Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year intervention study

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The teaching practices of recognizing and responding to students’ ideas during instruction are often called formative assessment, and can be conceptualized by four abilities: designing formative assessment tasks, asking questions to elicit student thinking, interpreting student ideas, and providing feedback that moves student thinking forward. While these practices have been linked to positive learning outcomes for students, designing and enacting formative assessment tasks in science classrooms presents instructional challenges for teachers. This paper reports on the results of a long-term study of high school biology teachers who participated in a 3 year professional development program, called the Formative Assessment Design Cycle (FADC), which guided them to iteratively design, enact, and reflect upon formative assessments for natural selection in school-based teacher learning communities. Nine teachers participated for three academic years; sources of data included teachers’ interpreting of student ideas in line with a learning progression, the formative assessment tasks they designed each year of the study, videotaped classroom enactment of those tasks, and pre-post test student achievement from the Baseline and final year of the study. Results indicate that, on average, teachers increased on all abilities during the study and changes were statistically significant for interpreting students ideas, eliciting questions, and feedback. HLM models showed that while only the quality of feedback was a significant predictor at Baseline, it was teachers’ task design and interpretation of ideas in Year 3. These results suggest the efficacy of the FADC in supporting teachers’ formative assessment abilities. Findings are interpreted in light of professional development and formative assessment literatures.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our human subjects agreement with the partner school district prohibited us from collecting student-level demographic data.

  2. Note that the likelihood ratio tests may be preferable when there are fewer groups.

References

  • Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. New York: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (Eds.). (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, J. M., Coffey, J. E., Moorthy, S., Sato, M., & Thibeault, M. (2005). Designing everyday assessment in the science classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, C. C., Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P., Yin, Y., Furtak, E. M., et al. (2008). From formal embedded assessments to reflective lessons: The development of formative assessment suites. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

  • Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1999). Researching Formative Assessment. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 198–214). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, D., Alonzo, A., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. B. (2001). The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(10), 1109–1136. doi:10.1002/tea.20440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189x08331140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 109–121. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(85)90010-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A. (2012). Teachers learning from professional development in elementary science: Reciprocal relations between formative assessment and pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(2), 265–290. doi:10.1002/sce.20473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, Th M. (2003). Using a card-sorting task to elicit and clarify science-teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2009a). Formative assessment for secondary science teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2009). Toward learning progressions as teacher development tools. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science Conference. Retrieved from http://education.msu.edu/projects/leaps/proceedings/Default.html.

  • Furtak, E. M. (2011). ‘Flying Blind’: An exploration of beginning science teachers’ enactment of formative assessment practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers’ enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1181–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Heredia, S. (2014). Exploring the influence of learning progressions in two teacher communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(8), 982–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Morrison, D. L., & Kroog, H. (2014). Investigating the link between learning progressions and classroom assessment. Science Education, 98(4), 640–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gröschner, A., Seidel, T., Kiemer, K., & Pehmer, A.-K. (2014). Through the lens of teacher professional development components: The “Dialogic Video Cycle” as an innovative program to foster classroom dialogue. Professional Development in Education, (September), 1–28.

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2014). Addressing knowledge deficits in tutoring and the role of teaching experience: Benefits for learning and summative assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 934–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2013). How student characteristics affect girls’ and boys’ verbal engagement in physics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 23, 33–42. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, H., Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating opportunities for students to show what they know: The role of scaffolding in assessment tasks. Science Education, 98(4), 674–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiemer, K., Seidel, T., Gröschner, A., & Pehmer, A.-K. (2015). Effects of a productive classroom discourse intervention on students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003.

  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobarg, M., & Seidel, T. (2007). Prozessorientierte Lernbegleitung—Videoanalysen im Physikunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35(2), 148–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14. doi:10.1348/000709909x479853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001a). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001b). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453. doi:10.1002/tea.20345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 497–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. J., Stough, L. M., Burdenski, T. K, Jr, & Gonzales, M. (2005). Identifying teacher expertise: An examination of researchers’ decision making. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.

  • Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446–456. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimmele, R. (2015). Videograph, version 4.2.1.26X3. Leibniz Institute for Science Education, Kiel, Germany.

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7, 99–141.

    Article  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), 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoppek, W. (2015). Mehrebenenanalyse oder Varianzanalyse? Ein simulationsbasierter Vergleich von Verfahren zur Auswertung pädagogisch-psychologischer Experimente. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 47, 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Rimmele, R., Herweg, C., Kobarg, M., Schwindt, K., et al. (2007). Science teaching and learning in german physics classrooms—findings from the IPN-video study. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools. The final report on the DFG priority programme (pp. 79–99). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. doi:10.2307/1176145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. Advances in Research on Teaching, 10, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2002). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. I., Combs, E. D., Nagami, P. H., Alto, V. M., Goh, H. G., Gourdet, M. A. A., et al. (2013). Development of the biology card sorting task to measure conceptual expertise in biology. CBE—Life Sciences in Education, 12, 628–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A Constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 485–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (2013). Developing a theory of ambitious early-career teacher practice. American Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 574–615. doi:10.3102/0002831213476334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Veen, K., Zwart, R., & Meirink, J. (2012). What makes teacher professional development effective? A literature review. Teacher Learning that Matters: International Perspectives, 3–21.

  • Whitcomb, J. A. (2013). Learning and pedagogy in initial teacher preparation. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 441–463). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2007). Changing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49–65. doi:10.1080/0969594042000208994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340, 310–313. doi:10.1126/science.1230725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., Ayala, C. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P., Furtak, E. M., et al. (2008). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the special issue editors for their thoughtful feedback that greatly improved this manuscript, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Andy Maul and Derek Briggs for their technical advice with HLM analyses. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0953375. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder, UCB 249, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA

    Erin Marie Furtak, Ruhan Kizil Circi, Rebecca Swanson, Vanessa de León & Deb Morrison

  2. TUM School of Education, Munich, Germany

    Katharina Kiemer

  3. The Exploratorium, San Francisco, USA

    Sara C. Heredia

Authors
  1. Erin Marie Furtak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katharina Kiemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruhan Kizil Circi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rebecca Swanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vanessa de León
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Deb Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sara C. Heredia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Marie Furtak.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Formative assessment task rating items

  1. 1.

    What type of space is there in the activity for students to share their ideas?

    • 1—None/no space for student-provided answers (e.g. lecture slides)

    • 2—Multiple-choice questions only

    • 3—Fill-in-the-blank

    • 4—Short-answer (can include multiple-choice plus justification)

    • 5—Open, lengthy student-constructed responses (e.g. essay or student-constructed representation)

  2. 2.

    What is your impression of the type of instruction that would accompany this activity? Be sure to answer based on how the activity is written, not how you might use it.

    • 1—None/not applicable

    • 2—Lecture style of instruction

    • 3—Teacher-centered questioning

    • 4—Teacher-student dialogic interaction

    • 5—Student-led instruction or student–student interaction

  3. 3.

    What type of knowledge is being elicited/promoted/targeted?

    • 1—None/not applicable

    • 2—Declarative/factual knowledge/recall

    • 3—Procedures

    • 4—Schematic knowledge/the ‘big ideas’ of science

    • 5—Strategic/deciding when or how to use knowledge

  4. 4.

    What type of information about student ideas does this activity seem designed to provide?

    • 1—None/not applicable

    • 2—Correctness in a binary sense (e.g. right/wrong)

    • 3—Mostly correctness, but with the potential for a little information about student ideas

    • 4—Information about what students are thinking

    • 5—Complex information about student thinking, including common student everyday ideas/misconceptions

  5. 5.

    What is the potential of this activity to make students’ scientific understandings visible?

    • 1—Not applicable

    • 2—None

    • 3—Low

    • 4—Moderate

    • 5—High

  6. 6.

    What is your impression of how difficult or easy it might be to interpret these scientific understandings?

    • 1—Not applicable/no clear request for information about student ideas in the activity

    • 2—Not sure

    • 3—Hard and slow to interpret

    • 4—Easy to interpret, but it would take some time to go through the answers

    • 5—Easy and fast to interpret

Appendix 2: Student idea sorting task

Interviewer questions for teacher:

  1. 1.

    I’d like you to take a minute to read through these student responses, and then sort them according to the ideas that they contain. Please talk aloud as you read and make your decisions so we know what you’re thinking.

  2. 2.

    How would you describe the kinds of ideas represented in the responses?

  3. 3.

    What would you do in class to address the different ideas in the responses?

  4. 4.

    Some of these responses have multiple ideas in them; what does that indicate to you about what these students are thinking?

Sorting task—student responses

Number

Student idea

1

I chose a new answer because the color of the bark is what caused the genes in the moth to change from light to dark

2

The industrial pollution colored the tree back and the moths turned darker also to avoid being preyed on by birds. The moths had to adapt to their changing environments by changing color

3

I chose answer () because that is natural selection. The article said that the lighter moths were the main type of moth, meaning that there were also darker moths. Since the bark slowly became darker, it would take quite a long time for the dominant moth color to change. The darker moths would be producing more, and therefore they would slowly overpopulate the light moths

4

I chose () because the colors of the bark of trees was the selective force. Though the colors mutation of peppered moths were random the carriers of the carbonaria survived since it blended into the darker bark of trees. Carriers of carbonaria pass on their genes while most typical moths could not. The change in the color of bark is the selective force which caused the genes to mutate

5

I’m saying letter () because the moths had adapted to their environment, even though the moths were light to stand out, they became darker to survive

6

Because the birds prey range was limited by their ability to see, and because of the darker trees, the whitish moths were easier to see, and therefore more heavily preyed upon by the birds. This led to the darker moths making more offspring, and therefore a change in population

7

I chose () because it described more of what happened than the others. A change in the color of the bark caused the light colored moths to be more visible, a mutation in one of the moths caused it to be black. More black ones survived than white ones because they blended with the habitat better so their amount grew

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Furtak, E.M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R.K. et al. Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year intervention study. Instr Sci 44, 267–291 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9371-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9371-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation