Advertisement

Teacher Perspectives About Using Formative Assessment

  • Robert Evans
  • Rose Clesham
  • Jens Dolin
  • Alena Hošpesová
  • Sofie Birch Jensen
  • Jan Alexis Nielsen
  • Iva Stuchlíková
  • Sofie Tidemand
  • Iva Žlábková
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)

Abstract

This chapter examines three different classroom teacher perspectives when using ASSIST-ME project formative assessment methods as described in the introductory chapter. The first ‘teacher perspective’ is about changes in teacher self-efficacies while using formative assessment methods as monitored by a pre- and post-teacher questionnaire. Teachers who tried the unfamiliar formative methods of assessment (see introductory book chapter for these methods) as well as their colleagues who did not were surveyed. The second ‘teacher perspective’ examines changes in teachers’ subjective theories while trying project-specific formative assessment methods in Czech Republic. Analyses are done through case studies and interviews. The final part of the chapter looks at teacher perspectives while using an Internet-based application to facilitate formative assessment. The teacher use of the application and their feedback about its utility are discussed.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 3–38). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Englewood Cliffs: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bernholt, S., Rönnebeck, S., Ropohl, M., Köller, O., & Parchmann, I. (2013). National reports of partner countries reviewing research on formative and summative assessment in their countries. Kiel: Leibniz-Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN).Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5.Google Scholar
  6. Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: sage.Google Scholar
  8. Brousseau, G., & Novotná, J. (2012). Úvod do teorie didaktických situací v matematice. Pedagogická fakulta: Univerzita Karlova.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, G. T. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 301–318.Google Scholar
  10. Coombs, S. (2010, May). Critical thinking, portfolio assessment and e-scaffolding of continuing professional development for knowledge elicitation. In Global Learn (Vol. 2010, no. 1, pp. 4010–4014).Google Scholar
  11. Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 163–177). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Crisp, G. (2007). The e-assessment handbook. Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Czerniak, C. M. (1990). A study of self-efficacy, anxiety, and science knowledge in preservice elementary teachers. Atlanta: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  14. Eastwell, P. (2009). Letters: Inquiry learning: Elements of confusion and frustration. The American Biology Teacher, 71(5), 263–266.Google Scholar
  15. Edmondson, W. J. (1998). Subjective parameters describing teaching roles: Towards a theory of tertiary foreign language instruction. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 27, 81–105.Google Scholar
  16. Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Futurelab (2007). E-assessment- an update on research, policy and practice (Report 10). Available at http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Assessment_Review_update.pdf
  18. Groeben, N., Wahl, D., Schlee, J., & Scheele, B. (1988). Das Forschungsprogramm subjektive Theorien: eine Einführung in die Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts (p. 364). Francke.Google Scholar
  19. Hodgen, J., & Marshall, B. (2005). Assessment for learning in English and mathematics: A comparison. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodgson, C., & Pyle, K. (2010). A literature review of Assessment for Learning in science. Slough: Nfer.Google Scholar
  21. Janík, T. (2005). Zkoumání subjektivních teorií pomocí techniky strukturování konceptů (SLT). Pedagogická revue, 57(5), 477–496.Google Scholar
  22. Koenig, A. D., Lee, J. J., Iseli, M., & Wainess, R. (2010). A conceptual framework for assessing performance in games and simulations. CRESST Report 771. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Lederman, L. C., & Fumitoshi, K. (1995).Google Scholar
  23. Korthagen, F. A., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Košťálová, H., & Straková, J. (2008). Evaluation: trust, dialogue, growth. SKAV, os.Google Scholar
  25. Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & Smart, J. (2009). 4E× 2 instructional model: Uniting three learning constructs to improve praxis in science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pellegrino, J. W., & Quellmalz, E. S. (2010). Perspectives on the integration of technology and assessment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ripley, M. (2006). The four changing faces of e-assessment 2006–2016. Available at: http://www.xplora.org/ww/en/pub/insight/thematic_dossiers/articles/e_assessment/eassessment2.htm
  28. Scheele, B. (Ed.). (1992). Struktur-Lege-Verfahren als Dialog-Konsens-Methodik: Ein Zwischenfazit zur Forschungsentwicklung bei der rekonstruktiven Erhebung Subjektiver Theorien. Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  29. Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., & Šalamounová, Z. (2012). Komunikace ve školní třídě. Orbis scholae, 147.Google Scholar
  30. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, 45, 93.Google Scholar
  31. Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, ‘How do I improve my practice?’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Evans
    • 1
  • Rose Clesham
    • 2
  • Jens Dolin
    • 1
  • Alena Hošpesová
    • 3
  • Sofie Birch Jensen
    • 1
  • Jan Alexis Nielsen
    • 1
  • Iva Stuchlíková
    • 3
  • Sofie Tidemand
    • 1
  • Iva Žlábková
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.PearsonLondonUK
  3. 3.Jihočeská univerzitaUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations