Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 1–20 | Cite as

Student explanations of their science teachers’ assessments, grading practices and how they learn science

  • María del Carmen Gomez
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The current paper draws on data generated through group interviews with students who were involved in a larger ethnographic research project performed in three science classrooms. The purpose of the study from which this data was generated, was to understand science teachers’ assessment practices in an upper-secondary school in Sweden. During group interviews students were asked about their conceptions of what were the assessment priority of teachers, why the students were silent during lecturing and their experiences regarding peer- and self-assessments. The research design and analysis of the findings derives from what students told us about their assessments and learning sciences experiences. Students related that besides the results of the written test, they do not know what else teachers assessed and used to determine their grades. It was also found that students did not participate in the discussion on science because of peer-pressure and a fear of disappointing their peers. Student silence is also linked with student conceptions of science learning and student experiences with methodologies of teaching and learning sciences.

Keywords

Student perspectives Teacher’s assessment Science learning Swedish upper-secondary school 

Sammanfattning

Den här artikeln bygger på data som kommer från gruppintervjuer med elever som deltagit i ett större etnografiskt forskningsprojekt utfört i tre klassrum på de naturvetenskapliga programmen. Syftet med studien var att förstå lärarnas bedömningspraktiker i de naturvetenskapliga programmen i en gymnasieskola i Sverige. Under gruppintervjuer frågades eleverna om deras uppfattningar om vad lärare prioriterar när de bedömer elevernas lärande, varför eleverna var tysta under lektionerna och deras erfarenheter när det gäller kamrat- och självbedömning. Forskningsdesign och analys av resultaten härrör från vad eleverna berättade om sitt lärande och deras bedömningserfarenheter. Studenter berättade att, förutom resultatet av det skriftliga provet, vet de inte vad lärare bedömer och vad lärare använder för att bestämma deras betyg. Det visade sig också att eleverna inte deltar i diskussioner om vetenskap, på grund av grupptryck och en rädsla för att göra sina kamrater besvikna. Studenternas tystnad hänger också samman med studenternas föreställningar om naturvetenskapligt lärande och studenternas erfarenheter av metoder för undervisning och lärande av naturvetenskapen.

Nyckelord

Elevperspektiv Lärarens bedömning Vetenskap lärande Svenska gymnasieskolan 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Black, P. (2003). The importance of everyday assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom: Science educators’ essay collection (pp. 1–12). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). “In praise of educational research”: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623–638. doi: 10.1080/0141192032000133721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Basset, P., Chowne, A., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 750–765. doi: 10.1037/0022-663.98.4.750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1970). Reproduktionen. Sweden: Moderna klassiker. Arkiv förlag. Översättning Gunnar Sandin. Lund.Google Scholar
  6. Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, A. B. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implication for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810–834. doi: 10.1002/tea.20228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cizek, G. J. (2000). Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 92(2), 16–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2000.tb00026.x.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Engström, S., & Carlhed, C. (2014). Different habitus: different strategies in teaching physics? Relationships between teachers’ social, economic and cultural capital and strategies in teaching physics in upper secondary school. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 699–728. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9538-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forsberg, E. & Lindberg, V. (2010) Svensk forskning om bedömning—En kartläggning. Vetenskapsrådet. Vetenskapsrådet rapportserie, 2:2010. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish research on assessment—a mapping. The Swedish Council of Science Research 2:2010, 1–135.Google Scholar
  12. Gómez, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2014). Everyday classroom assessment practices in science classrooms in Sweden. Cultural Studies of Science Education,. doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9595-y.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, C. (2011). Peer- and self-assessment. In Sanna Järvelä (Ed.), Social and emotional aspects of learning (pp. 169–173). Oxford, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Haug, P. (2003) Evaluering av Reform 97. Sluttrapport frå styret for Program for evaluering av Reform 97. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Research Counsil.Google Scholar
  15. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavonen, J., Angell, C., Ellen, R., Bymen, K., Henriksen, E. K., & Koponen, I. T. (2007). Social interaction in upper secondary physics classrooms in Finland and Norway: A survey of students’ expectations. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(1), 81–101. doi: 10.1080/00313830601079082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lundahl, C. (2011). Bedömning för lärande [Assessment for Learning]. Stockholm: Nordstedt. Sweden.Google Scholar
  18. Lundford Mears, C. (2009). Interviewing for education and social science research. The gateway approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lysne, A. (2006). Assessment theory and practice of students’ outcomes in the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 327–359. doi: 10.1080/00313830600743365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mack, L. (2012). Does every student have a voice? Critical action research on equitable classroom participation practices. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 417–434. doi: 10.1177/1362168812436922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, A. M., & Hand, Brian. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of Argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17–38. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education, 2, 149–170. doi: 10.1080/09695940701478321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norrild, P., Angell, C., Bang, H., Larsen, C., Paulsen, A., & Stubgaard, S. (2001). Fysik i skolen skolen i fysik. Evaluering af fysik i det almene gymnasium. Copenhagen: Danmarks evalueringsintitut.Google Scholar
  24. Nyström, E. (2007) Talking and taking positions. An encounter between action research and the gendered and racialised discourses of school science. Doctoral dissertation in Pedagogy, Nr 16. [Doktorsavhandlingar i Pedagogiskt arbete Nr 16]. Umeå: Umeå University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  25. Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment: Fairness through the prism of mediation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 99–112. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2011.567090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5, 77–84. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. M. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement. In W. M. Reynolds & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, vol 7: Educational psychology (pp. 177–198). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei0709.Google Scholar
  28. Stipulation 1980:64 [Förordning 1980:64]. Lgr 1980. Swedish Curriculum Compulsory School (1980). Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  29. Swedish Ministry of Education. (1994). Swedish National curriculum. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  30. Swedish Ministry of Education. (2013). Swedish National curriculum. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  31. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedbaack in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 281–294. doi: 10.1080/09695940701591867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wertsch, J. V. (1978). Voices of the main: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wiliam, D. (2000). Formative assessment in mathematics. Part 3: The Learner’s role. Equals Mathematics and Special Educational Needs, 6(1), 19–22.Google Scholar
  34. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meaning and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537–549. doi: 10.1080/0141192960220502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options