Assessment On-the-Fly: Promoting and Collecting Evidence of Learning Through Dialogue

  • Christine Harrison
  • Costas P. Constantinou
  • Catarina F. Correia
  • Michel Grangeat
  • Markus Hähkiöniemi
  • Michalis Livitzis
  • Pasi Nieminen
  • Nikos Papadouris
  • Elie Rached
  • Natasha Serret
  • Andrée Tiberghien
  • Jouni Viiri
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)

Abstract

Inquiry activities generate rich opportunities for STEM learning and for assessment. When teachers pay attention to assessment information collected during the course of learning, they are able to interpret and make decisions about such assessment data in a timely fashion that can drive future planning and support student learning, for example through feedback. This chapter focuses on how classroom talk can generate evidence of learning and how teachers can utilise this to enable assessment to guide inquiry learning. It looks at several vignettes from different countries of on-the-fly interactions in inquiry settings and unpacks how teachers organised, facilitated and assessed learning in inquiry classrooms. Finally, the chapter considers opportunities, dilemmas and constraints that occurred as teachers attempted to integrate on-the-fly assessment into their existing assessment classroom practices.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for learning- putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.Google Scholar
  3. Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group-work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 750–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Correia, C. F., Nieminen, P., Serret, N., Hähkiöniemi, M., Viiri, J., & Harrison, C. (2016). Informal formative assessment in inquiry-based science lessons. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future, Part 11 (co-ed. J. Dolin & P. Kind), (pp. 1782–1791). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  5. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Leach, J., & Millar, R. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part 1 (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  9. Gillies, R., & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry: Teachers’ reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-based science. Research into Science Education, 45, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillies, R. M., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2014). Primary students’ scientific reasoning and discourse during cooperative inquiry-based science activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grangeat, M. (2016). Dimensions and modalities of inquiry-based teaching: Understanding the variety of practices. Education Inquiry, 7, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haug, M. C. (2013). Philosophical methodology: The armchair or the laboratory? Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship (No. EUR 26893). Brussels: European Commission – Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
  14. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do?. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(02), 140–145.Google Scholar
  15. James, M., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Conner, C., Dudley, P., Fox, A., & McCormick, R. (Eds.). (2006). Learning how to learn: Tools for schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. E. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis: Cooperative Learning Centre, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  18. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurker, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laursen, S., Hassi, M., Kogan, M., Hunter, A., & Weston, T. (2011) Evaluation of the IBL mathematics project: Student and instructor outcomes of inquiry-based learning in College Mathematics. University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved 28 Feb 2016 from: http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/documents/IBLmathReportALL_050211.pdf
  20. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.Google Scholar
  21. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  23. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Nieminen, P., Hähkiöniemi, M., Leskinen, J., & Viiri, J. (in press). Four kinds of formative assessment discussions in inquiry-based physics and mathematics teaching. Proceedings of Finnish Mathematics and Science Education Research Association 2015.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2005). Education and training policy. Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved from, 28 August 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/teacherpolicy accessed.
  30. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A new pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  32. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as device and tool thinking in high conscription for social school science. Science Education, 76(5), 531–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott, P. H., & Asoko, H. (2006). Talk in science classrooms. In M. Hollins (Ed.), ASE guide to secondary science education. Hatfield: Association for Science Education (ASE).Google Scholar
  35. Shavelson, R. L., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Tomita, M. K., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wenning, C. J. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 4(2), 21–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Harrison
    • 1
  • Costas P. Constantinou
    • 2
  • Catarina F. Correia
    • 1
  • Michel Grangeat
    • 3
  • Markus Hähkiöniemi
    • 4
  • Michalis Livitzis
    • 2
  • Pasi Nieminen
    • 4
  • Nikos Papadouris
    • 2
  • Elie Rached
    • 3
  • Natasha Serret
    • 5
  • Andrée Tiberghien
    • 6
  • Jouni Viiri
    • 4
  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of CyprusLatsiaCyprus
  3. 3.Laboratoire des Sciences de l’EducationUniversité Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance
  4. 4.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  5. 5.Nottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK
  6. 6.l’ENS de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations