Abstract
Teacher educators have focused on designing learning environments ‘for’ rather than ‘with’ teacher candidates. However, a co-design collaboration with teacher candidates has been recently suggested as a critical feature for effective teacher education programs. In this study, a co-design team, including preservice science teachers (PSTs) as co-participants of the iterative design process rather than research subjects, collaboratively developed formative assessment (FA) practices based on the approach of conjecture mapping in a chemistry laboratory setting. This study aimed to examine the role of PSTs as co-designers and their contributions to the progressive development of the most robust design of FA practices, drawing on relevant theoretical perspectives and considering the characteristics of a general chemistry laboratory environment. Sixteen PSTs participated in the study for a whole semester. This qualitative-interpretive study employed the following data sources: classroom observations, audio tape recordings of co-design meetings, and field notes. Results under four main themes showed that the PSTs as co-participants can actively engage in and effectively contribute to creating the FA design for their chemistry laboratory investigations. Using conjecture mapping as an approach for critical and reflective thinking on design elements, the PSTs could focus on their own thinking and that of others when making, testing, and revising co-design decisions based on the relevant theory work and empirical findings as the design principles for the FA-embedded laboratory practices. This study has important implications for the inclusion of teacher candidates as active co-designers of high-leverage instructional practices such as FA in science learning settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- FA:
-
Formative Assessment
- PST:
-
Preservice Science Teachers
- DBR:
-
Design based Research
- Co-DBR:
-
Co-design based Research
- EDR:
-
Educational Design Research
- CM:
-
Concept Map
- CMping:
-
Concept Mapping
- VeeM:
-
Vee Map
- VeeMping:
-
Vee Mapping
References
Abell, S., George, M., & Martin, M. (2002). The moon investigation: Instructional strategies for elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015185912822
Abraham, M. R., Cracolice, M. S., Graves, A. P., Aladamash, A. H., Kihega, J. G., Gil, P., & Varghese, V. (1997). The nature and state of general chemistry laboratory courses offered by colleges and universities in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 591–594. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p591
Andrade, H. L., & Heritage, M. (2017). Using formative assessment to enhance learning, achievement, and academic self-regulation. Routledge.
Assessment Reform Group in the UK. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. London, United Kingdom: Assessment Reform Group.
Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003620019
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 6(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993026
Bennett, R. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 18, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 20–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810410601402
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20344
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
Coffey, J., Hammer, D., Levin, D., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20440
Collins, A. (1990). Toward a design science of education (Report No. 1). Center for Technology in Education.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; DiSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_5
DeKorver, B. K., & Towns, M. H. (2015). General chemistry students’ goals for chemistry laboratory coursework. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 2031–2037. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00463
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 1–32). Sage.
Design-Based Research (DBR) Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/%200013189X032001005
Domin, D. S. (1999a). A review of Laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–543. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p543
Domin, D. S. (1999b). A content analysis of general chemistry laboratory manuals for evidence of higher order cognitive tasks. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p109
Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4, 37–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0401_2
Erdmann, M. A., & March, J. L. (2014). Video reports as a novel alternative assessment in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 650–657. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00107A
Espiritu, M. J. B., Shahrill, M., Perera, J. S. H. Q., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2018). Formative assessment in science education: Is it being practiced? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1088, 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012009
Francisco, J. S., Nakhleh, M. B., Nurrenbern, S. C., & Miller, M. L. (2002). Assessing student understanding of general chemistry with concept mapping. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(2), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p248
Furtak, E. M., & Heredia, S. C. (2014). Exploring the influence of learning progressions in two teacher communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 982–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21156
Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 360–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347852
Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson, R., de León, V., Morrison, D., et al. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: Findings from a four-year intervention study. Instructional Science, 44, 267–291.
Ghani, I. B. A., Ibrahim, N. H., Yahaya, N. A., & Surif, J. (2017). Enhancing students’ HOTS in laboratory educational activity by using concept map as an alternative assessment tool. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00120G
Gotwals, A. W., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, identifying, interpreting, and responding to students’ ideas: Teacher candidates’ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46, 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9461-2
Graham, K. J., Johnson, B. J., Jones, T. N., McIntee, E. J., & Schaller, C. P. (2008). Designing and conducting a purification scheme as an organic chemistry laboratory practical. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(12), 1644–1645. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p1644
Harshman, J., & Yezierski, E. (2015). Guiding teaching with assessments: High school chemistry teachers’ use of data-driven inquiry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00188E
Hartmeyer, R., Stevenson, M. P., & Bentsen, P. (2016). Evaluating design-based formative assessment practices in outdoor science teaching. Educational Research, 58, 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1237857
Hartmeyer, R., Stevenson, M. P., & Bentsen, P. (2018). A systematic review of concept mapping-based formative assessment processes in primary and secondary science education. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 25, 598–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1377685
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hendry, G. (2013). Integrating feedback with classroom teaching. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless, & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising Feedback in Higher Education: Developing Dialogue with Students (pp. 133–134). Routledge.
Heredia, S. C., Furtak, E. M., Morrison, D., & Renga, I. P. (2016). Science teachers’ representations of classroom practice in the process of formative assessment design. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9482-3
Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24–31.
Higher Education Council. (2017). Structure, content, sequence, credits, and contact hours of undergraduate courses in the science teacher education program at the Faculty of Education. Turkey: Ankara.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88, 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Holmes, N. G., & Wieman, C. E. (2018). Introductory physics labs: We can do better. Physics Today, 71, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3816
Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning: New Zealand case studies. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 16, 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319661
Hunter, C. L., Mccosh, R., & Wilkins, H. (2003). Integrating learning and assessment in laboratory work. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1039/B2RP90038F
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Science Standards Drafting Committee. (2002). Modeling standards in science for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue. Council of Chief State School Officers.
Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers’ ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99, 863–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43, 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9
Kaya, Z., Kaya, O. N., Aydemir, S., & Ebenezer, J. (2022). Knowledge of student learning difficulties as a plausible conceptual change pathway between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 52, 691–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09971-5
Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324330
Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.
Kloser, M. (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A Delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1185–1217. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21171
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.002
Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.012
Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Luft, J. A., Tollefson, S. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2001). Using an alternative report format in undergraduate hydrology laboratories. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49, 454–460. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-49.5.454
Matuk, C., Gerard, L., Lim-Breitbart, J., & Linn, M. (2016). Gathering requirements for teacher tools: Strategies for empowering teachers through co-design. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 79–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9459-2
McComas, W. F., & Colburn, A. (1995). Laboratory learning: Addressing a neglected dimension of science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(2), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02614599
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Oxon: Routledge.
National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. The National Academies.
National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. The National Academies.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. For states, by states. The National Academies.
Nicoll, G., Francisco, J., & Nakhleh, M. (2001). A three-tier system for assessing concept map links: A methodological study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010025003
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.
Park, M., Liu, X., Smith, E., & Waight, N. (2017). The effect of computer models as formative assessment on student understanding of the nature of models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00018A
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Pellegrino, J. W. (2012). Assessment of science learning: Living in interesting times. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21032
Phillips, D. C., & Dolle, J. R. (2006). From Plato to Brown and beyond: Theory, practice, and the promise of design experiments. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends: Sixteen essays in honour of Erik DeCorte (pp. 277–293). Elsevier.
Pullen, R. (2016). An evaluation and redevelopment of current laboratory practices: an in-depth study into the differences between learning and teaching styles, (PhD thesis), Retrieved from UTAS Open Repository at http://eprints.utas.edu.au/23475/. Accessed 30 May 2023
Pullen, R., Thickett, S. C., & Bissember, A. C. (2018). Investigating the viability of a competency-based, qualitative laboratory assessment model in first-year undergraduate chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00249A
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Furtak, E. M., Ayala, C. C., Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2010). On the impact of formative assessment on student science learning and motivation. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of Formative Assessment (pp. 139–158). Routledge.
Rust, C. (2000). An opinion piece: A possible student-centred assessment solution to some of the current problems of modular degree programmes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1(2), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787400001002003
Sabel, L. J., Forbes, T. C., & Zangori, L. (2015). Promoting prospective elementary teachers’ learning to use formative assessment for life science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9431-6
Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
Seery, M. K., Agustian, H. Y., Doidge, E. D., Kucharski, M. M., O’Connor, H. M., & Price, A. (2017). Developing laboratory skills by incorporating peer-review and digital badges. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00003K
Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz- Primo, M. A., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347647
Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/174809.174813
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(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21074
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, 52, 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21209
Terre Blanche, M., & Kelly, K. (1999). Interpretive methods. In M. Terre, Blanche, & K. Durrheim (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences (pp. 123–146). University of Cape Town.
Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38, 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.689693
Van der Kleij, F. M., Cumming, J. J., & Looney, A. (2018). Policy expectations and support for teacher formative assessment in Australian education reform. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 25, 620–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1374924
Vanides, J., Yin, Y., Tomita, M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2005). Using concept maps in the science classroom. Science Scope, 28, 27–31.
Wenzel, T. J. (2007). Evaluation tools to guide students’ peer-assessment and self-assessment in group activities for the lab and classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(1), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p182
Windschitl, M. (2005). Guest editorial: The future of science teacher preparation in America: Where is the evidence to inform program design and guide responsible policy decisions? Science Education, 89(4), 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20090
Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2013). Using formal embedded formative assessments aligned with a short-term learning progression to promote conceptual change and achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.787556
Zemel, Y., Shwartz, G., & Avargil, S. (2021). Preservice teachers’ enactment of formative assessment using rubrics in the inquiry-based chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22, 1074–1092. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00001B
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
There is no potential monetary conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kaya, O.N., Kaya, Z. A Co-design Based Research Study: Developing Formative Assessment Practices with Preservice Science Teachers in a Chemistry Laboratory Setting. Res Sci Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10162-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10162-9