Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Promoting Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Learning to Use Formative Assessment for Life Science Instruction

Abstract

To support elementary students’ learning of core, standards-based life science concepts highlighted in the Next Generation Science Standards, prospective elementary teachers should develop an understanding of life science concepts and learn to apply their content knowledge in instructional practice to craft elementary science learning environments grounded in students’ thinking. To do so, teachers must learn to use high-leverage instructional practices, such as formative assessment, to engage students in scientific practices and connect instruction to students’ ideas. However, teachers may not understand formative assessment or possess sufficient science content knowledge to effectively engage in related instructional practices. To address these needs, we developed and conducted research within an innovative course for preservice elementary teachers built upon two pillars—life science concepts and formative assessment. An embedded mixed methods study was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on preservice teachers’ (n = 49) content knowledge and ability to engage in formative assessment practices for science. Findings showed that increased life content knowledge over the semester helped preservice teachers engage more productively in anticipating and evaluating students’ ideas, but not in identifying effective instructional strategies to respond to those ideas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. AAAS Project 2061. (2013). AAAS project 2061 science assessment website. Retrieved from assessment.aaas.org

  2. Anderson, J. L., Ellis, J. P., & Jones, A. M. (2014). Understanding early elementary children’s conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function through drawings. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 375–386.

  3. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.

  4. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

  5. Barman, C. R., Stein, M., McNair, S., & Barman, N. S. (2006). Students’ ideas about plants and plant growth. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 73–79.

  6. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristic of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553.

  7. Buck, G. A., Trauth-Nare, A., & Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment discernable to pre-service teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 402–421.

  8. Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 19–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  9. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136.

  10. Cresswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage.

  11. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  12. Falk, A. (2011). Teachers learning from professional development in elementary science: Reciprocal relations between formative assessment and pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96, 265–290.

  13. Forbes, C. T., Sabel, J. L., & Zangori, L. (in press). Integrating life science content and instructional methods in elementary teacher education. The American Biology Teacher.

  14. Friedrichsen, P. M. (2001). Moving from hands-on to inquiry-based: A biology course for prospective elementary teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 63(8), 562–568.

  15. Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through preservice teacher education. Teacher and Teacher Education, 21, 607–621.

  16. Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16–29.

  17. Haefner, L. A., Friedrichsen, P. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2006). Teaching with insects: An applied life science course for supporting prospective elementary teachers’ scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 68(4), 206–212.

  18. Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653–1674.

  19. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51–72.

  20. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues Practice, 28, 24–31.

  21. Keeley, P. (2005). Science curriculum topic study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

  22. Kohler, F., Henning, J. E., & Usma-Wilches, J. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers to make instructional decisions: An examination of data from the teacher work sample. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2108–2117.

  23. Krall, R. M., Lott, K. H., & Wymer, C. L. (2009). Inservice elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 41–55.

  24. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154.

  25. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for mixed models (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

  26. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  27. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

  28. Morrison, J. A. (2013). Exploring exemplary elementary teachers’ conceptions and implementation of inquiry science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 573–588.

  29. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  30. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  31. Nowicki, B. L., Sullivan-Watts, B., Shim, M. K., Young, B., & Pockalny, R. (2013). Factors influencing science content accuracy in elementary inquiry science lessons. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1135–1154.

  32. Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the “get it or don’t” concept of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247–255.

  33. Otero, V. K., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Preservice elementary teachers’ views of their students’ prior knowledge of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 497–523.

  34. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  35. Rice, D. C. (2005). I didn’t know oxygen could boil! What preservice and inservice elementary teachers’ answers to ‘simple’ science questions reveals about their subject matter knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1059–1082.

  36. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11, 205–235.

  37. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., … Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 295–314.

  38. Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers’ assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.21209

  39. Talanquer, V., Tomanek, D., & Novodvorsky, I. (2013). Assessing students’ understanding of inquiry: What do prospective science teachers notice? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 189–208.

  40. Weld, J., & Funk, L. (2005). “I’m not the science type”: Effect of an inquiry biology content course on preservice elementary teachers’ intentions about teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 189–204.

  41. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by the Spencer Foundation. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. We thank Tina Vo and anonymous reviewers for their help in thinking about these issues and their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Correspondence to Jaime L. Sabel.

Appendix: Example Rubric Items for Assignment Question

Appendix: Example Rubric Items for Assignment Question

figurea
figureb
figurec
figured
figuree
figuref

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sabel, J.L., Forbes, C.T. & Zangori, L. Promoting Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Learning to Use Formative Assessment for Life Science Instruction. J Sci Teacher Educ 26, 419–445 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9431-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Preservice teacher education
  • Formative assessment
  • Life science