# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Abstract
Reflection is a valuable tool and skill to develop high quality learning, but it seems to be a troublesome concept for both participants and facilitators. This article outlines the benefits of reflection and presents two examples of direct assessment of reflection. Advantages and disadvantages of direct assessment are considered along with tips for those considering it.

What is reflection?

Defining reflection is not entirely easy or straightforward and maybe that contributes to it being a threshold concept! A number of key thinkers have shaped the theory of reflective practice and reflection ( DeweyJ. (1933), How we Think, Chicago: Henrey Regney. Dewy, 1933; Boud, Keough and Walker, 1985; Schon, 1987
Boud D.Keough, R. , WalkerD. (1985), Reflection: turning experience into learning, London: Kogan Page, 19.
SchonD. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: Josey Bass. ); however, a few simple definitions are:

"A reflection in a mirror is an exact replica of what is in front of it. Reflection in professional practice, however, gives us back, not what is, but what might be, an improvement on the original."

( BiggsJ. (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: Open University Press. Biggs, 1999[Google Scholar] )

"Reflection is an important human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it. It is this working with experience that is important in learning."

( Boud D.Keough, R. , WalkerD. (1985), Reflection: turning experience into learning, London: Kogan Page, 19. Boud et al., 1985[Google Scholar] )

Why is reflection desirable?

Student reflection is a valuable tool that:

Allows students to get the most from their education and other activities

Sets the scene for and creates life-long learning

Maximises personal and economic potential

Enhances employability and enterprise skills

Many authors make the link between refection and deep learning ( MoonJ. (2001), Reflection in Higher Education Learning, PDP Working Paper 4. [ Moon, 2001; Hinett, 2002; Race, 2002 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp?process=full_record&section=generic&id=72]
HinettK. (2002), Developing Reflective Practice in Legal Education, UKLE. [ http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/reflection/index.html]
RaceP. (2002), Evidencing Reflection: putting the 'w' into reflection [ http://escalate.ac.uk/resources/reflection/] ) whilst Kolb (1984) gives reflection a key role in his cycle of experiential learning. Reflection is also given space in the GEES Subject Benchmark Statements ( www.qaa.ac.uk). Reflection quite simply provides the bridge between experiencing and understanding or learning.

Phil Race puts it nicely:

"Reflection deepens learning. The act of reflecting is one which causes us to make sense of what we've learned, why we learned it, and how that particular increment of learning took place. Moreover, reflection is about linking one increment of learning to the wider perspective of learning - heading towards seeing the bigger picture. Reflection is equally useful when our learning has been unsuccessful - in such cases indeed reflection can often give us insights into what may have gone wrong with our learning, and how on a future occasion we might avoid now-known pitfalls. Most of all, however, it is increasingly recognised that reflection is an important transferable skill, and is much valued by all around us, in employment, as well as in life in general."

( RaceP. (2002), Evidencing Reflection: putting the 'w' into reflection [ Race, 2002 http://escalate.ac.uk/resources/reflection/][Google Scholar] )

Why is it difficult to encourage and therefore a threshold concept?

Barriers to achieving student reflective practice are:

1. Modular system. This has a tendency to discourage links and allows students to pick up and put down subjects due to the stand-alone nature of the system. Lessons learnt from one module/assessment are not always transferred to other modules.

2. Assessment-driven nature of students. This is a natural strategic approach that is widespread amongst students, and maybe we should be more accepting of this and so ensure all desired learning outcomes are taken into account during the assessment process.

3. The 'live for the moment' nature of young people.

4. Some may wrongly see it as entirely emotional and touchy-feely and this element may put people in GEES disciplines off.

By its nature reflective practice is difficult to teach, difficult to encourage and not a process that students and indeed some staff are entirely comfortable with. Personal Development Plans require substantial reflective practice; however, these generally, take a long-term approach, and so by their nature may sit outside the curriculum. Often only the keenest students take these seriously and take full advantage of the support offered, and yet these students are perhaps the least likely to need the benefit. So we must find ways of building reflection into the curriculum to meet the needs of ALL our students and to help them gain the most from their academic learning in addition to gaining self-awareness for career gain.

Reflection itself may be a threshold concept but it can also be a tool to help learners through other threshold concepts by encouraging and fostering a deep learning approach.

Ways of encouraging reflection through teaching styles?

Innovative and best-practice teaching methods that can be used to encourage reflection include:

Card-sorts

CV production / Mock interviews

Self-assessment

Peer-assessment of a variety of tasks/methods

Group-work

Individual moderation of group assessment

Good feedback on assessed work giving students opportunities to learn from mistakes

Peer-tutoring

Problem based learning

Group work generally enhances self-awareness and reflection as students become more aware of the level of their own performance relative to others. However, it is essential that they also learn from their subject-specific performance (i.e. scientific, technical, etc.) as well as their generic skills performance.

Assessing the reflection

If reflection is considered so important then one option is to assess it, in other words to align our assessment and our intended learning outcomes. Perhaps, due to the assessment-driven nature of students, we need to assess it in order to encourage it. Maybe, just maybe, if students are encouraged to do it through assessment, they may get into the reflective habit and apply it to all their learning.

Two case studies of assessment of reflection are presented:

Luxhay: An individually moderated context style group work project (M Level)

Luxhay is a leaking Victorian embankment dam near Taunton. Students are given data from investigations and work in groups to find the mechanism of the leak and to design remedial measures. The assessment weighting of the project is:

Project report - 55%, handed in just before presentations

Oral presentation - 35%

Group reflection - 10%, handed in one week after presentations, around 350 words

The reflection is completed at the end of the project once students have been given the opportunity to observe results of the other groups during the oral presentations (timing of the reflection is crucial here). The project/problem is multi-faceted and there is not necessarily one clear answer, making it ideal for reflection, in particular encouraging academic performance-related reflection in addition to team-working reflection.

This project has run for a number of years and the reflective component has evolved slightly. Reflection seems not a natural process to many and initially reflective statements were 'boast-statements', seemingly outlets for students to confirm how right and fantastic they were. However, once clearer guidance was given (written, verbal and a tick sheet prompt guidance page), the reflective statements became more genuine and more beneficial. In fact, these students have even suggested it is used elsewhere in the curriculum.

Reflection works really well in this context and introducing it in a group-work project may be a way of sowing the seeds of reflection and making students comfortable with the process.

Work placement portfolios

These have been produced by work placement students for a number of years, allowing students to reflect upon key skills. Portfolios of evidence are produced for year long placements with key skills areas of

self-management

managing tasks

communicating clearly and effectively

working with and relating to others

applying knowledge

applying initiative in work problems

More recently, reflection has been identified to the students as a key skill, rather than something embedded across all key skills, and so assessed in its own right.

Reflection on own learning outcomes

Anecdotal evidence from the small number of portfolios undertaken suggests this has genuinely improved reflective skills by helping students in the unpacking process. It also appears to help them realise the process they are going through and to sum up all their experiences.

Discussion - what ideas were swapped?

During and after the swapshop presentation at the GEES 2006 conference there was some discussion on reflection and various viewpoints were represented.

One delegate had got students to reflect and found it useful as long as students didn't become too strategic and therefore too formulaic in their approaches (perhaps this can be a problem with all types of assessment?).

One had got students to reflect and it hadn't worked particularly well. It was a large wholly reflective assignment about teaching practice; it appeared students didn't actually reflect and there were problems benchmarking quality of reflections.

One delegate thought that the success of encouraging students to reflect depended on the personalilty/skillset of the lecturer/teacher.

Two delegates had suggestions for improvement of the reflective tick sheet aid used in the Luxhay project.

Conclusions and recommendations

Advantages of a direct assessment approach are:

All students are encouraged to reflect, not just the better performing students.

The reflection is signposted clearly to the students allowing students to be aware of their reflective ability and the process being undertaken; this is essential if they are going to transfer this skill.

Reflection is measured/assessed along with other desirable learning outcomes.

Students reflect academically in a subject-specific way as well as on employability, and therefore may learn by mistakes and uprate their future learning. In other words, reflection is not limited to skills development but also to developing learning and understanding of the subject..

Even students doing badly at a task are further encouraged to learn from it and may gain additional marks from their realisations.

Disadvantages may be:

That unless given clear pointers the reflection can be formulaic with a tendency for 'boast statements', i.e. students may not genuinely reflect.

Some staff may not be comfortable with assigning marks to a reflective process; those in this category may be staff that are uncomfortable with new ideas and changing academic styles or who feel that reflection is an entirely 'touchy-feely' process.

Reflective questions (extracted from RaceP. (2002), Evidencing Reflection: putting the 'w' into reflection [ Race, 2002 http://escalate.ac.uk/resources/reflection/][Google Scholar] )

What did I actually achieve with this piece of work? Which were the most difficult parts, and why were they difficult for me? Which were the most straightforward parts, and why did I find these easy?

What have I got out of doing this assignment? How have I developed my knowledge and skills? How do I see the payoff from doing this assignment helping me in the longer term?

What else have I got out of doing this assignment? Have I developed other skills and knowledge, which may be useful elsewhere at another time? If so, what are my own emergent learning outcomes from doing this assignment?

What was the best thing I did? Why was this the best thing I did? How do I know that this was the best thing I did?

What worked least well for me? Why did this not work well for me? What have I learned about the topic concerned from this not having worked well for me? What have I learned about myself from this not having worked well for me? What do I plan to do differently in future as a result of my answers to the above questions?

With hindsight, how would I go about this assignment differently if doing it again from scratch? To what extent will this assignment influence the way I tackle anything similar in future?

What did I find the greatest challenge in doing this work? Why was this a challenge to me? To what extent do I feel I have met this challenge? What can I do to improve my performance when next meeting this particular sort of challenge?

What was the most boring or tedious part of doing this assignment for me? Can I see the point of doing these things? If not, how could the assignment have been re-designed to be more stimulating and interesting for me?

Has it been worth the effort I put in? Do the marks represent a just reward? Should this assignment be worth more or less marks in the overall scheme of things?

Do I feel that my time on this assignment has been well spent? If not, how could I have used my time more sensibly? Or should the assignment have been designed differently? Which parts of the assignment represent the time best spent? Which parts could be thought of as time wasted?

How useful do I expect the feedback to be that I receive on my efforts for this assignment? What sorts of feedback do I really want at this point in time? What sorts of feedback do I really need at this point in time? What are my expectations of getting useful feedback now, based on the feedback (or lack of it) that I've already received on past work?

Overall, how has this assignment helped (or hindered) my motivation to learn more about this part of my syllabus? Has it encouraged me, or disillusioned me?

To what extent has this assignment helped me to clarify what I need to learn about this topic? Have I a clearer picture after doing the assignment, or a foggier one? Who can help me gain a clearer picture, if the latter?

To what extent has this assignment helped me to see where the goalposts stand for future assessments such as exams? Has it given me useful insights into what will be expected of me in future?

What advice would I give go a friend about to start on the same assignment? How much time would I suggest that it would be worth putting into it? What pitfalls would I advise to be well worth not falling into?

What are the three most important things that I think I need to do with this topic at this moment in time? Which of these do I think is the most urgent for me to do? When will I aim to start doing this, and what is a sensible deadline for me to have completed it by?

References

BiggsJ. (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Boud D.Keough, R. , WalkerD. (1985), Reflection: turning experience into learning, London: Kogan Page, 19.

BrockbankA. and McGillI. (1998), Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/OUP (avalaible for download at http://eric.ed.gov/)

DeweyJ. (1933), How we Think, Chicago: Henrey Regney.

HinettK. (2002), Developing Reflective Practice in Legal Education, UKLE. [http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/reflection/index.html]

HinettK. (2002), Improving Learning through Reflection, Part 1 and Part 2. York: Higher Education Academy [http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp?process=filter_fields&section=generic&type=some&id=29]

MoonJ. (2001), Reflection in Higher Education Learning, PDP Working Paper 4. [http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp?process=full_record&section=generic&id=72]

MoonJ. (2005), The Higher Education Academy Guide for Busy Academics No. 4, York: Higher Education Academy

RaceP. (2002), Evidencing Reflection: putting the 'w' into reflection [http://escalate.ac.uk/resources/reflection/]

SchonD. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: Josey Bass.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Encouraging reflective practice amongst students: a direct assessment approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract Abstract Reflection is a valuable tool and skill to develop high quality learning, but it seems to be a troublesome concept for both participants and facilitators. This article outlines the benefits of reflection and presents two examples of direct assessment of reflection.

# data[].attributes.body
Why reflect on corrections :

1. Encourages Metacognition

When students reflect on their mistakes, they think about their thinking. This metacognitive process helps them identify:

What they misunderstood,

Why they made the error,

And how to approach the concept differently.

2. Clarifies Misconceptions

·       Science learning often involves abstract or counterintuitive concepts (e.g., forces, energy, cells). Reflection provides a chance to confront and correct misconceptions, not just errors.

3. Promotes Deeper Learning

·       By revisiting their thought process and comparing it with the correct explanation, students move from surface-level memorization to conceptual mastery.

4. Supports Scientific Thinking

·       Reflection mimics the scientific method: forming hypotheses, testing them, analyzing results, and making adjustments. Students learn that errors are part of the learning and discovery process — just like in real science.

5. Improves Retention

·       Reflective correction involves active engagement, which improves memory retention. Writing or explaining the correct reasoning helps encode information more deeply.

6. Builds Confidence and Ownership

·       Instead of feeling defeated by mistakes, students begin to see them as learning opportunities. This shift promotes a growth mindset, where they take ownership of their learning and progress.

# data[].attributes.body
Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing

Method

To support students’ reflection for text improvement, the online system was designed for them to make self-correction and evaluate peer review. The research framework is shown in Fig. 1. Students were encouraged to reflect on their actions during (reflection-in-action) and after (reflection-on-action) text construction. It was postulated that this reflection may result in their deep thinking and understanding in text improvement.

Results

The results of this study relate to two aspects: (1) students’ reflection-in-action of text revision and, (2) students’ reflection-on-action of text improvement. Table 1 provides an overview of the students’ reflection-in-action recorded in the trace result. On average, each student received 83.92 local revisions and 5.5 global revisions from 3 to 4 peers on each essay. They engaged in reflection by reading peers’ local and global revisons, giving feedback to peers’ global revisons, and reading

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that reflecting on the processes of self-correction and peer review contributes to students’ text revision and improvement. Text improvement occured in this study as students revised their drafts in terms of local and global revisions. Both local and global revisions are new and important information for text improvement. Revisions to students’ final drafts also indicate that they integrated newly acquired knowledge with prior knowledge since new and old

# data[].attributes.body
Reflection Completes the Learning Process: A Qualitative Study at Higher Education

Sidrah Ilyas* and Muhammad Saeed **

Humphrey (2009) defined reflection as “the activity which occurred in our own minds when we stay back from the first-order process in everyday life and practice raw experiences from the distance, inviting second-order processes to come into play” (p.381). according to Moon (1999 (b), 2004, reflection is a kind of mental procedures with a unique aim and/ or expected output which is applied to comparatively complicated or even scattered ideas. Reflection as key component permits learners to make sense between theory and practice and also with the activities conducted in the classroom to be applied into their routine life. Their ideas, when become concrete, strengthen and enrich learning process (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999). Another main advantage is that reflection provides students with insight to explore those concepts which they actually think; get engaged mentally towards the readiness to act. When students enable to shape their ideas into concrete form through reflecting and make themselves engaged with the activities and readiness to improve learning in a better way, this become reflective learning. Boyd and Fales (1983) described reflective learning as the process of inner investigation and enlighten the issue of interest, produced by an experience, which make and justifies itself meaning and changed it into new conceptual viewpoint. To get experience from learning, reflection is compulsory because it enables the person to get maximum level of proficiency in behaviour due to repeating one experience for several times or try new one with a different concepts and also change cognitively. Dewey (1910) maintained that reflection, in actual meanings, helps the individual who start their journey from unbelief to clarity and lucidity. Bringle and Hatcher (1990) also defined the role of reflection in terms of making bridge between practice and theory Dewey (1910) maintained that reflection, in actual meanings, helps the individual who start their journey from unbelief to clarity and lucidity. Bringle and Hatcher (1990) also defined the role of reflection in terms of making bridge between practice and theory in the context of learning. They highlighted that the students’ learning becomes deep and strengthened due to reflection. The students who in search for a new knowledge and utilize an effective approach to learn through reflection are better than those who merely get knowledge for passing and clearing the exam for some specific purpose (Marton & Saljo, 1976).

# data[].attributes.body
https://winginstitute.org/instructional-delivery-feedback?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_8V_jysXRH1mazWc0U7lNMgh0oSreGpS/view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students Reflective thoughts about Science Content

# data[].attributes.body
"Teaching the Nature of Science through Scientific Error" (often an article or chapter by authors like Randy Allchin):

While you might find articles more readily than full books on this specific topic for primary, look for resources that advocate for teaching about scientific error as a way to understand the tentative and self-correcting nature of science. When students see that even scientists make errors and revise their thinking, it can normalize their own errors and encourage them to engage in correction.

# data[].attributes.body
Students received the graded test back and were given 1 week to answer the following questions: what was your original answer, why did you choose that answer/what were you thinking at the time, why is the answer wrong, what is the correct answer, why is it the correct answer, and what is your source of reference if different from the textbook? The students were administered a comprehensive final exam at the end of the course that determined the number of SLOs passed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ABSTRACT

Student-performed assessment correction is a well-established practice in the field of teaching and learning. This practice engages students in the feedback process and promotes active learning, which may be particularly important when serving underrepresented minority students. There is a dearth of research into the role of assessment correction in student learning outcomes (SLOs) in science courses, particularly at minority-serving institutions. Students at a Native American-serving, primarily undergraduate rural institution were allowed to perform test corrections for each of the three exams given during the term in an undergraduate introductory biology course. Students received the graded test back and were given 1 week to answer the following questions: what was your original answer, why did you choose that answer/what were you thinking at the time, why is the answer wrong, what is the correct answer, why is it the correct answer, and what is your source of reference if different from the textbook? The students were administered a comprehensive final exam at the end of the course that determined the number of SLOs passed. A Pearson correlation and a bivariate regression analysis were performed to determine if the number of test corrections performed (TC) during the term influenced the number of SLOs passed for all students, lower-achieving students, and higher-achieving students in the study. The TC correlated with, and could predict, SLOs passed for lower-achieving students only. This preliminary analysis suggests that performing test corrections may benefit lower-achieving students.

KEYWORDS: test corrections, student learning outcomes, biology major course, undergraduate, minority-serving institution

INTRODUCTION

Success in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)-related fields is dependent not only on what a student knows but also in part on the student's ability to learn from their error. Error can be used to promote student knowledge of material, and error generation can improve memory of the correct answer ( 1). However, learners require more than a simple statement of right or wrong to understand why they have erred. Previous studies indicate that receiving feedback in the form of right or wrong is not as useful as being given the correct answer or having a chance to review the material ( 2-5).

Feedback has traditionally been seen through a lens of transmission, where the authority/expert tells the learner how they are deficient. This view of feedback does not incorporate the student into the feedback exercise. Another understanding of feedback is "a process through which learners make sense of information from various sources and use it to enhance their work or learning strategies" ( 6, p 1315). This means that for feedback to be effective, students must think critically about the material. The instructor can tell a student that they are deficient in their knowledge, but the student must engage with the material, evaluate their knowledge, and obtain the information needed to bolster their knowledge. The students are no longer passive observers but are active participants in their learning process. Errors made by students provide us with the opportunity to engage learners in the feedback process.

Giving students the opportunity to explore errors and correct mistakes can improve their learning ( 7, 8). Moreover, this can help promote active learning in the classroom environment. This may prove to be particularly important for schools with large underrepresented minority and economically disadvantaged populations. A 2019 study found that active learning opportunities increased academic achievement and belongingness in students attending a school with large underrepresented minority and economically disadvantaged populations ( 9).

The literature on the association of metacognition and student success is extensive and has been reviewed in numerous publications ( 10-15). Lower-achieving students (defined as students who score lower than the course median) have reduced metacognition or understanding about how they learn ( 11, 16, 17), and metacognition is promoted when students engage in activities that allow reflection upon their learning, knowledge, and study skills ( 18). Assessment corrections may promote the use of metacognitive strategies to enhance learning in lower-achieving students if students are asked to apply retrospective analysis ( 19).

Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick propose seven principles of good feedback practice based on a review of formative assessments that promote self-regulation. They contend that good feedback practice should provide opportunities for students to self-assess, engage the teacher and learner in a dialog, and provide opportunities for students to use feedback to improve their performance ( 20). Allowing students to correct tests can be used to provide effective feedback, as defined above, and promote metacognition. Test corrections that incorporate reflection promote student use of metacognition strategies to enhance their learning because students are asked to apply retrospective analysis to their exams ( 19). Test corrections can promote self-assessment by requiring students to reflect on their thought processes during the assessment and why they came to a particular conclusion. Test corrections can also increase dialog between the learner and instructor and provide an opportunity for faculty to improve their instruction by requiring a student to explain their thought process and why they reached a conclusion. Moreover, the instructor can determine if a concept was confusing or not covered appropriately. Finally, test corrections allow summative assessments to be used as a tool to measure learning. Black and Wiliam explain that "the giving of marks and the grading function are overemphasized, while the giving of useful advice and the learning function are underemphasized" in the classroom. They further explain that this approach places students in competition with each other ( 21). Test corrections change the function of the test, as its primary purpose is no longer determining competence or rank. This may prove to be particularly important when working with underrepresented minority populations, first-generation college students, or women engaged in STEM courses, as these populations may underperform on high-stakes exams ( 22, 23).

Many of the studies exploring student-performed assessment corrections in higher education have been done in non-STEM fields; the few studies performed within the STEM fields focused only on the quality of the assessment corrections, student academic growth, content retention or, have focused on how students feel about the process of self-correction ( 24-29). This retrospective, exploratory study was conducted to determine if student participation in test corrections can influence the number of student learning outcomes (SLOs) passed in a freshman-level introductory biology course for biology majors at a minority-serving institution located in a rural setting. A hypothesis was generated: students who participate in test corrections will possess a different pass rate for SLOs compared to students who do not participate in test corrections. A prediction was made: student participation in the feedback process through the act of performing test corrections would result in increased numbers of SLOs passed. The following questions were developed to address this prediction:

Does the average number of test points received (AT) during the term influence the number of SLOs passed?

Does preparedness influence the number of SLOs passed?

Does the number of test corrections performed (TC) during the term influence the number of SLOs passed for all students, lower-achieving students, and higher-achieving students in the study?

METHODS

Human subject research

This study was designated exempt and conducted as approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Northeastern State University (The Role of Self-Assessment Corrections in Student Learning [IRB number 19-093M]).

Course description and participants. (i) Study site and population

This is a retrospective, exploratory study of existing data collected over the spring semester of 2015 in two sections of a freshman-level introductory biology course at a regional college. The institution is a Native American-serving, nontribal, primarily undergraduate institution located in a rural area. The student body is predominately female (62%), in-state resident (90%), and composed of traditional and nontraditional students. The demographics of the students enrolled in the course can be found in Table 1. While there were 74 students enrolled at the time of the final exam, only 69 students took the final exam. Existing data related to the course from a convenience sample of the 69 students who took the final exam were included in the study as the SLOs were assessed using the final exam.

TABLE 1.

Demographic

% (no.) of students

Gender

Female

56.8 (42)

Male

43.2 (32)

Major

Biology

36.5 (27)

Undeclared

32.4 (24)

Othera

31.1 (23)

Race/ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

20.3 (15)

White

37.8 (28)

2 or more races

29.7 (22)

Otherb

12.2 (9)

(ii) Course description

The course was required for the biology major and designed to meet the needs of students pursuing a biology degree; however, the course was also required for a number of other majors and could be used to satisfy the general education requirements for the university. The course covered the following: chemistry and physics of life and the central dogma of molecular biology, which mapped to SLOs 1 and 2 (exam 1); cells and cell division, Mendelian and non-Mendelian inheritance, mechanisms and evidence of evolution, phylogenies, and genes and evolution, which mapped to SLOs 3, 4, and 8 (exam 2); species and speciation, history of life on earth focusing on the evolution of species, and prokaryotic diversity, which mapped to SLOs 5, 6, and 7 (exam 3); and the comprehensive final exam, which covered eukaryotic diversity and the above-described topics, which mapped to all SLOs ( Table 2). The course was delivered face to face via lecture; however, students participated in discussion, group work, and think-pair-share during the lectures. In addition, students had weekly homework sets and biweekly online formative quizzes where students were allowed multiple attempts to provide the correct answer. The catalog description, course purpose, and SLOs can be found in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Course information

Catalog description of course

3 h; an introduction to the origins of living organisms and the mechanisms of evolution that gave rise to the current diversity of species; includes coverage of the origins and characteristics of major groups in the 3 domains of living organisms

Course purpose

This course is designed for biology majors; this lecture course will provide students information about the basic principles and mechanisms of evolution as well as an overview of the past and present diversity of life on earth

Student learning outcomes for the course

1. Describe the structure and function of DNA and its importance to evolution

2. Describe transcription, translation, and other biological processes relevant to evolution

3. Explain the relationship between genes, gene expression, and traits

4. List and describe the stages of meiosis and relate their importance to evolution

5. List and describe the various mechanisms of evolutionary change in natural populations

6. Explain how the process of evolution has led to the development of modern life forms through the process of speciation and differentiation

7. List and describe the names and characteristics of major groups of living organisms on earth, including the 3 domains of life and the 4 major groups of eukaryotes

8. Interpret evolutionary information in the form of a phylogenetic tree or cladogram

Data sources. (i) Test corrections and timeline

Students were given tests back with in 2 weeks after taking the exam and allowed 1 week to find the correct answers to the exam questions ( Fig. 1). The tests were a combination of multiple-choice, matching, and short-answer questions. The students had to answer the following questions when completing test corrections:

FIG 1.

Timeline for test corrections. The students were given 1 week to perform corrections. The corrections were made within 1 week and returned with minimal feedback from the instructor.

What was your original answer?

Why did you choose that answer/what were you thinking at the time?

Why is the answer wrong?

What is the correct answer?

Why is it the correct answer?

What is your source of reference if different from the textbook?

Students received half of the original credit back for each answer if they were correct and provided an appropriate rationale. Credit was awarded to encourage students to perform test corrections; awarding credit improves participation in assessment corrections ( 30). Students who submitted an incorrect answer again were marked incorrect and told to correct their work but for no credit. Students were told why their reasoning was flawed in instances where the instructor felt that the student required additional support based on the student's submitted explanation and were encouraged to meet with the instructor for help.

(ii) Assessment measures

Students took a final exam that contained questions that tested whether the student achieved competency regarding the course's eight SLOs at the end of the term. Competency is defined in this study as the minimum knowledge and/or skills required of a student and is determined by the program, while SLOs are statements that describe what a student should be able to do by the end of the course and were assessed on the final exam. Students who pass all SLOs are considered competent. The questions that mapped to the SLOs were designed by the author and another instructor. In most cases, a score of 60% was considered competent since 60% was the minimum score needed to pass the course with a D for all students enrolled in the course. For example, for SLOs 1 through 7, there were five questions, of which students had to answer three questions correctly to achieve an average score of 60% and be considered competent. Unfortunately, for SLO 8, one of the questions was removed due to an error in the question stem. For this reason, there were only four questions in total; therefore, students were required to answer three of the four questions correctly and achieve an average score of 75% to be considered competent. Students were given an optional preassessment test to assess their general knowledge of the material to be covered in the course, and 62 of the students completed the assessment (see Appendix SI in the supplemental material); this was used as a measurement of preparedness for the course to answer the question of whether preparedness for the course could influence the role of test corrections in the ability of students to achieve SLOs.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were compiled ( Tables 3 to 5), and analysis of the following variables occurred: the number of test corrections (TC) that students chose to perform during the term (0, 1, 2, and 3), the number of SLOs passed (0 to 8), the average number of test points received (AT) on the three exams given during the term, and the preassessment test points received (PT). Student's unpaired t test assumption of unequal variance or an independent-sample Mann-Whitney U test was performed to determine if the distributions of the variables in the individual sections were similar (Supplemental Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix SII). The tests were chosen based on whether or not the data were normally distributed. The sections were combined into one data set after determining that the distributions and variances of the individual sections were similar. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed on the data set, in addition to the creation of histograms, to determine normality (Supplemental Table 3 and Fig. S1 in Appendix SII) ( 31, 32). Statistical tests were chosen as appropriate based on these analyses (parametric versus nonparametric). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (single factor) was performed to determine if the AT received for the three tests given during the term differed between the groups of students who completed 0, 1, 2, or 3 test corrections. A Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to determine if there was a difference between the SLOs passed and PT for students based on the number of test corrections performed. Pearson's correlation and bivariate regression analyses were performed between SLOs and the variables AT and number of test corrections (TC) for the complete data set. The data set was also sorted based on AT and analyzed as described above based on lower (lower-achieving students [TC-LA]) and upper (higher-achieving students [TC-HA]) medians, and Pearson's correlation and bivariate regression analyses were performed between SLOs and TC. Confidence intervals were set at 95%, and a two-tailed analysis was performed for all tests. All analysis was done using Excel or SPSS, with the exception of the independent-sample Mann-Whitney U test for the PT variable and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Online calculators were used for these two analyses ( https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/mannwhitney/default2.aspx and https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/kruskal/default.aspx).

RESULTS

Does the average number of test points received during the term influence the number of SLOs passed?

The mean, median, and mode values for the average number of test points received (AT) were determined for the combined total of students in the study and for students based on the number of test corrections performed (TC). There was no statistically significant difference for AT between the groups based on the number of test corrections performed ( Table 3). The scatterplot in Fig. 2 indicates that there was a strong positive linear relationship between the AT and SLOs passed. A bivariate regression was calculated to predict SLOs passed based on AT and showed a statistically significant relationship between AT and SLOs passed ( P < 0.001) ( Table 6).

FIG 2.

Scatterplot showing the relationship between SLOs passed and the average test points received (AT) on the test during the term. The scatterplot showing the relationship between SLOs and AT was generated for all students ( n = 69).

Does preparedness influence the number of SLOs passed?

The mean, median, and mode values for PT were determined for the combined total of students in the study and for students based on the number of test corrections performed. There was no statistically significant difference for PT between the groups based on the number of test corrections performed ( Table 4). The scatterplot in Fig. 3 shows that there was a weak, negative linear relationship between PT and SLOs passed. A bivariate regression was calculated to predict SLOs passed based on PT and showed a statistically nonsignificant relationship between PT and SLOs passed ( P = 0.937) ( Table 6).

FIG 3.

Scatterplot showing the relationship between SLOs passed and the preassessment test score (PT). The scatterplot showing the relationship between SLOs and PT was generated for all students who took the preassessment test ( n = 62).

Does the number of test corrections performed during the term influence the number of SLOs passed for all students, lower-achieving students, and higher-achieving students in the study?

The SLO mean, median, and mode were determined for the combined total of students in the study and for students based on the number of test corrections performed. There was no statistically significant difference for SLOs between the groups based on the number of test corrections performed Table 5). The scatterplot in Fig. 4A shows that there was a weak, positive linear relationship between TC and SLOs passed. A bivariate regression was calculated to predict SLOs passed based on TC for all participants enrolled in the study and showed a statistically nonsignificant relationship between TC and SLOs passed ( P = 0.066) ( Table 6). The data set was sorted based on AT and analyzed based on the lower (lower-achieving students [TC-LA]) and upper (higher-achieving students [TC-HA]) medians. The scatterplots in Fig. 4B and C show that there was a strong, positive linear relationship between TC and SLOs passed for lower-achieving students but a weak, positive linear relationship between TC and SLOs passed for higher-achieving students. A bivariate regression was calculated to predict SLOs passed based on TC for lower-achieving students and showed a statistically significant relationship between TC-LA and SLOs passed ( P = 0.015) ( Table 6). This was not so for TC-HA and SLOs ( P = 0.126) ( Table 6).

FIG 4.

Scatterplots showing the relationship between SLOs passed and test corrections completed (TC). Scatterplots showing the relationship between SLOs and TC were generated for all students ( n = 69) (A), low-achieving students ( n = 34) (B), and high-achieving students ( n = 35) (C).

DISCUSSION

Research indicates that minority and female students have reduced self-efficacy, have higher anxiety, and benefit from active learning approaches ( 33, 34). Active learning opportunities appear to increase academic achievement and belongingness in students attending schools with large underrepresented minority populations ( 9). Test corrections promote an active learning environment by creating an opportunity for students to reflect on their learning and why they erred, engage the student in the feedback process, allow the instructor to determine if a concept is communicated clearly, and may provide an opportunity for students to increase their metacognitive skills. While there are many benefits to test corrections, the exercise is labor-intensive for the instructor, and some find it prohibitively burdensome ( 24). Therefore, an exploratory study using existing data from an introductory biology course was initiated in order to determine if performing test corrections increased the SLO pass rate at a minority-serving institution located in a rural setting. This study found that the number of test corrections performed correlated with and could predict the number of SLOs passed for lower-achieving students only, while AT correlated with and could predict the number of SLOs passed for all students.

Previous studies exploring the role of test corrections on assessment scores in STEM courses found them to be beneficial for students at lower academic levels. Mynlieff et al. used ACT scores to sort students by academic level and found that students with low ACT scores (17 to 23) benefited more than those with higher scores from test corrections in an introductory biology course ( 25). Unlike this study, they found that test corrections positively benefited the performance of all students. The discrepancy between these studies may be due to the previous study assessing student performance 2 weeks after versus at the end of the term, as was done in this study. Alternatively, sample size differences may play a role ( 35). In addition, studies exploring the impact of student performance of quiz corrections in a physics course ( 28, 29) found that interventions that require students to self-assess their problems appeared to reduce the difference in scores between lower- and higher-achieving students.

Lower-achieving students have reduced metacognitive monitoring ( 11, 18), and metacognition is promoted in lower-achieving students when they engage in activities that allow them to reflect upon their learning, knowledge, and study skills ( 16). Moreover, analysis of test strategy has a positive effect on exam preparation and performance ( 36). Mynlieff et al. found similar gains in the intervention groups of students with low ACT scores who participated in test corrections and of those who participated in small-group discussions of incorrectly answered questions. However, students with high ACT scores benefited from test corrections only ( 25). Students who are higher achievers may already be participating in activities that promote metacognition; therefore, they do not benefit from exam discussions ( 25). If true, this enhanced metacognitive monitoring could mask the effect of test corrections in the higher-achieving cohort analyzed in this study. Interestingly, there was a weak, positive linear relationship between AT and TC, and a simple linear regression indicated that AT could predict TC (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental materials of Appendix SIII). This indicates that higher-achieving students in this study were more likely to participate in an activity that promotes metacognition. While AT correlated with SLOs passed, PT did not. This is interpreted to mean that a student may come in less prepared, but if they gain the skills required to be effective in their learning, they have an increased probability of success. Training students to self-assess errors, by reflecting on their knowledge and learning, helps students determine what they need to do to achieve ( 21).

In summary, the act of performing test corrections may be beneficial for lower-achieving students, as TC correlated with and was predictive of SLOs passed for lower-achieving students only. While AT correlated with and was predictive of SLOs passed for all students, PT did not correlate with SLOs passed. It is predicted that a student's ability to adapt metacognitive strategies may be the strongest indicator of the number of SLOs passed. It is proposed that efforts be made to identify students with poor study skills and provide them with resources to help them develop self-assessment, correcting skills, and metacognitive strategies.

Limitations

The sample size for this study is small and could potentially mask the impact of test corrections on SLOs ( 35). Moreover, this study was performed on one cohort of students at a regional school, and these students may not be representative of the general college population. However, this study may be informative for universities and colleges that serve minority and rural populations. In addition, while the SLO assessment questions were decided by the author and another faculty member based on the SLOs and the material covered during the course, the SLO assessment questions were not validated by an outside source.

This study did not explore the quality of the test corrections, the difficulty of the questions corrected, or the number of questions corrected per student for each test correction assignment. This limited analysis may mask the effect of performing test corrections; however, the results of this exploratory study suggest that the act of performing test corrections may be beneficial for lower-achieving students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Demetri Plessas, Jason Wasserman, and Dan Gildner for their help regarding the statistical analysis. I thank Stephen Loftus, Mark Paulissen, Judith Venuti, Nadia Wieczorkowski, and Barbara Joyce for their help editing the manuscript. I thank Ableser and Amanda Hess for advice regarding publishing this study.

The Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine supported this study.

I declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Supplemental material is available online only.

REFERENCES

23. Madaus G, Clarke M. 2001. The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students: evidence from 100 years of test data, p 85-106. In Orfield G, Kornhaber M (ed), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. Century Foundation Press, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials

Articles from Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Test Corrections Appear To Benefit Lower-Achieving Students in an Introduction to Biology Major Course: Results of a Single-Site, One-Semester Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student-performed assessment correction is a well-established practice in the field of teaching and learning. This practice engages students in the feedback process and promotes active learning, which may be particularly important when serving ...