Formative Assessment in Everyday Teaching of Mathematical Modelling: Implementation of Written and Oral Feedback to Competency-Oriented Tasks

International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 469-478

  Besser, Michael ^a   Blum, Werner ^a   Klimczak, Malte ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^b GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

High Ability Student; Modelling Competency; Modelling Item; Oral Feedback; Write Feedback

Indexed keywords

EID: 84988389184     PISSN: 22114920     EISSN: 22114939     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6540-5_40     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. Besser, M., Leiss, D., Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., & Blum, W. (2010). Kompetenzorientiertes Feedback im Mathematikunterricht: Entwicklung und empirische Erprobung prozessbezo-gener, aufgabenbasierter Rückmeldesituationen. Empirische Pädagogik, 24(4), 404–432.
2. Besser, M., Klimczak, M., Blum, W., Leiss, D., Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2011). Lernprozessbegleitendes Feedback als Diagnose-und Förderinstrument: Eine Unterrichtsstudie zur Gestaltung von Rückmeldesituationen im kompetenzorientierten Mathematikunterricht. In Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 103–106). Münster: WTM Verlag.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
4. Blomhoj, M., & Jensen, T. H. (2007). What’s all the fuss about competencies? Experiences with using a competence perspective on mathematics education to develop the teaching of mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education. The 14th ICMI study (pp. 45–56). New York: Springer.
5. Blum, W. (2011). Can modelling be taught and learnt? Some answers from empirical research. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferii, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling. ICTMA 14 (pp. 15–30). New York: Springer.
6. Bürgermeister, A., Klimczak, M., Klieme, E., Rakoczy, K., Blum, W., Leiss, D., Harks, B., & Besser, M. (2011). Leistungsbeurteilung im Mathematikunterricht – Eine Darstellung des Projekts “Nutzung und Auswirkunen der Kompetenzmessung in mathematischen Lehr-Lern-Prozessen”. http://www.schulpaedagogik-heute.de/index.php/artikel-331.html. Accessed 12 Sept 2011.
7. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.
8. DeCorte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 19–30.
9. Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2004). Teacher interventions aimed at mathematical level raising during collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 39–65.
10. Deutsche Kultusministerkonferenz. (2003). Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. München: Luchterhand.
11. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
12. Hoops, W. (1998). Konstruktivismus. Ein neues paradigma für didaktisches design? Unterricht-swissenschaft, 3, 229–253.
13. Kaiser, G. (1995). Realitätsbezüge im Mathematikunterricht – Ein Überblick über die aktuelle und historische Diskussion. Materialien für einen realitätsbezogenen Mathematikunterricht, 2, 66–84.
14. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
15. 2CA. Leistungsbeurteilung und Kompetenzmodellierung im Mathematikunterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56, 64–74.
16. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
17. Leiss, D. (2005). Teacher intervention versus self-regulated learning? Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 24(2–3), 75–89.
18. Leiss, D. (2007). “Hilf mir es selbst zu tun”. Lehrerinterventionen beim mathematischen Modellieren. Hildesheim: Franzbecker.
19. Leiss, D. (2010). Adaptive Lehrerinterventionen beim mathematischen Modellieren – empirische Befunde einer vergleichenden Labor-und Unterrichtsstudie. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(2), 197–226.
20. Leiss, D., & Wiegand, B. (2005). A classification of teacher interventions in mathematics teaching. ZDM, 37, 240–245.
21. Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19, 527–537.
22. Maaß, K. (2010). Classification scheme for modelling tasks. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(2), 285–311.
23. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case of guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: NCTM.
25. Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. In A. Gagatsis & S. Papastavridis (Eds.), Mediterranean conference on mathematical education (pp. 115–124). Athens: 3rd Hellenic Mathematical Society and Cyprus Mathematical Society.
26. Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion. Bern: Huber.
27. Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2011). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215–237.
28. Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 46–55.