Advertisement

Assessment Practices: Empowering Mathematics and Science Teachers in Rural Secondary Schools to Enhance Student Learning

  • Debra PanizzonEmail author
  • John Pegg
Article

Abstract

Aligned with recent changes to syllabuses in Australia is an assessment regime requiring teachers to identify what their students ‘know’ and ‘can do’ in terms of the quality of understanding demonstrated. This paper describes the experiences of 25 secondary science and mathematics teachers in rural schools in New South Wales as they explore the changing nature of assessment and its implications on their classroom practice. To help reconceptualise these changes, teachers were introduced to a cognitive structural model as a theoretical framework. Throughout the 2-year study, teachers attended a series of professional development sessions and received ongoing consultative support. Each session was taped and transcribed while interviews were conducted with each teacher at the end of both years. Analysis of these data using a grounded theory approach identified seven major components of teacher practice impacted by the study. The core component was questioning while the six contributing components were teachers’ pedagogical practices, attention to cognition, teaching strategies, assessment linked to pedagogy, classroom advantages for students, and classroom advantages for teachers. These findings represent a major shift in teachers’ perceptions of assessment from a focus on the accumulation of students’ marks to one of diagnosis as a means of directing teaching to enhance students’ scientific and mathematical understandings.

Key words

assessment pedagogy professional development SOLO model teachers’ perceptions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bell, B. & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Sci Educ, 85, 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. Alberta J Educ Research, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Educ, 32, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behaviour. In Rowe, H. (Ed.), Intelligence: reconceptualisation and measurement (pp. 56–76). Melbourne, Victoria: ACER.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P. & Harrison, C. (2000). Formative assessment. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp. 25–40). Buckingham, MK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Board of Studies (2003). Assessment for learning in a standards-referenced framework. Board Bull, 12(1), 4–5.Google Scholar
  9. Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, D. (2003). International comparative research in mathematics education. In A.J. Bishop, M.A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 143–185). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Cobern, W.W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, N.S. (1990). Conceptions of educational achievement. Educ Res, 19(3), 2–7.Google Scholar
  13. Collis, K. & Romberg, T. (1991). Assessment of mathematical performance: an analysis of open-ended test items. In C. Wittrock & E. Baker (Eds.), Testing and cognition (pp. 83–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Collis, K., Jones, B., Sprod, T., Watson, J. & Fraser, S. (1998). Mapping development in student’s understanding of vision using a cognitive structural model. Int J Sci Educ, 20(1), 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cowie, B. (2005). Student commentary on classroom assessment in science: A sociocultural interpretation. Int J Sci Educ, 27(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, K.W. & Knight, C.C. (1990). Cognitive development in real children: levels and variations. In B. Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and thinking styles: classroom interaction (pp 43–67). Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  17. Gipps, C. & James, M. (2001). Broadening the basis of assessment to prevent the narrowing of learning. Curric J, 9(3), 285–297.Google Scholar
  18. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  19. Goodrum D, Hackling M, Rennie L (2001) The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: a research report. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra ACT.Google Scholar
  20. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Hackling, M.W. (2004). Assessment in science. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of teaching science (pp. 126–144). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Halford, G.S. (1993). Children’s understanding: the development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Rev Res Educ, 27, 25–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hargraves, A. (2000). Educational outomes, modern and postmodern interpretations: response to Smyth and Dow. Brit J Sociol Educ, 21(1), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harry, B., Sturges, K.M. & Klingner, J.K. (2005). Mapping the process: an exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educ Res, 34(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educ Res, 29(2), 4–16.Google Scholar
  27. Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: a philosophical and practical guide. London, UK: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, C. & Watson, A. (2002). The interpretative nature of teachers’ assessment of students’ mathematics: Issues for equity. J Res Math Educ, 33(2), 78–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: a report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  30. Panizzon, D. (2003). Using a cognitive structural model to provide new insights into students’ understandings of diffusion. Int J Sci Educ, 25(12), 1427–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Panizzon D, Pegg J, McGee S (2005) Incorporating different assessment tasks to gauge student understandings of planetary processes. Refereed paper presented at the Annual Conference for the Australian Association for Research in Education in Melbourne, Victoria on 28th November–2nd December, pp 1–18 http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/abs04.htm.
  32. Patchen, M. (2004). Making our schools more effective: what matters and what works. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publisher.Google Scholar
  33. Pegg, J. (2003). Assessment in mathematics. In J. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition (pp. 227–259). Greenwich, CT: New Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res, 29(7), 4–14.Google Scholar
  35. Skuy, M., Young, S., Ajam, A., Fidjhon, P. & Lomofsky, L. (2001). Instrumental enrichment as a vehicle for teachers in implementing outcomes based education in South Africa. Int J Spec Educ, 16(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  36. Strauss, A.L. & Cobin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research-grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Swain, J. (2000). Summative assessment. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp. 139–157). Buckingham, MK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Thomson, S., Cresswell, J. & De Bortoli, L. (2004). Facing the future: a focus on mathematical literacy among Australian 15 year-old students in PISA 2003. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.Google Scholar
  39. Treagust, D.F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallagher, J.L. & Parker, J. (2001). Using assessment as a guide in teaching for understanding: a case study of a middle school science class learning about sound. Sci Educ, 85, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watson, J., Collis, K. & Campbell, K. (1994). Developmental structure in the understanding of common and decimal fractions. Foc Lear Prob Math, 17(1), 2–25.Google Scholar
  41. Watson, J., Collis, K., Callingham, R. & Moritz, J. (1995). A model for assessing higher order thinking in statistics. Educ Res Eval, 1(3), 247–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson, M. & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: an embedded assessment system. Appl Meas Educ, 13(2), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Identifying literacy demands of adult numeracy. Literacy and Numer Stud, 10(1/2), 39–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre of Science, Information and Communication Technology, and Mathematics, Education for Rural and Regional Australia (SiMERR)University of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations