Feed-forward: students gaining more from assessment via deeper engagement in video-recorded presentations

Presentation feedback can be limited in its feed-forward value, as students do not have their actual presentation available for review whilst reflecting upon the feedback. This study reports on students’ perceptions of the learning and feed-forward value of an oral presentation assessment. Students self-marked their performance immediately after their presentation, after reviewing a video recording of their presentation and wrote a reflection relating to their experience. Survey data revealed that most students viewed all aspects of the assessment task positively and they rated the process as providing substantial learning value. They also indicated that the video review and overall assessment exercise provided valuable feed-forward information that would assist them to improve future presentations. These data were further supported by content analysis of the qualitative data. Students noted that they perceived the video review task as self-enabling. They also noted that the self-reflection and self-marking exercise provided time for thought although it was personally challenging. Therefore, via carefully designed assessment, it is possible to provide a deep learning opportunity from oral presentations that can feed-forward to enhance students’ future presentations.     

A correspondence of academic interest

Editor's Note: The following is a continuation of the dialogue “A Correspondence of Academic Interest” in the Spring 1994 issue ofAcademic Questions. That exchange concerned the program, recently announced by the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), to promote diversity on the governing boards of the public corporations in which it invests.     

A content analysis of research published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching from 1985 through 1989

To determine if actual practice was consistent with commonly recommended research methods and procedures, this study examined 130 studies reported over a 5-year period in three volumes of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST). The results were consistent with similar previous analyses (Shaver & Norton, 1980a, 1980b; Wallen & Fraenkel, 1988a) and indicate that appropriate generalizations beyond the confines of the reported studies may be impossible for most (64%) of the JRST studies surveyed. The findings also show that replication studies, which could be employed to offset deficiencies in generalizability, were not commonly encountered (3%) in these 130 reports. In addition, the study results indicate that many researchers (48%) do not properly restrict their conclusions based on the limits imposed by the accessible populations and samples used; nor do they typically provide possible alternative explanations for the outcomes obtained (76%). These findings prompt the following recommendations: 1. A greater awareness and use of replication as a check on generalizability should be encouraged by the science education community. 2. Clearly defined populations (target and accessible) and fully described samples warrant increased attention as report components from authors, reviewers, and editorial board members of JRST. 3. In light of the difficulties inherent in effecting random selection in educational settings, a greater emphasis should be placed on recognizing the limits that the underlying assumptions of inferential statistics place on research conclusions. The results of this study indicate that the methodological quality of published science education research should remain a concern for both practitioners and readers.     

Differential effectiveness of alternative middle-school science sequences for students of different ethnicities

Learning Environments Research - For a sample of 367 middle-school students in the USA, learning environment criteria were used to evaluate two alternative science curriculum sequences...     

Maintenance of keypecking in pigeons by a food avoidance but not by a shock avoidance contingency

Response key illuminations were followed by food delivery or shock, and keypecks were programmed to prevent the occurrence of whichever stimulus was scheduled. At high shock intensity, pigeons did not peck: at low shock intensity, pigeons pecked in about half of the trials. When different key colors signaled food and shock trials, pigeons pecked on food trials, thus preventing food delivery, but not on shock trials, thus failing to avoid shock delivery. That pecks occurred despite the fact that they avoided food but did not occur when they avoided shock is taken as evidence that the keypeck is frequently governed by biological predispositions, and not by its consequences.