Less dealing with negative pupil behavior • More individual instructions (Bateman, 2002; Blatchford, 2003; Cahen et al., 2002) (Blatchford et al., 2011; Stasz and Stecher, 2000)
  13. 13. Class-size research Formative assessment • Effective feedback information should contain not so much right or wrong but the difference between goals and current levels of achievement (Sadler, 1989) 13 Smaller class Teacher behavior • Less dealing with negative pupil behavior • More individual instructions AND Formative assessment / feedback ? • Formative assessment / feedback have larger effect (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996; Hattie and Timperley, 2007).
  14. 14. Class-size research Aptitude-Treatment Interaction • Class-size puzzle is attributed to ATI. • The effects of teaching depends on individual differences of students. • We need to be mindful of students’ individual differences, teachers’ behaviors, and the interaction between teaching strategies and students’ individual differences. 14 (Cronbach & Snow, 1977)
  15. 15. Class-size and formative feedback interaction on academic achievement change
  16. 16. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Aim of the study • Does smaller class enhance frequent formative feedback by teachers? • Does smaller class and formative feedback interaction compensate lower attainers’ academic achievement? 16 Prior Achievement Subsequent Achievement Smaller class × Formative feedback
  17. 17. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Participants • 1,672 students, in the 4th grade at the first measurement point. • From 50 public elementary schools in Yamagata prefecture. 17
  18. 18. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Measures • Student level • Panel data of individual students’ scores on norm-referenced standardized test of social studies at two occasions (4th and 6th grades). • Class level • Questionnaire to indicate yearly implementation of both presenting clear learning goals at the start of each instructional unit and implementing individual feedback about the ability level relative to the goal at the end of a unit. • School level • All participated school’s class-size 18
  19. 19. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Analytical strategy • Three-level HLM • Random-intercept and fandom- slope model • Do class-size, feedback implementation, and these interaction affect the intercept and the slope of the regression estimates subsequent (2 years later) achievement by prior achievement at student level? 19
  20. 20. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Results: Effect on feedback implementation • The relationship between the class-size and “state achievement goal - provide progress” formative feedback which teacher provided. • The frequency of formative feedback in the 5th grade decreases as the number of students in a class increases. 20
  21. 21. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Result: Effect on achievement change • The relationship between prior achievement at the 4th grade and subsequent achievement at the 6th grade. • Diagram (a) on the left side shows the result of the students who received frequent formative feedback, and diagram (b) on the right is the results of students who received less frequent or no formative feedback. 21
  22. 22. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Discussions 22 Class-size: No main effectCS × FA interaction Smaller class and formative feedback implementation improved low attainers’ achievement over 2 years.
  23. 23. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Discussions Teachers in smaller classes are likely to provide formative feedback more frequently. 23
  24. 24. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Discussions Smaller classes allow teachers to provide more feedback for students. 24 The attainment of previously lower achievers was improved.
  25. 25. Conclusion
  26. 26. Conclusion Power of standard-based assessment • Formative feedback is one of effective interventions of classroom learning. • Standards should be needed when we conduct effective formative feedback. • The effect of standard-based assessment makes a significant contribution to helping the students with low achievement when conducted in small size classes. 26
  27. 27. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Class-size: Indispensable aspect • “How many students in this classroom?” is the indispensable aspect when we implement standard-based formative feedback. 27
  28. 28. Class-size and formative feedback interaction Effect on student achievement • Instruction, learning, and assessment, all we do under the given set of conditions. • Effect of instruction, learning, and assessment, all comes from the interaction between the given set of conditions and individual differences among students. 28 n=30 n=40

×