Search

Background: The sudden growth in online instruction due to COVID‐19 restrictions has given renewed urgency to questions about remote learning that have remained unresolved. Web‐based assessment software provides instructors an array of options for varying testing parameters, but the pedagogical impacts of some of these variations has yet to be examined. Objectives: The current study examines whether question order affects student performance on online college math assessments. Drawing on the literature of testing and math anxiety, we hypothesized that difficult questions near the beginning of an assessment would have a destructive effect on student confidence, which would in turn have a deleterious effect on their performance. Methods: We employed an observational 'big data' methodology, analysing 23,468 final exams completed by students in 10 different courses over eight semesters at a Math Emporium in a large technical university in the eastern United States. Students were freshmen and sophomores enrolled in non‐engineering math courses. We regressed the final score on the difficulty level of the first and second questions, controlling for several other factors. Results and Conclusions: We found that several factors—day of the week, amount of time before the deadline, number of minutes spent on the exam—have more of an impact on score than question order. This pattern was consistent across sexes. Takeaways: Our findings contradict some previous studies, which have found that difficult early questions degrade student performance, and that this affect is more pronounced in females. This work enriches our understanding of how students respond to online assessment. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Previous studies have had mixed results about the effect of question difficulty ordering on student performance.Furthermore, few studies have examined this issue for computer assessments. What this paper adds: We employ a novel methodology with a uniquely large data set.Our findings indicate that difficulty ordering has no effect on student performance. Implications for practice: Math instructors can use the random ordering feature of computer assessment generating tools because question order does not affect performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Valuable safeguards against fast‐spreading conjectures about learning in times of fear and uncertainty are evidence‐based approaches to the assessment of the impact of sudden and unforeseen disruptions on learning practices. The present research focused on physics learning in such times because conceptual and computational literacy in physics is critical to the development of a scientifically and technologically literate society. Objectives: The present research aimed (a) to offer an objective assessment of whether performance differences in a physics course of the general education curriculum existed between the face‐to‐face medium (familiar mode of instruction) and the online medium (unfamiliar mode of instruction) for both male and female students, and then (b) to develop a response to the evidence collected to ensure a quality education for all parties involved. The research intended to fill two critical gaps in the extant literature: mixed findings concerning students' performance in the face‐to‐face and online mediums as well as scarce coverage of specific domains of knowledge that are critical to STEM learners. Methods: Students' performance was examined as a function of the type of assessment (formative and summative), instructional mode (online and face‐to‐face), and gender. An understudied student population of STEM students of Middle Eastern descent without prior formal exposure to online instruction was targeted. Results and Conclusions: In both formative and summative assessments, male students performed better online than face‐to‐face, whereas the performance of female students was either higher online or equivalent between instructional mediums. The evidence collected suggested that consideration be given to remedies that foster academic success in the face‐to‐face instructional medium, particularly for male students. Takeaways: An evidence‐based approach to learning dismantled emotion‐driven expectations regarding the impact of the online medium on physics learning, and encouraged new perspectives about instruction. Lay Description: What is already known?: Ongoing debates on the impact of the pandemic on students' learning shape decisions regarding future reliance on the online medium for instruction. What this paper adds: The extant literature is mixed concerning performance in the face‐to‐face and online mediums, including particular domains of knowledge critical to STEM learning.This study focused on physics learning in an understudied population of STEM students who were unaccustomed to online instruction.Performance was higher online than face‐to‐face, but gender differences emerged. Implications for practice: Lessons learned focused on the flexibility of online learning and on the need to develop materials to enhance learning in males enrolled in face‐to‐face or hybrid/blended classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Providing students with worked out problem solutions is a beneficial instructional technique in STEM disciplines, and studying examples that have been worked out incorrectly may be especially helpful for reducing misconceptions in students with low prior content knowledge. However, past results are inconclusive and the effects of incorrect worked examples alone or in combination with correct examples remains unclear. Objectives: We aim to address whether studying incorrect examples alone or in combination with correct examples can support the reduction of students' fraction misconceptions, operationalized as errors made with high confidence. Methods: After incorrectly solving a sampling problem, 130 students in 4th through 11th grade in the U.S. were randomly assigned to a condition in an online problem set focused on fraction equivalence. Students studied either single‐type worked examples (i.e., correct or incorrect; n = 49) or combination‐type worked examples (correct and incorrect; n = 41) or engaged in a problem‐solving control (n = 50). Results: Studying a combination of correct and incorrect worked examples was as effective as the problem‐solving control with feedback at improving fraction equivalence knowledge and reducing the rate of high‐confidence errors. Students in both the combination condition and the problem‐solving with feedback condition outperformed those who studied either correct or incorrect worked examples alone. Conclusions: Results support the inclusion of a combination of correct and incorrect worked examples when teaching students with low prior content knowledge. Studying a combination of example types within an online tutor helps to reduce misconceptions about fractions, a topic students commonly struggle with. A problem‐solving task with corrective feedback worked equally well. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Studying worked examples of mathematical solutions improves student learning.Incorrect examples, either alone or in combination with correct examples, are particularly effective for improving learning for students with low prior knowledge in the target content.Comparing correct and incorrect examples is also effective at improving problem‐solving but this effect may be specific to those with high prior knowledge.Still unknown are the impacts of these different combinations of examples on misconceptions in particular. What this paper adds: We show that studying a combination of correct and incorrect examples reduces math misconceptions.Problem‐solving with corrective feedback within an online tutor also has this effect. Implications for practice and/or policy: Using a combination of example types will help reduce students' misconceptions about fractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]