Impact of Portfolio Assessment on Physics Students’ Outcomes: Examination of Learning and Attitude

Abdulkadir Gunay; Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a

Full Text (PDF)

Abdulkadir Gunay ¹, Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu ² ^*

More Detail

¹ Bilecik Anatolian High School, TURKEY² Marmara University, TURKEY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

In spite of the commendations for the use of portfolio assessment, there is still little evidence indicating that such assessment actually supports and encourages student learning. Hence, this research study aimed to empirically identify the effects of implementation of portfolio assessment on student learning and attitudes. True-experimental design was used for the study. Participants of the research were nine-grade students. Portfolio assessment was implemented in the experimental group for eight-week duration in the physics course. Findings illustrate that the students assessed by the portfolio constructed more knowledge than the students that did not prepare a portfolio. On the other hand, portfolio assessment did not make any difference in the students’ attitudes towards physics. This study concludes that portfolios are not only an indication for student growth but also a learning tool.

Keywords

Portfolio assessment
learning
attitude
physics

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.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2014, Volume 10, Issue 6, 667-680

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a

Publication date: 01 Dec 2014

Article Views: 2145

Article Downloads: 1156

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Bekiroğlu, F. (. (2005). Ölçme ve değerlendirmede alternatif yöntemler ve portfolyo kullanımı. Edu7 Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 1(1) 5.
Bagley, S. S. (2010). Students, teachers and alternative assessment in secondary school: Relational models theory (RMT) in the field of education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 83–106.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and instruction: A social-cognitive theory.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bendall, S., Galili, I., & Goldberg, F. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169–1187.
Bose, J., & Rengel, Z. (2009). A model formative assessment strategy to promote student-centered self-regulated learning in higher education. US-China Education Review, 6(12), 29–35.
Century, D.N. (2002). Alternative and traditional assessment: Their comparative impact on students’ attitudes and science learning outcomes: An exploratory study. Unpublished dissertation. Philadelphia, USA: Temple University.
Chang, C. C., & Tseng, K. H. (2009). Use and performances of Web-based portfolio assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 358–370.
Chang, C., Tseng, K., & Lou, S. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a Web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58, 303–320.
Chen, G., Liu, C., Ou, K., & Lin, M. (2000). Web learning portfolios: A tool for supporting performance awareness. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38, 19–30.
Chu, V. (2002). Effects of portfolio assessment on children’s writing performance and conceptions of learning. Unpublished MEd dissertation, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Colin, P., & Viennot, L.(2000). Using two models in optics: Students’ difficulties and suggestions for teaching. American Journal of Physics. 69(7), 36–44.
Collins, A. (1992). Portfolios for science education: Issues in purpose, structure, and authenticity. Science Education, 76(4), 451–463.
De Bruin, H. L., Van der Schaaf, M. F., Oosterbaan, A. E., & Prins, F. J. (2012). Secondary-school students’ motivation for portfolio reflection. Irish Educational Studies, 31(4), 415–431.
Dochy, F.J.R.C., & McDowell, l. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 4(23), 279–298.
Dori, Y. J. (2003). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the “Matriculation 2000” Project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 34–52.
Driessen, E. W., van Tartwijk, J., Overeem, K., Vermunt, J. D., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2005). Conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education, 39, 1230–1235.
Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62 (4), 509–515.
Gagne, R.M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R.M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988). Essential of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 57–88.
Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Hirn, C., & Viennot, L. (2000). Transformation of didactic intentions by teachers: the case of geometric optics in grade 8. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 357–384.
Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J., & Slot, W. (2009). The effects of portfolio-based advice on the development of self-directed learning skills in secondary vocational education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 439–460.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1997). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Maeroff, G.I. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 272–281.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 47–62.
Martinez-Lirola, M., & Rubio, F. (2009). Students’ beliefs about portfolio evaluation and its influence on their learning outcomes to develop EFL in a Spanish context. International Journal of English Studies, 9 (1), 91–111.
McMillan, J.H. (2011). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
Paris, S., Lipscorn, M., & Wilson, K. (1985). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts & P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). New York: Academic Press.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77-84.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994) Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sen, I.A. (2003). Examination of elementary science students’ misconceptions and learning difficulties about light, vision, and mirrors. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 25, 176–185.
Slater, T. F., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. L. (1997). Impact and dynamics of portfolio assessment and traditional assessment in a college physics course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 255–271.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279–294.
Tezci, E., & Dikici, A. (2006). The effects of digital portfolio assessment process on students’ writing and drawing performances. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2) Article 2.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wilson, L. (April, 1994). A Theoretical framework linking beliefs with assessment practices in school mathematics: Assessment reforms in search of a theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, L.A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED377215).
Wood, J. M. (2007). Understanding and computing Cohen’s Kappa: A tutorial. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html.
Valdez, P.S. (2001). Alternative assessment: A monthly portfolio project improves student performance. Science Teacher, 68(8), 41–43.
Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613–621.
Zollman, A., & Jones, D. L. (1994, February). Accommodating assessment and learning: Utilizing portfolios in teacher education with pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Research Council on Diagnostic and Prescriptive Mathematics, Fort Worth, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED368551).

How to cite this article

APA

Gunay, A., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2014). Impact of Portfolio Assessment on Physics Students’ Outcomes: Examination of Learning and Attitude. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(6), 667-680. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a

Vancouver

Gunay A, Ogan-Bekiroglu F. Impact of Portfolio Assessment on Physics Students’ Outcomes: Examination of Learning and Attitude. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(6):667-80. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a

AMA

Gunay A, Ogan-Bekiroglu F. Impact of Portfolio Assessment on Physics Students’ Outcomes: Examination of Learning and Attitude. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(6), 667-680. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a

Chicago

Gunay, Abdulkadir, and Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu. "Impact of Portfolio Assessment on Physics Students’ Outcomes: Examination of Learning and Attitude". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2014 10 no. 6 (2014): 667-680. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a

Harvard

Gunay, A., and Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2014). Impact of Portfolio Assessment on Physics Students’ Outcomes: Examination of Learning and Attitude. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(6), pp. 667-680. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a

MLA

Gunay, Abdulkadir et al. "Impact of Portfolio Assessment on Physics Students’ Outcomes: Examination of Learning and Attitude". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 10, no. 6, 2014, pp. 667-680. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1227a