The impact of the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique on course evaluations
Keywords:Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF-AT), course evaluations, multiple choice exams, quizzes, partial credit iterative responding
This project reports the results of two studies that investigated the impact on course evaluations of using partial credit iterative responding (PCIR) with the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF-AT) forms on summative course assessments. This project also quantifies grade inflation from utilizing different PCIR schemes and documents the percentage of possible partial credit students learned. Study 1 compared evaluations in courses where exams were manipulated. Study 2 compared evaluations in courses where daily reading quizzes were manipulated. Results from Study 1 revealed that multiple course evaluation scores increased 10% in the PCIR condition. Students earned 75% of the partial credit available through PCIR, which resulted in a 10% increase in their exam scores. Results from Study 2 revealed no difference in course evaluations between conditions. Students earned roughly 40% of the partial credit available through PCIR, resulting in a 4 to 8% increase in their quiz scores, depending on the PCIR scheme.
Addison, W. E., Best, J., & Warrington, J. D. (2006). Students’ perceptions of course difficulty and their ratings of the instructor. College Student Journal, 40, 409-416.
Bowman, T. G., & Laurent, T. (2011). Immediate feedback and learning in athletic training education. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6, 202-207.
Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., Cook, M. J., & Dihoff, R. E. (2005). Efficacy of error for the correction of initially incorrect assumptions and of feedback for the affirmation of correct responding: learning in the classroom. The Psychological Record, 55, 401-418.
Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., Dihoff, R. E., & Cook, M. J. (2006). Acquisition and retention of Esperanto: The case for error correction and immediate feedback. The Psychological Record, 56, 205-218.
Cotner, S. H., Fall, B. A., Wick, S. M., Walker, J. D., & Baepler, P. M. (2008). Rapid feedback assessment methods: Can we improve engagement and preparation for exams in large-enrollment courses? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 437-443. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9112-8
Cotner, S., Baepler, P., & Kellerman, A. (2008) Scratch this!: The IF-AT as a technique for stimulating group discussion and exposing misconceptions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37, 48-53.
DiBattista, D. (2005). The immediate feedback assessment technique: A learner-centered multiple-choice response form. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35, 111-131.
DiBattista, D., & Gosse, L. (2006). Test anxiety and the immediate feedback assessment technique. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 311-327. doi:10.3200/JEXE.74.4.311-328
DiBattista , D., Mitterer, J. O., & Gosse, L. (2004). Acceptance by undergraduates of the immediate feedback assessment technique for multiple-choice testing. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 17-28. doi:10.1080/1356251032000155803
DiBattista, D., Gosse, L., Sinnige-Egger, J., Candale, B., & Sargeson, K. (2009). Grading scheme, test difficulty, and the immediate feedback assessment technique. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 311-338. doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.4.311-338
Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., & Epstein, M. L. (2003). The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention effect revisited. The Psychological Record, 53, 533-548.
Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004). Provision of feedback during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. The Psychological Record, 54, 207-231.
Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment techniques promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52, 187-201.
Epstein, M. L., & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Psychological Reports, 90, 1136-1138. doi:10.2466/PR0.90.4.1136-1138
Epstein, M. L., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports, 88, 889-894. doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.88.3.889
Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1 (1), 121-125. doi: 10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121
Franklin, J. (2001). Interpreting the numbers: Using a narrative to help others read student evaluations of your teaching accurately. In K. Lewis (Ed.), Techniques and strategies for interpreting student evaluation (pp. 85-100). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ginexi, E. M. (2003). General psychology course evaluations: Differential survey response by expected grade. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 248-251.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand- student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
Heckert, T. M., Latier, A., Ringwald, A., & Silvey, B. (2006). Relation of course, instructor and student characteristics to dimensions of student ratings of teaching effectiveness. College Student Journal, 40, 195-204.
Lee, W. T., & Jabot, M. E.. (2011). Incorporating active learning techniques into a genetics class. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40, 94-100.
Maurer, T. W. (2006). Cognitive dissonance or revenge? Student grades and course evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 176-179. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3303_4
McKinney, K. (2003). What is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in Higher Education? Teaching/Learning Matters, 33 (1), 6-7.
Persky, A. M., & Pollack, G. M. (2008). Using answer-until-correct examinations to provide immediate feedback to students in a pharmacokinetics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72, 83. doi:10.5688/aj720483
Salmons, S. D. (1993). The relationship between students’ grades and their evaluation of instructor performance. Applied H.R.M. Research, 4, 102-114.
Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 397-409.
Titus, J. (2008). Student ratings in a consumerist academy: leveraging pedagogical control and authority. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 397-422.