The Classroom Teacher

  • Cathy Box


This chapter continues to follow three secondary biology teachers and reveals their Personal Practice Assessment Theories (PPATs)—those constructs based on beliefs, values, forms of knowledge, mental model of learning, experiences, and assessment goals that undergird their decision making. These PPATs are placed in an Assessment Development Model (ADM) that serves as a theoretical framework for analysis of the dynamic interactions between PPATs and contextual elements and their impact on the purpose, planning, implementation, and reflection on assessment practices. Forms of knowledge, whether propositional, theoretical, or strategic, served as an internally constructed contextual element that played a significant role in the teachers’ ability to translate theory into practice. Other constraining and facilitating contextual elements are discussed as well.

Works Cited

  1. Battista, M. T. (1994). Teachers beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 462.Google Scholar
  2. Box, C., Dabbs, J., & Skoog, G. (2015). A case study of teacher personal practice assessment theories and complexities of implementing formative assessment. American Educational Research Journal – Teaching, Learning and Human Development, 52(5), 956–983.Google Scholar
  3. Box, M. C. (2008). Formative assessment: Patterns, personal practice assessment theories, and impact on student achievement and motivation in science (PhD dissertation), Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cannings, T., & Stager, G. (2003). Online constructionism and the future of teacher education. IFIP Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working Conference: ICT and the Teacher of the Future, St. Hilda’s College, The University of Melbourne, Australia, Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories. Stories of teachers. School stories. Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Office of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Cornett, J. W. (1990). Utilizing action research in graduate curriculum courses. Theory into Practice, 29(3), 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornett, J. W., Yeotis, C., & Terwilliger, L. (1990). Teacher personal practice theories and their influences upon teacher curricular and instructional actions: A case study of a secondary science teacher. Science Education, 74(5), 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czerniak, C. M., Lumpe, A. T., & Haney, J. J. (1999). Science teachers’ beliefs and intentions to implement thematic units. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., & Welsh, K. M. (2005). Complex dilemmas of identity and practice. Science Education, 90(1), 68–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84(5), 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fishman, B. J., & Davis, E. A. (2006). Teacher learning research and the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 535–550). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Frohbieter, G., Greenwald, E., Stecher, B., & Schwartz, H. (2011). Knowing and doing: What teachers learn from formative assessment and how they use the information. CRESST report 802. Retrieved from
  18. Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  20. Goldhaber, D. A. N. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most. Education Next, 16(2), 56–62.Google Scholar
  21. Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hand, B., Treagust, D., & Vance, K. (1997). Student perceptions of the social constructivist classroom. Science Education, 81(5), 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ilić, M., & Bojović, Ž. (2016). Teachers’ folk pedagogies. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 5(9), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs about students with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin, B., & Ye, H. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates’ personal practical theories (PPTs). Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGrath, C., Barman, L., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Roxå, T., Silén, C., & Laksov, K. B. (2016). The ebb and flow of educational change: Change agents as negotiators of change. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  27. Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 21–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orit Avidov, U., & Tamar, S.-I. (2017). ICT coordinators’ TPACK-based leadership knowledge in their roles as agents of change. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Proper, H., Wideen, M., & Ivany, G. (1988). World view projected by science teachers: A study of classroom dialogue. Science Education, 72, 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The teacher belief q-sort: A measure of teachers’ priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44(2), 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rivers, J. C., & Sanders, W. L. (2002). Teacher quality and equity in educational opportunity: Findings and policy implications. Teacher Quality, 13–23.Google Scholar
  33. Sanders, D. P., & McCutcheon, G. (1986). The development of practical theories of teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(1), 50–67.Google Scholar
  34. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 396–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweeney, A. E., Bula, O. A., & Cornett, J. W. (2001). The role of personal practice theories in the professional development of a beginning high school chemistry teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 408–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2006, April 6–12). A theoretical foundation for formative assessment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cathy Box
    • 1
  1. 1.Lubbock Christian UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations