Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 523–539 | Cite as

Factors that Affect Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Initial Implementation of Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Using a Classroom Response System

  • Hyunju Lee
  • Allan Feldman
  • Ian D. Beatty


The purpose of this study is to uncover and understand the factors that affect secondary science and mathematics teachers’ initial implementation of Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment (TEFA), a pedagogy developed for teaching with classroom response system (CRS) technology. We sought to identify the most common and strongest factors, and to understand the general process of how teachers adopt TEFA. We identified ten main hindering factors reported by teachers, and found that time limitations and question development difficulties are reported as the most problematic. In this paper we provide five vignettes of teachers’ initial implementation experiences, illustrating different courses that TEFA adoption can follow. We classify our ten factors into four groups: contextual factors that directly hinder teachers’ attempts to implement TEFA (extrinsic type I); circumstances that affect teachers’ teaching in general (extrinsic type 0); gaps that teachers have in the knowledge and skills they need to adopt TEFA (intrinsic type I); and ways of being a teacher that describe teachers’ deeper perspectives and beliefs, which may be consonant or dissonant with TEFA (intrinsic type II). Finally, we identify four general categories that describe the teachers’ initial TEFA implementation.


Teacher education Classroom response system Formative assessment 



This material is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant numbers TPC-0456124 and TPC-1005652. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We also want to acknowledge the contribution by all the members of the TLT project team. Most of all, we want to thank the teachers who volunteered to participate in this project.


  1. Abrahamson LA (2006) A brief history of networked classrooms: effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications. In: Banks DA (ed) Audience response systems in higher education: applications and cases. Idea Group, Hershey, pp 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatty ID, Gerace WJ (2009) Technology-enhanced formative assessment: a research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. J Sci Educ Technol 18(2):146–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatty ID, Feldman A, Leonard WJ, Gerace WJ, St. Cyr K, Lee H, Harris R (2008) Teacher learning of technology-enhanced formative assessment. Paper was presented at Annual meeting of National Association of Research in Science Teaching, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell B, Cowie B (2000) Formative assessment and science education. Kluwer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80(2):139–148Google Scholar
  6. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (eds) (1999) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen D (1987) Educational technology, policy, and practice. Educ Eval Policy Anal 9:153–170Google Scholar
  8. Cuban L (1986) Teachers and machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuban L (2001) Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffield JA (1997) Trials, tribulations, and minor successes: integrating technology into a preservice preparation program. TechTrends 42(4):22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dufresne RJ, Gerace WJ, Leonard WJ, Mestre JP, Wenk L (1996) Classtalk: a classroom communication system for active learning in large lecture halls. J Comput High Educ 7(2):3–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan D (2006) Clickers: a new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astron Educ Rev 5(1):70–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Egbert J, Paulus TM, Nakamichi Y (2002) The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: a foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Lang Learn Technol 6(3):108–126Google Scholar
  14. Ertmer PA (1999) Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educ Technol Res Dev 47(4):47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldman A (1997) Varieties of wisdom in the practice of teachers. Teach Teach Educ 13:757–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feldman A, Capobianco BM (2008) Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. J Sci Educ Technol 17:82–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fies C, Marshall J (2006) Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 15(1):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallagher JJ (2000) Teaching for understanding and application of science knowledge. School Sci Math 100(6):310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hancock V, Betts J (1994) From the lagging to the leading edge. Educ Leadersh 51(7):24–29Google Scholar
  20. Hope WC (1997) Why technology has not realized its potential in schools. Am Second Educ 25(4):29Google Scholar
  21. Kay R, Knaack L (2009) Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary school science classrooms. J Sci Educ Technol 18:382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee H, Feldman A, Beatty ID (2009) Teachers’ implementation of classroom response system to perform formative assessment in secondary science/math classes. Proceeding paper presented at annual meeting of National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Penuel WR, Boscardin CL, Masyn K, Crawford VM (2007) Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: a survey study. Educ Technol Res Dev 55:315–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramaprasad A (1983) On the definition of feedback. Behav Sci 28(1):4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadler R (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci 18:119–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schrum LM (1995) Telecommunications for personal and professional uses: a case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheingold K, Hadley M (1990) Accomplished teachers: integrating computers into classroom practice. Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Shelton M, Jones M (1996) Staff development that works! A tale of four t’s. NAASP Bull 80(582):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. St. Cyr K (2009) Teacher change facilitated by sustained school situated professional development: exemplar learning of Technology Enhanced Formative Assessment (TEFA). Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts AmherstGoogle Scholar
  31. Smerdon B, Cronen S, Lanahan L, Anderson J, Iannotti N, Angeles J, Greene B (2000) Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: a report on teachers’ use of technology. Statistical Analysis Report. US Department of EducationGoogle Scholar
  32. Stengel B (1996, April). Teaching epistemology through cell reproduction: a narrative exploration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Strauss AL, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  34. Trees A, Jackson M (2007) The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learn Media Technol 32(1):21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood E, Mueller J, Willoughby T, Specht J, Deyoung T (2005) Teachers’ perceptions: barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Educ Commun Inf 5(2):183–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum StudiesUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Department of Secondary Education, College of Education EDU 105University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  3. 3.Physics Education Research Group, Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations