Advertisement

Advantages of Using Automatic Formative Assessment for Learning Mathematics

  • Alice BaranaEmail author
  • Marina Marchisio
  • Matteo Sacchet
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1014)

Abstract

Automatic Assessment Systems empowered by mathematical engines allow the development of online assignments for Mathematics, which goes beyond multiple-choice modality. Automatically assessed assignments, used with formative purposes, can support teaching and learning from several perspectives, such as conceptual and procedural understanding, metacognition, enactment of adaptive strategies, and teachers’ management of the class. This paper reports on an experimentation where automatic assessment has been used in a blended modality according to a model of formative assessment and interactive feedback to enhance learning. The experiment involved a total number of 546 students of 8th grade in the town of Turin (Italy). The use of the automatic assessment is shown and exemplified. Data from learning tests, questionnaire and platform usage are analyzed and used to show the effectiveness of the interactive materials for enhancing mathematical understanding and self-assessment skills. Moreover, a profile of the students who did not use the online opportunities, defined as “reluctant users”, is drawn and discussed.

Keywords

Automatic assessment Formative assessment Mathematics education Reluctant users Self-assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    World Economic Forum: Eight Futures of Work. Scenarios and their Implications (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drijvers, P., Ball, L., Barzel, B., Heid, M.K., Cao, Y., Maschietto, M.: Uses of Digital Technology in Lower Secondary Mathematics Education: A Concise Topical Survey. Springer, New York (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33666-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olive, J., Makar, K.: Mathematical Knowledge and Practices Resulting from Access to Digital Technologies. In: Hoyles, C., Lagrange, J.-B. (eds.) Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain. NISS, vol. 13, pp. 133–178. Springer, New York (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heid, M.K.: The technological revolution and the reform of school mathematics. Am. J. Educ. 106(1), 5–61 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1086/444175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stacey, K., Wiliam, D.: Technology and assessment in mathematics. In: Clements, M., Bishop, A., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., Leung, F. (eds.) Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education. SIHE, vol. 27, pp. 721–751. Springer, New York (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ECDL Foundation: The Fallacy of the ‘Digital Native’: Why Young People Need to Develop their Digital Skills (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitra, A., Steffensmeier, T.: Changes in student attitudes and student computer use in a computer-enriched environment. J. Res. Comput. Educ. 32(3), 417–433 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Armstrong, D.A.: Students’ perceptions of online learning and instructional tools: a qualitative study of undergraduate students use of online tools. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 10(3), 222–226 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beevers, C.E., Cherry, B.S.G., Clark, D.E.R., Foster, M.G., McGuire, G.R., Renshaw, J.H.: Software tools for computer-aided learning in mathematics. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 20(4), 561–569 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sangwin, C.: Computer aided assessment of mathematics using STACK. In: Cho, S.J. (ed.) Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, pp. 695–713. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barana, A., Marchisio, M., Rabellino, S.: Automated assessment in mathematics. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE 39th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, pp. 670–671. IEEE, Taichung (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2015.105
  12. 12.
    Black, P., Wiliam, D.: Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 21(1), 5–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hattie, J., Timperley, H.: The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77(1), 81–112 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sangwin, C., Makar, K., Cazes, C., Lee, A., Wong, K.L.: Micro-level automatic assessment sup-ported by digital technologies. In: Hoyles, C., Lagrange, J.-B. (eds.) Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain. NISS, vol. 13, pp. 227–250. Springer, New York (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paiva, R.C., Ferreira, M.S., Mendes, A.G., Eusébio, A.M.J.: Interactive and multimedia contents associated with a system for computer-aided assessment. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 52(2), 224–256 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beevers, C.E., Paterson, J.S.: Automatic assessment of problem solving skills in mathematics. Act. Learn. High Educ. 4(2), 1–14 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bokhove, C., Drijvers, P.: Digital tools for algebra education: criteria and evaluation. Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 15(1), 45–62 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helder, E., Sosnovsky, S., Dimitrova, V.: Adaptive intelligent learning environments. In: Duval, E., Sharples, M., Sutherland, R. (eds.) Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Themes, pp. 109–114. Springer, New York (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02600-8_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nicol, D., Milligan, C.: Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In: Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, pp. 1–14. Taylor and Francis Group Ltd., London (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barana, A., Fioravera, M., Marchisio, M., Rabellino, S.: Adaptive teaching supported by ICTs to reduce the school failure in the project “Scuola Dei Compiti”. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pp. 432–437. IEEE (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2017.44
  21. 21.
    Brancaccio, A., Marchisio, M., Palumbo, C., Pardini, C., Patrucco, A., Zich, R.: Problem posing and solving: strategic italian key action to enhance teaching and learning mathematics and informatics in the high school. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE 39th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, pp. 845–850. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barana, A., Conte, A., Fioravera, M., Marchisio, M., Rabellino, S.: A model of formative automatic assessment and interactive feedback for STEM. In: Proceedings of 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pp. 1016–1025. IEEE (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2018.00178
  23. 23.
    Sadler, D.R.: Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr. Sci. 18(2), 119–144 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beevers, C.E., Wild, D.G., McGuine, G.R., Fiddes, D.J., Youngson, M.A.: Issues of partial credit in mathematical assessment by computer. Res. Learn. Technol. 7(1), 26–32 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanacore, J.: Turning reluctant learners into inspired learners. Clear. House 82(1), 40–44 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Calder, N., Campbell, A.: Using mathematical apps with reluctant learners. Digit. Exp. Math. Educ. 2(1), 50–69 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barana, A., Boffo, S., Gagliardi, F., Marchisio, M.: Problem Posing & Solving: a Digital Way to Learn Mathematics (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barana, A., Bogino, A., Fioravera, M., Marchisio, M., Rabellino, S.: Open platform of self-paced MOOCs for the continual improvement of academic guidance and knowledge strengthening in tertiary education. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 13(3), 109–119 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barana, A., Marchisio, M., Miori, R.: MATE-BOOSTER: design of an e-learning course to boost mathematical competence. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019), pp. 280–291 (2019)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Timmers, C., Veldkamp, B.: Attention paid to feedback provided by a computer-based assessment for learning on information literacy. Comput. Educ. 56(3), 923–930 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marchisio, M., Di Caro, L., Fioravera, M., Rabellino, S.: Towards adaptive systems for automatic formative assessment in virtual learning communities. In: Proceedings of 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pp. 1000–1005. IEEE (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2018.00176
  32. 32.
    Barana, A., Di Caro, L., Fioravera, M., Marchisio, M., Rabellino, S.: Ontology development for competence assessment in virtual communities of practice. In: Penstein Rosé, C., et al. (eds.) AIED 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10948, pp. 94–98. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93846-2_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversità di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health SciencesUniversità di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations