In the seminar unit "Diagnostic tests in chemistry classes", students learn the theoretical structure of learning objectives, diagnostic tests and individual task types. In addition, they learn special features for usage in an inclusive classroom. These theoretical constructs are put into practice by the teacher students in each individual session, e.g. by creating their own diagnostic tests in the working periods of the seminar. Thus, a seminar is always composed of a theoretical input through Power-Point-presentations and practical working periods, which are characterized by a variety of methods. All results will be presented by the teacher students to each other, explained and discussed with the other teacher students. The focus of the seminar is on three topics which are repeatedly linked with each other. These includes the formulation of learning objectives according to Mager (1977), test accommodations in test design and test environments according to Lovett and Lewandowski (2015) as well as the modification (Kettler et. al., 2012) of individual task types. The aim is to prepare teacher students as comprehensively as possible for various special educational needs. The individual seminar sessions are listed in Table 1 and are explained in more detail below.
Table 1. Content of the seminar
Session Title
1. Learning status diagnostics for inclusive classrooms – Conceptualization
2. Learning status diagnostics for inclusive classrooms – Formulation of learning goals
3. Assessment in inclusive classrooms 4. Closed questions for inclusive classrooms
(e.g. multiple-choice item, matching task, …) 5. Semi-opened questions for inclusive classrooms
(e.g. cloze, concept-cartoon, …)
6. Open-ended questions for inclusive classrooms (e.g. short-answer item, interpretative task, …) 7. Exercise unit –
Learning goals & assessment in inclusive classrooms
1724 Session 1
The seminar unit starts directly with a task, which serves to establish a personal relation to the importance of diagnosis for the students. In this way, a change of the inner attitude towards the significance of pedagogical diagnostics for their own teaching should be achieved. For this purpose, we present the teacher students fictitious statements, similar to those they know from their own school days. These fictitious statements are worded through the perspective of students that either lack any diagnosis by their teacher or are diagnosed incorrectly. After a guided conversation, there is a Power-Point-presentation on diagnostics and the close connection between diagnosis and individual support. In order to clarify and differentiate the most important concepts on the subject of learning objectives and diagnostic tests, the method of group puzzle is used. On the basis of a pre-defined mind map in DINA-3-size and matching texts, the teacher students become experts in one area and impart the newly acquired knowledge to the other teacher students, while they can record everything in keywords on the mind-map-printout.
Session 2
The second seminar session deals with the formulation of learning objectives. The concepts already learned are repeated at the beginning of a classroom conversation. This is followed by a presentation on the various functions of learning objectives and the formulation according to Mager (1977). This gives a comprehensive impression as a basis and can be well developed later in the teacher training. Furthermore, the subdivisions according to Mager (1977) are linked with the behavioral and content dimension according to Gage and Berliner (1996) and a schema is provided for formulation. The Power-Point-presentation is interrupted by short questions and work phases in which, for example, words that can be used as operators have to be assigned to the different requirements (KMK, 2013) by actively sorting the terms on the blackboard by the teacher students. After the informative input, the teacher students have to formulate learning objectives independently and assign them to the terms learnt in the first seminar session.
Session 3
The third seminar session is dedicated to the use of diagnostic tests in inclusive learning classrooms. By using the Think-Pair-Share method, we work out which particularities are to be taken into account when formulating learning objectives in lessons with inclusive students.
After that follows a link between the Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2011) and the related model of Universal Design for Assessment (UDA) (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2015). The UDA mostly represents the possibilities of test accommodation, which are explained in detail in the seminar. The aim is to create a test for all learners in order to achieve the maximum possible fairness. A summary of the principles is given in Table 2. In order to grasp the guidelines adopted by Universal Design and applied to tests (Story, Mueller & Mace, 1998), teacher students work in groups on different texts. In the end, each group formulates a guideline and a teaching example and presents it to the whole group. As a supplementary model to the test accommodation, the modification is to be considered which aims to offer a differentiated diagnostic test at different levels (Kettler et al., 2012). The model of the modification is briefly
1725
explained, but not in full detail, as numerous examples will follow in the following three seminar sessions.
Table 2. Principles of UDA (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2015, pp. 213-216)
Number Principle 1. Equitable Use
This principle encourages the design of assessments that are fair, identical wherever possible, and accessible to all persons.
2. Flexibility in Use
This principle encourages creativity in the way test materials are presented and responses collected.
3. Simple and Intuitive Use
This principle encourages test designs that are elegant in their simplicity. Test designs should not be burdensome, punitive, or excessively long.
4. Perceptible Information
This principle encourages test designs to maximize legibility and comprehensibility.
5. Tolerance of Error
This principle encourages tests that can still be administered properly when something goes wrong.
6. Low Physical Effort
The intent of this principle is to foster test designs that minimize nonessential physical effort in order to allow maximum energy and attention to the cognitive aspects of the test.
7. Size and Space for Approach and Use
This principle serves to remind us that examinees vary in body size, hand size, reach, visual acuity, mobility, and posture.
Sessions 4 to 6
The contents of the following three seminar sessions are structured in a similar way as each seminar session deals with a different task format. The teacher students get to know a total of 15 different task types which can be classified into three common task formats: closed, semi-open and semi-open. The teaching method changes in each session. In addition, at the beginning of each of the three seminar sessions, the task format is briefly introduced and at the end, all advantages and disadvantages are collected in the plenary session. In seminar session four, five types of tasks are presented in a closed task format. The structure, the criteria and the possibilities of modification are explained for each task type. This is accompanied by specific example tasks. Afterwards, the teacher students create their own tasks in small groups and differentiate them on three levels. They use the self-defined learning goals of the second seminar session. Laptops and textbooks are made available to the teacher students. In order to provide feedback for all participants, the results are exchanged and feedback is given to each
1726
other. Finally, the teacher students discuss selected examples in the plenary session. The focus of the fifth seminar session is on semi-open task formats. This time, the topic is worked out by the teacher students. In pairs of two, they receive posters on which they find a sample task and the name of the task type. They have to find criteria and develop modifications independently.
In addition, the assigned example task is to be differentiated in three levels. The seminar session ends with a gallery walk to present all results. Seminar session six is very similar to the fourth seminar session, but with the subject of the closed questions. It is supplemented by a summary of all modification options.
Session 7
The last seminar session is a practice unit in which the teacher students have to reapply their acquired knowledge and link it thematically to new knowledge. Laptops, textbooks, curricula and materials from the other seminar sessions are available. The assignment requires the teacher students to choose a topic and to use the curriculum to formulate learning objectives.
On the basis of these learning objectives, appropriate diagnostic tests have to be developed.
Each task format should be represented once. When creating the diagnostic instrument, the teacher students have to take a given setting of a class composition into account and adapt the diagnostic test to the individual characteristics of the students. In this seminar session, the teacher students receive support from the lecturer and open questions can be answered.
RESULTS
The first results of the main study are presented below. So far, not all of the collected data have been evaluated. Therefore, the following results are preliminary.
Cognitive Change
The teacher students significantly improved their ability to handle learning objectives and diagnostic tests in inclusive classrooms (p < .015, δ = 1.331, n = 9).
The self-efficacy, attitude and willingness of the teacher students concerning the use of diagnostic tests in the inclusive classrooms are significantly improved (Self-efficacy: p < .001, δ = 1.20, n = 25; Attitude: p = .002, δ = 0.71, n = 25; Willingness: p = .004, δ = 0.64, n = 25) (Figure 1).
Appreciation of the seminar
The seminar is perceived as attractive by the teacher students (M = 4.481 = negative to 5 = positive, n = 25).
1727
Figure 1. Attitude, willingness and self-efficacy test
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Impact of the seminar unit
The first impression of the main study corresponds to our expectation as the seminar improves the teacher students’ competence, self-efficacy, attitude and willingness significantly.
Especially the self-efficacy has been improved to a great extent. Moreover, the teacher students consider the seminar as attractive.
Practical implementation
Subsequently, we will analyze the diagnostic tests, which have been conducted by the teacher students in the internship semester.
Effects on the leaners
Furthermore, the questionnaires for the students about to their opinion on the diagnostic test and the degree of difficulty will be surveyed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Finally, I would like to thank my working group for the support and all the participating teacher students and students for their cooperation.
REFERENCES
Black, P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31.
Center of Applied Special Technology (CAST) (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Fischer, A., Hößle, C.; Jahnke-Klein, S., Kiper, H., Komorek, M., Michaelis, J., Niesel, V., & Sjuts, J.(2014). Diagnostik für lernwirksamen Unterricht (pp. 15-39). Hohengeren: Schneider Verlag.
3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4
Mean
1 = totally disagree (negative) to 5 = totally agree (positive)
Pre Post
Attitude Willingness
Self-efficacy
1728
Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1996). Pädagogische Psychologie (Vol. 5). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2015). Testing Accommodations for Students With Disabilities:
Research-Based Practise (pp.207-223). Baltimore: United Book Press.
Kettler, R. J., Dickenson, T. S., Bennett, H. L., Morgan, G. B., Gilmore, J. A., Beddow, P. A., Palmer, P. W., Swaffield, S., Turner, L., Herrera, B., & Turner, C. (2012). Enhancing the Accessibility of High School Science Tests: A multistate experiment. Exceptional Children, 79, 91-106.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler Publishers, Inc.
KMK (2013). Operatorenliste Naturwissenschaften. Recieved from:
https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Bildung/Auslandsschulwesen/Kerncurriculum/Ope ratoren_Ph_Ch_Bio_Februar_2013.pdf
(02.01.2018)
Mager, R. F. (1977). Lernziele und Unterricht. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2009). Gesetz über die Ausbildung für Lehrämter an öffentlichen Schulen (Lehrerausbildungsgesetz - LABG), § 2, Abs.
2. In der Fassung vom 12. Mai 2009 (GV. NRW. S. 308), zuletzt geändert durch Gesetz vom 14.
Juni 2016 (GV. NRW. p. 310). Recieved from:
https://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Recht/LAusbildung/LABG/LABGNeu.pdf (02.01.18)
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2005). Schulgesetz für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (SchulG-NRW), § 1, Abs. 1. In der Fassung vom 15. Februar 2005 (GV. NRW. S. 102), zuletzt geändert am 13. November 2012 (GV. NRW. p. 514).
Recieved from:
http://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Recht/Schulrecht/Schulgesetz/Schulgesetz.pdf (01.01.18)
Prengel, A. (2013). Humane entwicklungs- und leistungsförderliche Strukturen im inklusiven Unterricht. In: Moser, V. (Eds.), Die inklusive Schule: Standards für die Umsetzung (pp. 177-185). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer GmbH.
Shinn, E., & Ofiesh, N. S. (2012). Cognitive Diversity and the Design of Classroom Tests for All Learners. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 227-245.
Story, M. F, Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities. North Carolina State University: The Center for Universal Design.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2005). Formative Assessment:
Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms. Paris: OECD Publishing.
United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Diabilities.
Recieved from: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150 (02.01.2018)
1729