An investigation of assessment and feedback practices in fully asynchronous online undergraduate mathematics courses

Abstract

Research suggests it is difficult to learn mathematics in the fully asynchronous online (FAO) instructional modality, yet little is known about associated teaching and assessment practices. In this study, we investigate FAO mathematics assessment and feedback practices in particular consideration of both claims and findings that these practices have a powerful influence on learning.

A survey questionnaire was constructed and completed by 70 FAO undergraduate mathematics instructors, mostly from the USA, who were each asked to detail their assessment and feedback practices in a single FAO mathematics course. Alongside these questions, participants also answered the 16-item version of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. In addition, a novel feedback framework was also created and used to examine how feedback practices may be related to participants' approaches to teaching.

Results show that assessment and feedback practices are varied and complex: in particular, we found there was not a simple emphasis on summative assessment instruments, nor a concomitant expectation these would always be invigilated. Though richer assessment feedback appears to be emphasized, evidence suggests this feedback may not be primarily directed at advancing student learning. Moreover, we found evidence of a reliance on computer--human interactions (e.g. via computer-assisted assessment systems) and further evidence of a decline in human interactions, suggesting a dynamic that is both consistent with current online learning theory and claims FAO mathematics courses are becoming commodified. Several avenues for further research are suggested.

Keywords:

• online learning
• tertiary mathematics
• feedback
• assessment
• approaches to teaching

Acknowledgements

This study is based on dissertation research conducted by Sven Trenholm at the Mathematics Education Centre of Loughborough University and under the supervision of Lara Alcock and Carol Robinson.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. There are some exceptions: remote students may, for example, phone to ask for help. On campus students may, for example, use ‘office hours’ to ask for help.

2. Learning effectiveness in this study is considered as a measure of how institutions FO learning is equivalent to or better than F2F learning.

3. Within a single course, one could argue that ‘final exams’ are the only exception. The inclusion of other ‘exams’ or ‘tests’ is considered debatable given it is unclear to what degree these exams are intended to just measure or also close the learning gap. For example, if retakes are available or if corrections can be submitted for extra credit.

4. Number discrepancy due to missing data.

5. Attesting to its association with CAA systems, 94% of all feedback in the former two categories was also identified as immediate.

6. There are two limitations to this comparison. First, it was gained by asking department heads, not actual instructors, to estimate the ‘percentage of sections’ taught using ‘commercial or locally produced online-response homework and testing systems’ (for two-year mathematics departments) or “online homework generating and grading packages” (for four-year mathematics and statistics departments). Second, the use of CAA is expected to have increased since 2005.

7. For example,

P4: Of course...in the online course the quizzes and exams are all on the online software… and in the F2F, of course, it's paper and pencil.

P5: ... [In FAO courses] many people just want to use the packages [CAA] that are put forth by the publishers and they, you know, sacrifice some of these higher level skills for ease in terms of grading and implementing a course. So it's a real problem.