Using Video to Examine Formative Assessment Practices as Measures of Expertise for Mathematics and Science Teachers
- 1k Downloads
Formative assessment practices, including eliciting a broad range of student ideas, noticing the nuances in students' ideas, using these ideas to guide instruction, and promoting student self-regulation of learning are key components of expert teaching. Given the inherent dialogical nature of formative assessment in the classroom, video can provide a powerful tool for capturing and analyzing teachers' formative assessment interactions with students. In this study, we provide a framework for examining expertise in formative assessment and use this framework to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the practices of 13 mathematics and science teachers. While we only saw a few instances of true expertise in formative assessment practices in our examination of videos, our findings indicate that teachers with more expertise in formative assessment let students' ideas guide their teaching. This leads to higher correlations among the dimensions of practice that we articulate in our framework for expert teachers. However, because many of the instructional decisions that teachers make are not visible on video, video alone may not provide enough information to judge expertise in formative assessment.
KeywordsFormative assessment Video analysis Mathematics Science
Work on the Formative Assessment for Michigan Educators (FAME) project was supported by the Michigan Department of Education.
- Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- di Sessa, A. A. & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 155–187). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Furtak, E. M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M. & Windschitl, M. (2012). Learning progressions to support ambitious teaching practices. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 3: manifold cognitive resources. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 321–340). Bologna, Italiana: Italian Physical Society.Google Scholar
- Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L. & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
- Hodgen, J. & Wiliam, D. (2006). Mathematics inside the black box: assessment for learning in the mathematics classroom. London, England: GL Assessment Limited.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Approaches to annual performance assessment. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher Assessment and the Quest for Teacher Quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E. & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129-141). New York , NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M. & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment—minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63, 18–24.Google Scholar
- Martin, S. & Siry, C. (2012). An analysis of the utilization of video-based media in science teacher education. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. Campbell (Eds.), International handbook of science teaching and learning. (pp. 417–433). Rotterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
- McCaffrey, J. R., Lockwood, D. F., Koretz, D. M. & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value added models for teacher accountability [Monograph]. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG158.pdf.
- Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: the role of instructional dialogues in assessing students for science learning. Special issue in assessment for learning, Studies of Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
- Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3–4), 205–235.Google Scholar
- Sanders, W. L. & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement (Research Progress Report). Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.Google Scholar
- Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Optimizing learning: implications of learning sciences research. Paper presented at the OECD/CERI International Conference, “Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy,” Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40554221.pdf.
- Sherin, M. G., Russ, R. S. & Colestock, A. A. (2011). Accessing mathematics teachers’ in-the-moment noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics Teacher Noticing (pp. 79–94). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Smith, M. S. & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
- Tanner, H. & Jones, S. (2003). Self-efficacy in mathematics and students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies during assessment events. In N. A. Pateman, B. J., Dougherty & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (pp. 275–281). Honolulu, HI: CRDG, College of Education, University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
- Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- Tell, C. A., Bodone, F. M. & Addie, K. L. (2000). A framework of teacher knowledge and skills necessary in a standards-based system: lessons from high school and university faculty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED447206.
- Wiliam, D. (2009). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment. (pp. 18–40). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Windschitl, M. Thompson, J. & Braaten, M. (2011) Ambitious pedagogy by novice teachers? Who benefits from tool-supported collaborative inquiry into practice and why. Teachers College Record, 13(7), 1311–1360.Google Scholar