A framework for analyzing feedback in a formative assessment system for mathematical modeling problems

Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 375-406

  Diefes Dux, Heidi A ^a   Zawojewski, Judith S ^b   Hjalmarson, Margret A ^c   Cardella, Monica E ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Formative assessment; Graduate teaching assistants; Model eliciting activity

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING EDUCATION; NETWORK FUNCTION VIRTUALIZATION;

FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING; FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT; FORMATIVE FEEDBACKS; GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS; JUST-IN-TIME MANUFACTURING; MATHEMATICAL MODELING PROBLEM; MODEL ELICITING ACTIVITIES; OPEN-ENDED PROBLEMS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84859950110     PISSN: 10694730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00054.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2010). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.
2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148. (Pubitemid 128463581)
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
4. Bloom, R. B. & Bourdon, L. 1980. Types and frequencies of teachers' written instructional feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 74(1), 13-15.
5. Bowman, K. J. & Siegmund, T. (2008). Designing modeling activities for upper-level engineering classes. In J. S. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux, & K. J. Bowman (Eds.), Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students (pp. 93-110). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
6. Bursic, K. M., Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Yildirim, T. P., & Siewiorek N. (2010). Improving conceptual learning in engineering economy using Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs). Proceedings of the 2010 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Cancun, Mexico.
7. Cardella, M. E., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Verleger, M. A., & Oliver, A. (2009). Insights into the process of providing feedback to students on open-ended problems. 2009 Proceedings of the 2010 Frontiers in Education Conference, Austin, TX.
8. Carnes, M. T., Cardella, M. E., & Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2010). Progression of student solutions over the course of a Model-Eliciting Activity (MEA). Proceedings of the 2010 Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, D.C.
9. Chamberlin, M. T. (2005). Teachers' discussions of students' thinking: Meeting the challenge of attending to students' thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(2), 141-170. (Pubitemid 41403399)
10. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315. (Pubitemid 127493191)
11. Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Imbrie, P. K. (2008). Modeling activities in a first-year engineering course. In J. S. Zawojewski, H. Diefes-Dux, & K. J. Bowman (Eds.), Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students (pp. 55-92). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
12. Diefes-Dux, H. A., Osburn, K., Capobianco, B., & Wood, T. (2008). On the front line -Learning from the teaching assistants. In J. S. Zawojewski, H. Diefes-Dux, & K. J. Bowman (Eds.), Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students (p. 225-255). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
13. Diefes-Dux, H. A., Zawojewski, J. S., & Hjalmarson, M. A. (2010). Using educational research in the design of evaluation tools for open-ended problems. International Journal for Engineering Education, 26(4), 807-819.
14. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
15. English, L. (2007). Interdisciplinary modeling in the primary mathematics curriculum. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice (pp. 275-284). Adelaide, South Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia (MERGA).
16. Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, J. Kaput, (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education, (pp. 263-280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81-112.
18. Hjalmarson, M. A. (2007). Engineering students designing a statistical procedure for quantifying variability. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(2), 178-188.
19. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1): 21-39.
20. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2008) Facilitating collaborative knowledge building, Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48-94.
21. Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
22. Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. (Pubitemid 126042646)
23. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. E. Kelley & R. A. Lesh (Eds), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. P., Roehrig, G. H., & Turner, J. (2004). Growing a garden without water: Graduate teaching assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/ research university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 211-233.
25. Moore, T. J. & Hjalmarson, M. A. (2010). Developing measures of roughness: Problem solving as a method to document student thinking in engineering. International Journal for Engineering Education, 26(4), 820-830.
26. National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
27. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375-401.
28. Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Experiences with formative assessment in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 325-333.
29. Salim, A. and Diefes-Dux, H.A. (2010). Graduate teaching assistants' assessment of students' problem formulation within Model-Eliciting Activities, Proceedings of the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Louisville, KY.
30. Schorr, R. Y. & Koellner-Clark, K. 2003. Using a modeling approach to analyze the ways in which teachers consider new ways to teach mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2 & 3), 191-210. (Pubitemid 36543745)
31. Self, B. P., Miller, R. L, Kean, A., Moore, T. J., Ogletree, T. & Schreiber, F. (2008). Important student misconceptions in mechanics and thermal science: Identification using Model-Eliciting Activities. Proceedings of the 2008 Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
32. Seymour, E. (2005). Partners in innovation: Teaching assistants in college science courses. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.
33. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
34. Speer, N., Gutmann, T., & Murphy, T. J. (2005). Mathematics teaching assistant preparation and development. College Teaching, 53(2), 75-80.
35. Strauss, A. C., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
36. Taylor, S. S. (2007). Comments on lab reports by mechanical engineering teaching assistants. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(4), 402-424.
37. Verleger, M., Diefes-Dux, H., Ohland, M. W., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Brophy, S. P. (2010). Challenges to informed peer review matching algorithms. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 397-408.
38. Zawojewski, J. S., Diefes-Dux, H., & Bowman, K. J. (2008). Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.