Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ Ideas and Concerns with Assessment Practices in Inquiry Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Inquiry into the Singapore Science Classroom

Part of the book series: Education Innovation Series ((EDIN))

Abstract

Issues with assessment have traditionally been viewed with great importance as it is used (1) for placement of students in different tracks, (2) as a proxy for allocation of funds to educational institutions, and (3) for assessing students’ learning. In Singapore, assessment practices have generally been summative in nature and aimed at evaluating what students have learnt and gained from school. The idea of formative assessment is relatively new for most teachers in science classrooms. Using task probes in a questionnaire format, we examined the factors that 39 grade four science teachers consider as they decide on inquiry tasks for their students. Based on their considerations, we infer their ideas of formative assessment as they engaged in science as inquiry and highlight concerns and dilemma that emerge as they report on their practices of science inquiry and formative assessment. We raised the concerns of the low level of teachers’ understanding of the principles related to formative assessment and the perceived conflicts with summative assessment requirements and their practices of science as inquiry in the classrooms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abell, S. K., & Volkmann, M. J. (2006). Seamless assessment in science: A guide for elementary and middle school teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, J. M., Black, P., & Coffey, J. E. (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21(1), 49–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. J., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, G. A., Trauth-Nare, A., & Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment discernible to pre-service teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 402–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Planning Development Division [CPDD]. (2008). Science syllabus – Primary 2008. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers’ Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W., Brand, J., & Brown, R. (2003). Enhancing inquiry through formative assessment. San Francisco: Exploratorium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4, 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heng, S. K. (2010, September 16). Parliamentary replies: Primary one assessment. Accessed May 9, 2013, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2010/09/primary-one-assessment.php

  • Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2011). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.604684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Tan, A.-L., & Talaue, F. (2013). New vision and challenges in inquiry-based curriculum change in Singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 701–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R. L., & Millar, M. D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore [MOE]. (1998). Learning, creating, communicating: A curriculum review – Report by External Review Team. Accessed October 6, 2012 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/1998/980321.htm

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore [MOE]. (2009). Report of the primary education and implementation committee. Accessed on October 6, 2012 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2009/04/peri-report.pdf

  • National Science Foundation [NSF]. (1997). The challenge and promise of K–8 science education reform (Foundations: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education, Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitko, A. J. (2004). Educational assessment of students (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework – Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/preschoolandschool/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33694881.pdf

  • Popham, J. (2003). Teach better, test better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2008a). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2008b). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Cornwall, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Yue, Y., Furtak, E. M., Araceli Ruiz-Primo, M., Ayala, C. C., Young, D. B., et al. (2008). On the role and impact of formative assessment on science inquiry teaching and learning. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 21–36). Washington, DC: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappa, 90, 640–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, A.-L., & Wong, H.-M. (2012). “Didn’t get expected answer, rectify it.”: Teaching science content in an elementary science classroom using hands-on activities. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomanek, D., Talanquer, V., & Novodvorsky, I. (2008). What do science teachers consider when selecting formative assessment tasks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1113–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). The future of assessment. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The ‘filtering effect’ of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Walk 1, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Poh-Hiang Tan & Aik-Ling Tan

Authors
  1. Poh-Hiang Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aik-Ling Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aik-Ling Tan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore

    Aik-Ling Tan

  2. Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Chew-Leng Poon

  3. National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore

    Shirley S.L. Lim

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Survey: Electrical Circuits

Objective of the Survey

To study teacher’s reasoning when they select tasks for use in formative assessment.

Introduction

Thank you for your participation in this study.

This questionnaire is based on the three formative assessment tasks given in Appendix A.

The formative assessment tasks were set based on the following learning outcomes:

  1. 1.

    Recognise that an electric circuit consisting of an energy source (battery) and other circuit components (wire, bulb, switch) forms an electrical system.

  2. 2.

    Show an understanding that a current can only flow through a closed circuit.

  3. 3.

    Identify electrical conductors and insulators.

Please help to complete the survey questions in pages 2–3. Your feedback should be based on your own recent experience when you taught the topic ‘electricity’ to one of your classes.

Thank you for your help.

  • Information about you:

  • Name (optional): -------------------------

  • Race: ------------------- Gender: --------

  • Number of years of experience in teaching science: -----------

  • Highest qualifications (academic): ------------------

  • Professional qualifications: ---------------------

Background of the Lesson

You have introduced to your students ideas of electrical circuits, complete circuit, and electrical conductors.

  1. (a)

    If you were now to formatively assess your student when teaching a lesson with the above objectives, what assessment tasks, T1, T2, or T3, would you choose?

    Possible Considerations

    1. 1.

      Suitability of task

    2. 2.

      Students

    3. 3.

      Other reasons

  2. (b)

    Why did you not choose the other two assessment tasks? In what situations do you think these two tasks could be used?

    Possible Considerations

    1. 4.

      Suitability of task

    2. 5.

      Students

    3. 6.

      Other reasons

Task 1: Direct Questioning/Process Skill Textbook: Individual Work (T1)

The diagram below shows an incomplete circuit with gaps at X, Y, and Z and identical light bulbs L1 and L2.

figure a

John placed three rods, one made of glass, one made of iron, and another made of copper on X, Y, and Z.

Only L2 lights up.

What can you conclude about the objects at X, Y, and Z? Explain your answer.

Are there other possible answers? If yes, what are they?

Task 2: Inquiry-Based Activity: Pair Work (T2)

Question: Can we tell if an object is a good conductor of electricity by its appearance?

Predict if the following items are good conductors of electricity:

Item

Good conductor of electricity

 

Yes

No

1. Aluminium foil (arolled as a stick)

  

2. Rubber stick

  

3. Thick copper wire (athere is a layer of transparent insulation that needs to be removed for it to conduct electricity)

  

4. Strip from a soft drink (acolourful can, e.g., coca cola)

  
  1. a( ) information for teachers

You are given the following apparatus that need or need not be used:

  1. 1.

    Battery in holder

  2. 2.

    Connecting wires with crocodile clips

  3. 3.

    Light bulb in holder

  4. 4.

    Switch

  5. 5.

    Sandpaper

  6. 6.

    A4 paper

  7. 7.

    Scotch tape

  1. (a)

    Design a circuit to test whether the above items are good conductors of electricity.

  2. (b)

    Use your circuit to confirm if your predictions are correct.

  3. (c)

    Is/are there any item(s) that did not behave as predicted? What could be the reason? You may conduct other tests to check on your reasons.

Task 3: Guess My Connection: Group Work (T3)

Shoebox Puzzle
figure b
figure c

Your group is given the following apparatus:

  1. 1.

    A shoebox with a switch, a battery, and two light bulbs (L1 and L2) on the cover of the box.

  2. 2.

    A glass rod

  3. 3.

    A aluminium foil

  4. 4.

    An iron rod

  5. 5.

    Six connecting wires

  6. 6.

    A piece of A3 paper

Make a shoebox puzzle using the following steps:

  1. 1.

    On the given paper, design a possible circuit which contains a battery, a switch, two light bulbs, and three rods (one made of glass, one made of aluminium foil, and another made of glass).

  2. 2.

    Predict what happens when you switch on the circuit.

  3. 3.

    Connect this circuit using the given apparatus. The connections must not be seen and must be made under the cover of the box.

  4. 4.

    Is your prediction correct? If not, why?

  5. 5.

    Repeat steps 1–4 until you are satisfied with your design.

After you have completed your shoebox puzzle, exchange your shoebox puzzle with another group. While the other group will try to solve your puzzle, your group must also try to solve their puzzle in as short a time as possible by drawing out the possible connections.

Present your solution to the owners of the puzzle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tan, PH., Tan, AL. (2014). Teachers’ Ideas and Concerns with Assessment Practices in Inquiry Science. In: Tan, AL., Poon, CL., Lim, S. (eds) Inquiry into the Singapore Science Classroom. Education Innovation Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-78-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation