Abstract
The two key purposes of assessment, formative and summative, are often in a contradictory position if they are used concurrently. The summative assessment of learning will often prevent the formative assessment for learning to be realised (Butler, J Educ Psychol 79(4):474, 1987), meaning that the learning potential of the assessment will often be minimal. It is therefore a central challenge to find ways to combine the dual use of assessment. The structured assessment dialogue (SAD) is a candidate for such a combination.
This chapter introduces the structured assessment dialogue – a short ritualised assessment method involving three distinct phases: A 5-min student-teacher dialogue, a 5-min peer feedback phase and finally 2–3-min of student self-reflection. We describe the rationales for the SAD and analyse results from classroom implementations in Denmark and Finland. First, using focus group interview data, we analyse teachers’ experiences with preparing, implementing and reflecting on SAD sessions. Most teachers found it a useful method of assessment, with different challenges for the various phases and aspects of the SAD. This points at the second focus for the chapter: Is it possible to characterise dialogues in a way that relates similar dialogues to student self-reflections and teacher preparation. To answer this, we apply network analysis on student-teacher dialogues to produce dialogical maps. These maps are then grouped via cluster analysis, and groups are linked to quantitative student self-reflection measures, quantitative teacher self-reflections and contextual data. We find six different groups of dialogues, each of which displays significant differences in terms of quantitative student self-reflections.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic thinking: Rethinking classroom talk. York: Dialog.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The Problem of Speech Genres (Vern W McGee, övers.) I Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (Red.), Speech Genres & Other Late Essays (ss. 60–102).
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education, 18(1), 5–26.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the Black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9–21.
Bodin, M. (2012). Mapping university students’ epistemic framing of computational physics using network analysis. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010115.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brewe, E., Bruun, J., & Bearden, I. G. (2016). Using module analysis for multiple choice responses: A new method applied to Force concept inventory data. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020131.
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer networks and ISDN systems, 30(1), 107–117.
Bruun, J. (2016). Networks as integrated in research methodologies in PER. In D. Jones, L. Ding, & A. Traxler (Eds.), 2016 PERC Proceedings. (pp. 11–17). Chapter Plenary Manuscripts.[2] Sacramentro, CA: American Association of Physics Teachers. (PERC Proceedings). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2016.plenary.002.
Bruun, J., & Bearden, I. G. (2014). Time development in the early history of social networks: Link stabilization, group dynamics, and segregation. PloS One, 9(11), e112775. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112775.
Bruun, J., & Brewe, E. (2013). Talking and learning physics: Predicting future grades from network measures and Force concept inventory pretest scores. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020109.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474.
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.
Christensen, T. S. (2005). Integreret evaluering: en undersøgelse af den fagligt evaluerende lærer-elevsamtale. Syddansk Universitet. Det Humanistiske Fakultet. 328 s. (doctoral dissertation, in Danish). Retrieved from http://findresearcher.sdu.dk:8080/portal/da/person/tosc
Costa, L. D. F., Rodrigues, F. A., Travieso, G., & Villas Boas, P. R. (2007). Characterization of complex networks: A survey of measurements. Advances in Physics, 56(1), 167–242.
Dysthe, O. (1996). The Multivoiced classroom interactions of writing and classroom discourse. Written Communication, 13(3), 385–425.
Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486(3), 75–174.
Harrison, C. (2006). Banishing the quiet classroom. Education Review, 19(2), 67–77.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1–32.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews (Book 2 of The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit).
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 115–142.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex.
Lindahl, M., Bruun, J., & Linder, C. (2016). Integrating text-mining, network analysis and thematic discourse analysis to produce maps of student discussions about sustainability. In PERC 2016.
Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An introduction (pp. 1–2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org
Revelle, W. (2015). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston: Northwestern University. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.5.8.
Rosvall, M. & Bergstrom, C. T. (2008). Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 105(4), 1118–1123. Retrieved April 1, 2017, from http://www.pnas.org/content/105/4/1118.short
Roth, W. M. (2000). From gesture to scientific language. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(11), 1683–1714.
Roth, W. M., & Lawless, D. V. (2002). How does the body get into the mind? Human Studies, 25(3), 333–358.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24.
Scott, P. H., 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, 605–631.
Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., Frank, K., Rupp, A. A., & Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 33–53. doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0013.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment, study guide. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment: Practical techniques for F-12 classrooms. West Palm Beach: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Yeung, K. Y., & Ruzzo, W. L. (2001). Principal component analysis for clustering gene expression data. Bioinformatics, 17(9), 763–774.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
All technical results and analyses can be found at the ASSIST-ME project’s website: http://assistme.ku.dk/researchers/research-design-for-the-structured-assessment-dialogue/
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dolin, J., Bruun, J., Nielsen, S.S., Jensen, S.B., Nieminen, P. (2018). The Structured Assessment Dialogue. In: Dolin, J., Evans, R. (eds) Transforming Assessment. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63247-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63248-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)