Developing a Web-Based Mechanism for Assessing Teacher Science Content Knowledge

  • Al Byers
  • Susan Koba
  • Greg Sherman
  • Joan Scheppke
  • Roger Bolus
Article
  • 174 Downloads

Abstract

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) recently launched a comprehensive electronic professional development (e-PD) online portal, the NSTA Learning Center. This support site for educators currently includes over 6,000 e-PD resources and opportunities available on-demand, as well as various tools designed to help educators maximize the effectiveness of using NSTA resources. One tool, the PD Indexer, helps teachers identify their own areas of content strengths and weaknesses by selecting content-specific assessments. Individual NSTA resources are recommended based on assessment outcomes. This paper presents a detailed description of the procedures employed by NSTA to develop valid and reliable PD Indexer content-specific multiple-choice assessment items.

Keywords

Online professional development Science content knowledge Teacher self-assessment 

References

  1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Leaderman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. America COMPETES Act, H.R. 2272, 110th Congress, 1st Session, (2007).Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved April 29, 2009 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/708.
  5. Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493–535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bashaw, W. (1991). Assessing learner performance. In L. Briggs, K. Gustafsen, & M. Tillman (Eds.), Instructional design: Principles and applications (pp. 151–167). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2007). Fifty-state analysis of the preparation of teachers and conditions for teaching: Results from the NCES schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC: Blank, R. K., & Toye, C.Google Scholar
  9. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2008). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  12. Educational Testing Service. (2009). ETS Guidelines for fairness review of assessment, Princeton, NJ. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from http://www.ets.org/Media/About_ETS/pdf/overview.pdf.
  13. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gagne, R., & Driscoll, M. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching. Education Next, 2, 50–55.Google Scholar
  16. Griffith, G. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hambleton, R. K., & Rodgers, H. J. (2004). Developing an item bias review form. ERIC Doc: ED398241. Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from http://ericae.net/ft/tamu/biaspub2.htm.
  18. Hanuscin, D. L., & Lee, M. H. (2008). Using the learning cycle as a model for teaching the learning cycle to preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heywood, D. S. (2007). Problematizing science subject matter knowledge as a legitimate enterprise in primary teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37, 519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howitt, C. (2007). Preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions of factors in a holistic methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang, N. (2007). Elementary teachers’ epistemological and ontological understanding of teaching for conceptual learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1292–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luera, G. R. (2005). What type and level of science content knowledge of elementary education students affect their ability to construct an inquiry-based lesson. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merrill, M. D., & Tennyson, R. (1994). Teaching concepts: An instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Mundry, S. (2005). Changing perspectives in professional development. Science Education, 14, 9–15.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  28. Sullivan, H., & Higgins, N. (1983). Teaching for competence. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the national commission on mathematics and science teaching for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Department of Education, & National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Common core of data (CCD), State nonfiscal survey of public elementary/secondary education, 20002001 through 20052006. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_062.asp?referrer=list.
  31. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, S. P. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education (No. REC-9814246). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Al Byers
    • 1
  • Susan Koba
    • 2
  • Greg Sherman
    • 3
  • Joan Scheppke
    • 4
  • Roger Bolus
    • 5
  1. 1.e-Learning and Government PartnershipsNational Science Teachers AssociationArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Science Education Consultant President-Elect National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA)OmahaUSA
  3. 3.School of Teacher Education and Leadership, College of Education and Human ResourcesRadford UniversityRadfordUSA
  4. 4.Education Consultant CarlsbadUSA
  5. 5.Research Solutions GroupEncinitasUSA

Personalised recommendations