Teacher or Examiner? The Tensions between Formative and Summative Assessment in the Case of Science Coursework

Article

Abstract

The aim of the reported study was to explore how science teachers made sense of their roles and responsibilities in teaching and assessing science coursework. The focus was on the teacher assessment, the feedback that teachers gave to students and, how they perceived their role when they taught and assessed students’ science coursework reports. The research methodology included observation of science lessons, collection of marked students’ reports and two interviews with each of the nine participant teachers. Two cases of teachers are considered as representative of the participant teachers and their perceptions and practices are compared and contrasted. Teachers either adopted the role of the examiner or combined the role of the teacher with that of examiner. They distinguished marking of science theory exercises from marking of coursework and, teaching theory from teaching investigations, on the basis that the grade they assigned to coursework contributed to the total grade for external exams. A key conclusion is that teaching and assessment of science coursework need to re-focus on learning. The study calls for changes in public policy for summative assessment to place more reliance on teachers’ assessments and secondly, for changes in school practices in formative assessment for teachers to support students to learn in the case of science coursework.

Keywords

Assessment criteria Feedback Formative assessment Science coursework Summative assessment Teacher assessment 

References

  1. Allal, L., & Motiez-Lopez, L. (2005). Formative assessment of learning: A review of publications in French. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2005). (CERI). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms (pp 241–264). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  2. Black, P. (1990). APU Science—the past and the future. School Science Review, 72(258), 13–28.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or foe? Theory and practice of assessment and testing. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P. (2003). Formative and summative assessment: Can they serve learning together? Paper presenwted at the AERA Chicago Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2000). Formative assessment. In M. Monk, & J. Osborn (Eds.) Good practice in science teaching. What research has to say (pp. 25–40). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–75.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). ‘In praise of educational research’: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, September 2004, 9–21.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: the effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1–14.Google Scholar
  12. CERI (2005). Formative Assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
  13. Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daugherty, R. (2007). Mediating academic research: the assessment reform group experience. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.) International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Gioka, O. (2005). Formative assessment in teaching graphing skills in investigation lessons: a study of teachers’ goals, strategies, assessment criteria and feedback. Unpublished PhD thesis. London: London South Bank University.Google Scholar
  17. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. In A. Iran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.) Review of research in education (pp. 355–392). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  18. Gipps, C. (2002). Socio-cultural perspectives on assessment. In G. Well, & G. Claxton (Eds.) Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 73–83). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning. Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre Social Research Unit, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Koller, O. (2005). Formative assessment in classrooms: A review of the empirical German literature. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2005) (CERI) Formative Assessment: Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms (pp 265–275). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  23. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Looney, J. (2007). Formative assessment in adult language, literacy and numeracy. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 373–386.Google Scholar
  25. Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. J. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Northover, A. (2001). Enhancing teachers’ technological knowledge and assessment practices to enhance student learning in technology: A two-year classroom study. Research in Science Education, 31, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muralihdar, S. (1993). The role of multiple data sources in interpretive science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paechter, C. (1995). ‘Doing the best for the students’: dilemmas and decisions in carrying out statutory assessment tasks. Assessment in Education, 2(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Research Council: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shavelson, R. J. (2003). On the integration of formative assessment in teaching and learning with implications for teacher education. For the Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory and the University of Hawaii Curriculum Research and Development Group. Retrieved June 29, 2004 from www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL.
  32. Shavelson, R. J., Black, P. J., Wiliam, D., & Coffey, J. (2002). On linking formative and summative functions in the design of large-scale assessment systems. Retrieved June 29, 2004 from www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL.
  33. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In C. M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching ((pp. 3–36)3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  34. Swaffield, S., & MacBeath, J. (2006). Embedding learning how to learn in school policy: The challenge for leadership. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 281–294.Google Scholar
  36. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1995). Investigating teacher assessment in infant classrooms: methodological problems and emerging issues. Assessment in Education, 2(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Torrance, H., Colley, H., Garratt, D., Jarvis, J., Piper, H., Ecclestone, K., et al. (2005). The impact of different modes of assessment on achievement and progression in the learning and skills sector. London: The Learning and Skills Research Centre.Google Scholar
  39. Wiliam, D. (2003). Validity: all you need in assessment. School Science Review, 85(311), 79–81.Google Scholar
  40. Wiliam, D., & Black, D. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of IoanninaIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations