Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 607–638 | Cite as

Complementary assessments of prospective teachers’ skill with eliciting student thinking

  • Meghan ShaughnessyEmail author
  • Timothy A. Boerst
  • Susanna Owens Farmer
Article

Abstract

As teacher education shifts to focus on teaching beginners to do the work of teaching, assessments need to shift to focus on assessing practice. We focus on one teaching practice, eliciting student thinking, in the context of elementary mathematics. We describe assessments in two contexts (field and simulation). For each assessment, we describe the eliciting of three prospective teachers what could be seen about the skills of group of prospective teachers (N = 44). We report on how three prospective teachers had differing opportunities to demonstrate their skills in the context of the field assessment, but similar opportunities in the context of the simulation assessment. Although both contexts make important contributions, in each case, contributions are counterbalanced are by significant challenges. Although the authors do not argue for one assessment context over the other, they offer insights into the affordances and challenges of each so that teacher educators can make responsible decisions.

Keywords

Practice-based teacher education Eliciting student thinking Elementary mathematics Assessment of novices’ skills 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 1316571, 1502711).

References

  1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,60(5), 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal,109(5), 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice,5(1), 7–74.Google Scholar
  5. Boerst, T., Sleep, L., Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2011). Preparing teachers to lead mathematics discussions. Teachers College Record,113(12), 2844–2877.Google Scholar
  6. Boulet, J., Smee, S., Dillon, G., & Gimpel, J. (2009). The use of standardized patient assessments for certification and licensure decisions. Simulations in Healthcare Spring,4(1), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2013). Classroom discussions in math: A teacher’s guide for using talk moves to support the Common Core and more, Grades K-6 (3rd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education,16, 523–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, E. A., & Boerst, T. (2014). Designing elementary teacher education to prepare well-started beginners. TeachingWorks Working Papers. TeachingWorks: University of Michigan. Retrieved on August 1, 2016 from http://www.teachingworks.org/research-data/workingpapers.
  10. Dieker, L. A., Straub, C., Hughes, C. E., Hynes, M. C., & Hardin, M. C. (2014). Virtual environments can take us virtually anywhere. Educational Leadership,71(8), 54–58.Google Scholar
  11. Dotger, B. H. (2014). Beyond, tears, tirades, and tantrums: Clinical simulations for school leader development. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Dotger, B., & Alger, A. (2012). Challenging parent, challenged curricula: Utilizing simulated interactions to enhance school leader preparation. Planning and Changing,43(3/4), 344–362.Google Scholar
  13. Dotger, B., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2009). But what do I say? Educational Leadership, 66. Retrieved on August 1, 2016 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/summer09/vol66/num09/But-What-Do-I-Say%C2%A2.aspx.
  14. Fuson, K. C., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Mathematical understanding: An introduction. In M. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom (pp. 217–256). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ginsburg, H. P., Jacobs, S. F., & Lopez, L. S. (1998). The teacher’s guide to flexible interviewing in the classroom: Learning what children know about math. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  17. Grossman, P. (2010). Learning to practice: The design of clinical experience in teacher preparation. AACTE & NEA policy brief.Google Scholar
  18. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record,111(9), 2055–2100.Google Scholar
  19. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,41, 169–202.Google Scholar
  21. Kazemi, E., Ghousseni, H., Cunard, A., & Turrou, A. C. (2015). Getting inside rehearsals: Insights from teacher educators to support work on complex practice. Journal of Teacher Education,67(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning. The Elementary School Journal,109(5), 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education,64(5), 378–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNamara, J., & Shaughnessy, M. (2015). Beyond pizzas & pies: 10 Essential strategies for supporting fraction sense. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.Google Scholar
  26. Moss, P. A. (2010). Thinking systematically about assessment practice. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 355–374). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2003). Assessing education candidate performance: A look at changing practices. Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Shaughnessy, M., & Boerst, T. (2018a). Uncovering the skills that preservice teachers bring to teacher education: The practice of eliciting a student’s thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shaughnessy, M., & Boerst, T. (2018b). Designing simulations to learn about preservice teachers’ capabilities with eliciting and interpreting student thinking. In G. Stylianides & K. Hino (Eds.), Research advances in the mathematical education of pre-service elementary teachers—An international perspective (pp. 125–140). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. TeachingWorks. (2011). High leverage teaching practices. Retrieved October 13, 2012, from http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-practices.
  31. Walker, J., & Dotger, B. (2011). Because wisdom can’t be told: Using comparison of simulated parent-teacher conferences to assess teacher candidates’ readiness for family-school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education,63(1), 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 18–40). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Michigan, School of EducationAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations