Effect of Daily Class Assignment on Academic Achievement and Academic Anxiety of Senior Secondary School Students
Monika Thakwani^{1}, Anjana Verma^{2}
^{1}Research Scholar, Department of Pedagogical Sciences, Dayalbagh Educational Institute
(Deemed to University), Dayalbagh, Agra (282005), India.
^{2}Assistant Professor, Department of Pedagogical Sciences, Dayalbagh Educational Institute
(Deemed to University), Dayalbagh, Agra (282005), India.
*Corresponding Author Email: monikathakwani7@gmail.com, anjanaverma@dei.ac.in
ABSTRACT:
This paper spotlighted findings of the Effect of Daily Class Assignments as a formative assessment technique on the Academic Achievement and Academic Anxiety of Senior Secondary Students. This assessment strategy was designed to revamp assessment, remove constraints, and make teaching learning more powerful. The experiment was conducted on students of 11th standard; a pretest was taken to equalize both the experimental and control group. After equalization, economics was taught for 15 days to both groups, but DCA evaluation through DCA was done only for the experimental group after teaching, while the other was left uninterrupted after teaching. Posttest of Academic achievement and anxiety was administered to both groups to determine the effect of DCA. Results pictured the positive impact of DCA on Academic Achievement, but no difference was seen in the Academic Anxiety of students after the experiment.
KEYWORDS: Daily Class Assignment, Formative Assessment, Academic Achievement, Academic Anxiety.
INTRODUCTION:
“Tomorrow lies in the brains of today”, so it is the responsibility of educators to train the minds of young buds so that they can blossom as an asset for the nation in the future.
Human Capital Theory states that youth is a vital resource for a country’s development. It says that the welfare of society not only relies upon financial, material, or human resources but it also relies upon the knowledge and skills of individuals (Crocker, 2006, p.1)^{1}.
As the knowledge and skills of individuals are directly related to a country’s headway, it is obligatory to concentrate on the teachinglearning process embraced to train young shells. TeachingLearning is an essential pillar in the placement and building of the nation, and teachers act as a spine for these pillars (Sreedevi, 2015)^{2.}
The teachinglearning process holds various components determining content, discovering instructional materials, delivering content, evaluating, etc. Evaluation is one of the vital components which judges the effectiveness of overall teaching and helps enhance student achievement (Dunn and Mulvenon, 2009, p.1)^{3}. CBSE introduced CCE in 2009 to bring effectiveness to the evaluation system of schools. CCE refers to Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation, in which students will be examined through summative and formative assessment to ensure a holistic assessment of students. (CBSE, 2009)^{4}. Summative assessments are used to measure learners’ progress of how much they have learned after some time which may be quarterly, halfyearly, or within a year so that they can be checked with the required standards and can be delivered certificates needed for further education. In contrast, formative assessment is used to measure performance continually at each step of learning to identify the demands of students and instruct accordingly.
Researchers, policymakers, and teachers in education are developing more interest in formative assessment as it helps recognize student and teacher progress in a classroom activity. Formative assessment is used as a strategy and action used by teachers to assess teachinglearning from the feedback provided by students and further use that information to make a blueprint for organizing teaching and planning learning outcomes (Meenakumari,2017)^{5}.^{ }It also helps to pick teaching techniques, feasible programs, reliable inferences, and students' cognitive processes (Ogunniyi, 1984, as cited in Srinivasan, 2016, p.4)^{6}.^{ }Learners play an active role in formative assessment by providing information essential to make decisions for development and a better awareness of students’ knowledge (Berry, 2008, as cited in Ozan and Kincal, 2018, p.86)^{7}.
Several classroom techniques can be used for formative assessment, which will help understand students' progress and capacities. These may pass the question, MCQ, map making, oneminute paper, etc. All these techniques have their usages and may be applied to distinct classroom situations at other times whenever appropriate. One of the efficient formative assessment techniques is one minute paper. Oneminute paper is an evaluation technique performed at the end of the class, which needs some questions to be answered by students at the end of the course (David, 2005, p.119)^{8}.^{ }Although a oneminute paper is an efficient formative assessment technique, it lacks in some areas as students may not take it seriously if overused or underplanned (Angelo and Cross, 2016, “Cons”, para.3)^{9}. Another similar formative assessment technique, DHA Daily Home Assignment, is being practiced at Dayalbagh Educational Institute, which refers to evaluating students based on every lecture delivered to them. As per this assessment technique, students are given an assignment after each class to do at home and submit it the next day to evaluate their learning in each lecture. (Satsangi and Gupta, 2016, p.7)^{10}. Keeping this assessment technique in mind and making it more efficient for meaningful learning, a researcher came across an evaluation technique named Daily Class Assignment.
Daily Class Assignment is a versatile multidimensional, readily employable assessment technique that can be used in the classroom for quick, simple, and effective feedback. It is a system of evaluation that evaluates teaching and learning after every lecture. In this system of assessment, the teacher teaches for 35 minutes and, after that, takes a 5 minutes test based on what they have taught in the class. This test can be subjective, objective, or activity based as per the convenience of the topic. Students’ responses are evaluated by the teacher based on their responses in a test. This strategy is helpful for teachers as it helps them to know the drawbacks in the understanding level of students and discuss the difficulty areas of students.
This system of Daily Class Assignments not only helps students by improving attention, understanding, retention, creativity, questioning skills, concentration, and learning skills students but will also help teachers to evaluate their teaching and respond to the necessities of the students.
Figure 1Features of DCA (Author’s own)
All the above features highlight the utility of Daily Class Assignments as a formative assessment strategy; although there are a lot of assessment strategies that serve as a platform for solving many issues, DCA helps to fulfill the overall aim of teaching; it covers endtoend i.e. from student to teacher. It aims to resolve significant challenges of an existing situation, like attention, retention, and discipline in the classroom. With the help of other assessment techniques, teachers can assess the difficulties and level of understanding of students. Still, with DCA, teachers can also increase student’s attention in the classroom as they will be aware of the truth that they have to answer questions related to teaching content at the end of class, which will overall boost teaching effectiveness and can benefit bring a significantly change in the academic achievement of the students.
DCA serves as a precious tool in the hands of teachers by furnishing them with the flexibility to mold evaluation as per their needs. It gives the teacher the strength to concentrate and assess every student's domain, from cognitive and psychomotor to effective. As DCA can be objective, subjective, or activitybased, the teacher can formulate it as per the class necessity and requirement, which benefits in efficient evaluation to enhance results from both sides, i.e. from teaching to learning.
Implementation of DCA:
Figure 2Flow Chart of Implementation of DCA (Author’s own)
As the above flow chart shows an implementation of DCA in class, i.e. its application after teaching in various structures and then evaluation by a teacher to find out the drawback of students so that teacher can further work on them and implement modifications in the next class for a better learning experience for students. It can be used as a diagnostic test that gives feedback to teachers, and with the help of feedback, teachers can also design remedial classes for students. The method will facilitate inclusiveness in the classroom by catering necessities of students.
DCA, as a formative assessment strategy, functions at all levels, i.e. from primary to higher education. At the primary level, the teacher can give a short gamebased activity to students so that they remain curious during the entire session and the goals of effective teachinglearning are fulfilled. For example: If names of color are taught, then at the end of class, the teacher may provide students worksheet comprising any shape to paint and write its name.
Similarly, at the secondary level, an objective quiz comprising five questions may be given at the end of class to know what students have learned. The teacher can frame DCA as per the course's content and the teachinglearning requirements. At a higher level, the teacher may inquire about the opinion of students on what they have understood in the class through a subjective or objective question. Due to the flexibility of DCA, it can be smoothly applied at any level of teaching and may yield valuable information about the impact of teachinglearning.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
With the transforming trend in education, innovations are being brought up and implemented to make teachinglearning a practical experience. Different phases of teaching, i.e. preactive phase, interactive, and postactive, require additional and crucial attention. A teacher has to concentrate on all three stages and deliver a promising outcome to students. To provide influential teaching, the teacher should focus on shortcomings that can be minimized by focusing on assessment. Different assessment techniques fulfill other purposes, but to uncover an assessment technique that can meet all senses of the evaluation and also help in elevating teaching, the researcher investigates an assessment technique and focuses on these objectives: (i) To compare the Academic Achievement of a control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in pretest scores. (ii) To compare the Academic Anxiety of the control and experimental groups of senior secondary school students in pretest scores. (iii) To compare the academic anxiety of the control and experimental groups of senior secondary school students in posttest scores. (iv) To compare the Academic Achievement of a control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in posttest scores. To fulfill these objectives, the QuasiExperimental method was applied with a twogroup pretest and posttest research design.
Sample for the Study:
The data was collected from Sumeet Rahul Goel Memorial Sr. Sec. School, India, was selected through purposive sampling. Further, two intact groups were chosen, i.e. two sections of the 11th standard; Section A was considered the experimental group having 30 students, and Section B was regarded as the control group having 31 students. The selection of experimental and control groups was made through Random Sampling. The equivalency of groups was compared by academic performance in public exams of 10th standard.
Instruments Used in the Study:
To measure the effect of DCA on Academic Achievement and Academic Anxiety of the students, the researcher used two tools; the first tool of Academic Achievement was constructed by the researcher. For constructing the tool, the researcher first made a blueprint of the tool as a primary draft, and then the tool was distributed to the experts in the field. After that reliability and validity of the tool were calculated. Out of 22 items, only two items were rejected, the rest 20 items were accepted, and the validity was calculated through Lawshe Content Validity Ratio. The result of content validity was found to be 0.83, which made the tool valid for further implementation on students. Another tool used was the Academic Anxiety Scale for Children(2009) for measuring Academic Anxiety, which was constructed by Dr. A.K. Singh and Dr. A. Sen Gupta. It had 20 items, and the tool's reliability was 0.60, whereas the validity was 0.57.
Procedure:
Preparation Phase: Before teaching, lesson plans for all 15 classes were formulated, and along with them, DCA was planned and, composed, scrutinized by subject experts.
Intervention Phase: Academic Achievement was tested through scores of public exams, and Academic Anxiety tests of both groups were tested through an anxiety scale to ensure equalization of both groups. After testing the preanxiety and achievement of students, teaching was carried on; the control group was taught Economics for 35 minutes by the researcher, and the experimental group was taught Economics for 30 minutes and then, it was evaluated daily through DCA (formative assessment) after teaching in the last 5 minutes, whereas the control group was assessed after 15 days of teaching (summative assessment).
Post Phase: Post Academic Achievement and Post Academic Anxiety were tested, and results were analyzed to find and put together conclusions about the study conducted.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
Comparison of Academic Achievement of the control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in pretest scores.
As the research design of the present experiment demands two groups, it is compulsory to make two equal groups of subjects. For this, the researcher selected a school with two commerce sections. By using the purposive sampling technique, one section was considered as a control group, and the other was considered experimental. The experimental group was taught and evaluated by Daily Class Assignments, whereas the other was taught according to the conventional method to see the effect of DCA on Academic Achievement. It was also important to compare the two groups to check the equalization of both groups before experimentation. For this mean, S.D. and tTest were computed and compared statistically, which is presented in the table.
Table 1: Exihibiting Mean, S.D. And TTest of Both Groups in PreTest
S. No 
Groups 
N 
Mean 
S.D. 
TTest 
P Value 
1. 
Control group 
30 
8.76 
42.69 
0.63 
Not significant at p<.05 
2. 
Experimental group 
30 
9.13 
58.34 
The data in the above table enumerates the nature of the sample. The mean and standard deviation were calculated to determine the academic level of both groups. The table shows the control group's mean was 376.84, and the standard deviation was 42.69, whereas the experimental group exhibited a mean of 383.24 and a standard deviation of 58.34. Further, the tvalue was calculated as 0.63 on a degree of freedom 28, which was less than the table value is 2.048 at a .05 level of confidence. So, the null hypothesis that there is “no significant difference between Academic Achievement of the control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in pretest scores” can be accepted. Scores of both groups reflect that students' academic level was approximately similar in both groups, which made further experimentation appropriate.
Figure 3: Exhibiting Mean and S.D. of Experimental and Control Groups in PreTest
Here, both groups tend to be the same regarding educational achievement. It ensures that both groups belong to the same population. This was taken as the baseline for further experimentation.
Comparison of the Academic Anxiety of the control group and experimental group of senior Secondary school students in pretest scores.
For comparing the academic anxiety of the control and experimental group, an anxiety test was conducted, in which every student had to answer 20 questions related to anxiety, yes or no. These questions tested the anxiety level of students of both groups. Further, the results were analyzed to compare the anxiety level of students through mean, standard deviation, and ttests.
Table 2: Exhibiting Mean, S.D. And TTest of Both Groups in PreTest
S. No. 
Groups 
N 
Mean 
S.D. 
TTest 
P Value 
1. 
Control Group 
30 
8.67 
2.23 
0.96 
Not significant at p<.05 
2. 
Experimental Group 
30 
8.73 
2.19 
The data in the above table enumerates the nature of the sample. Mean, standard deviation, and ttests were calculated to compare the academic anxiety of both groups. The table shows the control group’s mean was 8.67, and the standard deviation was 2.23, whereas the experimental group exhibits a mean of 8.73 and a standard deviation of 2.19. As the mean of both groups was less than 9, it depicts that students belong to the low category level of Academic Anxiety as per the anxiety scale. Further, a ttest was calculated to compare the academic anxiety of both groups. The computed value of the ttest at 0.05 level of confidence and 28 degrees of freedom is 0.96, which is less than the table value (1.70). So, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the Academic Anxiety of the control group and the experimental group of senior secondary school students in pretest scores is accepted. Acceptance of the hypothesis depicts that there is no difference between the anxiety level of both groups in the pretest.
Figure 4 Exhibiting Mean and S.D. of Experimental and Control Groups in PreTest
The above figure exhibits that the mean and S.D. of both groups were almost equal, and students exhibit the same level of Academic stress.
Comparison of the Academic Achievement of the control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in posttest scores
For comparing the effect of DCA on Academic Achievement, an achievement test was constructed for class 11th students whose validity was checked before applying it to students; the test comprised 20 questions associated with the content taught to students in the classroom. The test was given to both the experimental and control group, and then results were analyzed to find the mean, standard deviation, and ttest of both groups.
Table 3 Exhibiting Mean, S.D. and TTest of Both Group in PostTest
S. No 
Groups 
N 
Mean 
S.D. 
TTest 
P Value 
1. 
Control Group 
30 
10.13 
1.50 
3.73 
Significant at p<.05

2. 
Experimental Group 
30 
12 
1.72 
The above table shows that the experimental group's mean was 12, and the standard deviation was 1.72. In contrast, the mean of the control group is 10.13, and the standard deviation is 1.50, which reflects that the academic scores of the experimental group are more than the control group. The ttest compares the performance in tests given by experimental and control groups. The calculated ttest value (3.73) on a degree of freedom 28 was high than the table value (2.75) at a .05 level of confidence. So, the null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference between Academic Achievement of the control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in posttest scores”, is rejected. Hence, the hypothesis gets rejected, which states that the academic level of the experimental group improves after conducting Daily Class Assignments. Here, the result shows that evaluating daily yields better and more efficient results than considering after a unit or semester.
Figure 5: Exhibiting Mean and S.D. of Experimental and Control Group In the PostTest
A significant level of difference in Academic Achievement is found within both groups. This result was also seen in one similar research: (Gupta and Satsangi, 2016)^{ (10)} worked on the effectiveness of Daily Home Assignments on Academic Achievement and Academic Stress of undergraduates; this study used a purposive sampling method on 200 students, including 50 members from each faculty of Dayalbagh Educational Institute. The study compared scores of CT/QT with that of Daily Home Assignment, and with the help of the ttest, it was found that there was a significant difference between scores and that the present system of evaluation was more effective. Academic stress was also evaluated, and it was found that stress was normally distributed among students.
Comparison of the academic anxiety of the control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in posttest scores.
Further, to compare the academic anxiety of the control and experimental group, the postanxiety test was conducted, in which every student had to answer 20 questions related to pressure, yes or no. These questions tested the anxiety level of students of both groups. This test was conducted after teaching both groups and evaluating the experimental group through Daily Class Assignments for 20 days. Further, the results were analyzed to compare the anxiety level of students through mean, standard deviation, and ttests.
Table 4: Exhibiting Mean, S.D. And TTest of Both Group in the PostTest
S. No 
Groups 
N 
Mean 
S.D. 
TTest 
P Value 
1. 
Control Group 
30 
8.84 
2.29 
0.86 
Not significant at p<.05 
2. 
Experimental Group 
30 
8.94 
2.11 
The data in the above table enumerates the nature of the sample. Mean, standard deviation and ttests were calculated to compare the academic anxiety of both groups. The table shows the mean of the control group was 8.93, and the standard deviation was 2.29, whereas the experimental group exhibits a mean of 8.94 and a standard deviation of 2.11. As per the academic anxiety tool, if the mean is nine or less, the Academic Anxiety of the students is low, which means they are carefree towards their studies. Further, a ttest was calculated to compare the academic anxiety of both groups. The calculated ttest value (0.86) on a degree of freedom is 28, less than the table value (1.70) at a .05 level of confidence. This accepts the hypothesis, “There is no significant difference between Academic Anxiety of the control group and experimental group of senior secondary school students in posttest scores”. The hypothesis’s acceptance depicts no difference between the anxiety level of both groups in the posttest. The result may be due to less time given during the intervention period in the experiment done by the researcher.
Figure 6: Exhibiting Mean and S.D. of Experimental and Control Group in PostTest
There is no significant difference in the Academic Anxiety of both groups. Anxiety may result in both positive and negative outcomes (Dhull, 2013)^{11}. This result was opposed by one similar research conducted (Nigam and Gautam, 2017)^{12}. Comparative study of the effect of Daily Home Assignments on the academic stress of students in different faculties of Dayalbagh Educational Institute, India. The result inferred that the level of stress was normally distributed under the Daily Home Assignment system, which reveals that this system of evaluation had a positive impact on the Academic Stress of students. This variation in result may be due to the less time contributed to experiment with decreasing anxiety levels.
CONCLUSION:
The above data analysis shows that students' academic achievement increases when regular Daily Class assignments are taken along with teaching. Still, no effect was seen on academic anxiety as it remains the same. This may be due to the less time contributed to the study. Daily Class assignments won’t be confined just to a good evaluation technique but will create scope in different areas and create a ground for remedial classes. It will also help to create an inclusive classroom where the needs of the students can be catered to through DCA. Further, it will help create a better studentteacher relationship and help students know about their weaknesses in every session, which creates a scope for selfdevelopment in students leading to better learning in the future.
REFERENCES:
1. Crocker, R. Human Capital Development and Education. Canadian Policy Research Networks. (2006)
2. Sreedevi, D. P. (2015). Teaching Competency of Student Teachers. International Journal of Advances in Social Science.
3. Mulvenon, K. D. A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. (2009).
4. Sharma, P. K. Implementation of Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation in the Light of RTE Act2009: A Study. New Delhi: NCERT. (2020)
5. Meenakumari, N. (2017). Assessment of Effectiveness of Formative Assessment on Academic Excellence among Paramedical Students. International Journal of Nursing Education and Research.
6. Srinivasan, P. Evaluation in EducationEducational Evaluation. Laxmi Book Publication. (2016).
7. Kincal, C. O. The Effects of Formative Assessment on Academic Achievement, Attitudes towards the Lesson, and SelfRegulation Skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. (2018)
8. Stead, D. R. A review of the oneminute paper. Active Learning in Higher Education. (2005).
9. Cross, T. A. (n.d.). Active Learning in the Classroom. Academic Technology.
10. Gupta, P. Effectiveness of Daily Home Assignment on Undergraduates' Academic Achievement and Academic Stress. India. (2016).
11. Dhull, J. (2013). Academic Anxiety of the X Class Students in Government and Private Schools about Their Achievement in Science. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Science.
12. Gautam, T. Comparative Study of Effects of Daily Home Assignment on Academic Stress of Students in Different Faculties of Dayalbagh Educational Institute. India. (2017).
Received on 07.04.2023 Modified on 02.05.2023
Accepted on 24.05.2023 ©AandV Publications All right reserved
Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2023;14(2):8288.
DOI: 10.52711/23215828.2023.00017