Submit Manuscript

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
Investigating Patterns of Pre-service Teachers’ Written Feedback on Procedure-based Mathematics Assessment Items
Mi Yeon Lee 1, Woong Lim 2 *
1 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA2 Yonsei University, Seoul, SOUTH KOREA
* Corresponding Author
APA
In-text citation: (Lee & Lim, 2020)
Reference: Lee, M. Y., & Lim, W. (2020). Investigating Patterns of Pre-service Teachers’ Written Feedback on Procedure-based Mathematics Assessment Items. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(1), em0561. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5946
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Lee MY, Lim W. Investigating Patterns of Pre-service Teachers’ Written Feedback on Procedure-based Mathematics Assessment Items. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(1), em0561. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5946
Chicago
In-text citation: (Lee and Lim, 2020)
Reference: Lee, Mi Yeon, and Woong Lim. "Investigating Patterns of Pre-service Teachers’ Written Feedback on Procedure-based Mathematics Assessment Items". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2020 15 no. 1 (2020): em0561. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5946
Harvard
In-text citation: (Lee and Lim, 2020)
Reference: Lee, M. Y., and Lim, W. (2020). Investigating Patterns of Pre-service Teachers’ Written Feedback on Procedure-based Mathematics Assessment Items. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(1), em0561. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5946
MLA
In-text citation: (Lee and Lim, 2020)
Reference: Lee, Mi Yeon et al. "Investigating Patterns of Pre-service Teachers’ Written Feedback on Procedure-based Mathematics Assessment Items". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 15, no. 1, 2020, em0561. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5946
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Lee MY, Lim W. Investigating Patterns of Pre-service Teachers’ Written Feedback on Procedure-based Mathematics Assessment Items. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(1):em0561. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5946

Abstract

This study investigates patterns exhibited by pre-service teachers (PSTs) while practicing feedback in response to students’ solutions on a procedure-based mathematics assessment. First, we developed an analytical framework for understanding mathematics PSTs’ written feedback. Second, we looked into how a learning module on a multimedia platform influenced PSTs’ feedback, and identified the ways in which PSTs subsequently revised their initial written feedback. From this analysis, we derived an operational list of emergent patterns of PSTs’ written and content-specific feedback. Our findings suggest that PSTs, in general, are likely to improve their written feedback when they engage in reviewing student work, and have the chance to write and revise their feedback. We also discuss some patterns of PSTs’ initial feedback that did change with practice, and other patterns that persisted, suggesting the need for further guidance and practice in providing students with written feedback.

Keywords

written feedback pre-service teacher education mathematics education

References

  • Abtahi, Y. (2014). Who/what is the more knowledgeable other? For the Learning of Mathematics, 34(3), 14–15.
  • Allsopp, D. H., Kyger, M. M., Lovin, L., Gerretson, H., Carson, K. L., & Ray, S. (2008). Mathematics dynamic assessment: Informal assessment that responds to the needs of struggling learners in mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804000301
  • Bansilal, S., James, A., & Naidoo, M. (2010). Whose voice matters? Learners. South African Journal of Education, 30(1), 153-165.
  • Bee, S. N. K., & Kaur, B. (2014). Using enhanced feedback to improve the learning of mathematics. The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 101-119.
  • Bennett, R. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy and practice, 18(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
  • Bishop, J. P., Lamb, L. L., Phillip, R. A., Whitacre, I., Schappelle, B. P., & Lewis, M. L. (2014). Obstacles and affordances for integer reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 19-61. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.1.0019
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  • Bray, W. S. (2011). A collective case study of the influence of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge on error-handling practices during class discussion of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(1), 2-38. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.1.0002
  • Callingham, R. (2008). Dialogue and feedback: Assessment in the primary mathematics classroom. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(3), 18-21.
  • Collins, A. M. (2012). NCTM assessment resources for professional learning communities: A practical guide. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Crisp, B. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 571-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601116912
  • Dandis, M. A. (2013). The assessment methods that are used in a secondary mathematics class. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 4(2), 133-143.
  • Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  • Fund, Z. (2010). Effects of communities of reflecting peers on student–teacher development – including in-depth case studies. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 679-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2010.517686
  • Gallego-Arrufat, M. J., & Dandis, M. (2014). Rubrics in a secondary mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(1-2), 75-84.
  • Gearhart, M., & Saxe, G. B. (2004). When teachers know what students know: Integrating mathematics assessment. Theory into Practice, 43, 304-313. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4304_9
  • Goldstein, L. M. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.012
  • Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Gregory, G., & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-based classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  • Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley. H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  • Hernandez-Martinez, P., Williams, J., Black, L., Davis, P., Pampaka, M., & Wake, G. (2011). Mathematics coursework as facilitator of formative assessment, student-centred activity and understanding. Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2011.585830
  • Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0
  • Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
  • Jaafar, R., & Lin, Y. (2017). Assessment for learning in the calculus classroom: A proactive approach to engage students in active learning. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3), 503-520.
  • Jenkins, J. O. (2010). A multi-faceted formative assessment approach: Better recognising the learning needs of students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 565-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903243059
  • Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46, 88-124. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.1.0088
  • Lee, M. Y. (2018). Further investigation into the quality of teachers’ noticing expertise: A proposed framework for evaluating teachers’ models of students’ mathematical thinking. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 14(9), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92019
  • Lee, M. Y., & Cross Francis, D. (2018). Investigating the relationship among elementary teachers’ perception about the use of students’ thinking, their professional noticing skills and their teaching practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51, 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.007
  • McFarlin, D. B., & Blascovich, J. (1981). Effects of self-esteem and performance feedback on future affective preferences and cognitive expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 521-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.521
  • Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903201651
  • Peng, A., & Luo, Z. (2009). A framework for examining mathematics teacher knowledge as used in error analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 22-25.
  • Peterson, B. E., & Leatham, K. R. (2009). Learning to use students’ mathematical thinking to orchestrate a class discussion. In L. Knott (Ed.), The role of mathematics discourse in producing leaders of discourse (pp. 99–128). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Radatz, H. (1979). Error analysis in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10(3), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/748804
  • Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 15, 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
  • Riddell, J. (2015). Revision: Metacognitive approaches to undergraduate essay writing. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 8, 79-96. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v8i0.4256
  • Rushton, S. J. (2018). Teaching and learning mathematics through error analysis. Fields Mathematics Education Journal, 3(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40928-018-0009-y
  • Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
  • Santos, L., & Cai, J. (2016). Curriculum and assessment. In A. Gutiérrez, G. Leder, & P. Boero (Ed.), The second handbook of research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 153-185). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-561-6_5
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). Summative and formative assessments in mathematics supporting the goals of the common core standards. Theory Into Practice, 54(3), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044346
  • Shepard, L. A. (2006). Creating coherent formative and summative assessment practices. Orbit, 36(2), 41 - 44.
  • Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
  • Skipper, Y., & Douglas, K.M. (2012). Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on children’s responses to subsequent failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 327-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02028.x
  • Stockero, S. L., Rupnow, R. L., & Pascoe, A. E. (2015). Noticing student mathematical thinking in the complexity of classroom instruction. In T. G. Bartell, K. N. Bieda, R. T. Putnam, K. Bradford, & H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 820-827). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
  • Taras, M. (2010). Assessment for learning: assessing the theory and evidence. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3015-3022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.457
  • Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.004
  • Volante, L. (2010). Assessment of, for, and as learning within schools: Implications for transforming classroom practice. Action in Teacher Education, 31(4), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463536
  • Yachina, N. P, Gorev, P. M., & Nurgaliyeva, A. K. (2015). Open type tasks in mathematics as a tool for students’ meta-subject results assessment. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 10(3), 211-220.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
All Rights Reserved © 2006-2021