Abstract
Validity and reliability have traditionally been considered the cornerstones of quality in assessment. These criteria were developed in the context of testing to select students for limited opportunities and when learning was viewed largely as an acquisition of knowledge. When learning is viewed from a sociocultural orientation, and the role assessment can play in enhancing learning is foregrounded, equity, ethics and engagement would seem to be more salient criteria for judging the quality of assessment. Equity relates to the need to ensure all students have an opportunity to demonstrate and gain feedback on their learning and ethics to the need to maximize the benefits, and minimize the potential harm, of assessment. A focus on engagement acknowledges that knowing, learning and social relations entail each other. Combined these three principles seek to optimize the role classroom assessment can play in student identity development. I conclude with a discussion of the implications this broader conception of quality in assessment has for teachers and students.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Press.
Berger, P. (1963). Invitation to sociology. New York: Penguin Book.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 151–167. doi:10.1080/713695728.
Carlone, H., Cook, M., Calabrese Barton, A., Wong, J., Sandoval, W., & Brickhouse, N. (2008). Seeing and supporting identity development in science education. In P. Kirschner, F. Prins, V. Jonker, & G. Kanselaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference of the learning sciences: International perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ing a learning world, Part 3 (pp. 214–220). Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Carr, M., & Cowie, B. (2002). Assessment and ethics: Adding care to justice. Early Education, 28, 23–28.
Cowie, B. (2000). Formative assessment in science classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Cowie, B. (2005). Student commentary on classroom assessment in science: A sociocultural interpretation. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 199–214. doi: 10.1080/0950069042000276721
Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 101–116. doi:10.1080/09695949993026.
Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., Glynn, T., Kara, H., et al. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogy and assessment in primary science classrooms: Whakamana tamariki. Wellington: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.
Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., & Moreland, J. (2012). Finding out about fossils in an early years classroom: A context for developing a ‘practical explanatory theory’. In B. Kaur (Ed.), Understanding teaching and learning: Classroom research revised (pp. 159–169). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Cowie, B., Moreland, J., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2013). Expanding notions of assessment for learning: Inside science and technology primary classrooms. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Durie, M. (2001). Mana Māori Motuhake The state of the Māori nation. In R. Miller (Ed.), New Zealand government and politics (pp. 464–478). Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Educational Research, 32, 268–290. doi:10.3102/0091732X07309371.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040.
Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2007). Movement expressiveness, solidarity and the (re)shaping of African American students’ scientific identities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 73–103. doi:10.1007/s11422-007-9050-4.
Engle, R., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423. doi:10.1002/sce.20263.
Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32. doi:10.3102/0091732X030001001.
Fusco, D., & Barton, A. (2001). Representing student achievements in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 337–354. doi: org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<337::AID-TEA1009>3.0.CO;2–0
Gee, J. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125. doi:10.3co2/0091732x025001099.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355–392.
Gipps, C. (2002). Sociocultural perspectives on assessment. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 73–83). London: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470753545.ch6.
Gipps, C., & Murphy, P. (1994). A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Glynn, T., Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., & Macfarlane, A. (2010). Culturally responsive pedagogy: Connecting New Zealand teachers of science with their Māori students. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39(1), 118–127.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. London: Routledge.
Greeno, J. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 537–547. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1504_4.
Gresalfi, M. S., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. G. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of students’ participation in the student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49–40. doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5.
Lemke, J. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10, 247–271. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(99)00009-1.
Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 38, 296–316. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R.
Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21, 133–149. doi:10.1080/02671520600615638.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Moss, P. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1176218
Moss, P., Girard, B., & Hanniford, L. (2006). Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30, 109–162. doi:10.3102/0091732X030001109.
Moss, P., Pullin, D., Gee, J., Haetrel, E., & Young, L. (2008). Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802157.
Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: The REAL framework. Assessment in Education, 13, 193–213. doi:10.1080/09695940600703969.
Sadler, R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5, 77–84. doi:10.1080/0969595980050104.
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tobin, K. (2006). Aligning the cultures of teaching and learning science in urban high schools. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 219–252. doi:10.1007/s11422-005-9008-3.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment. Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wine, P., & Moreland, J. (2007). Teaching biotechnology. In M. De Vries, R. Custer, J. Dakers, & G. Martin (Eds.), Analyzing best practices in technology education (pp. 13–23). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cowie, B. (2015). Equity, Ethics and Engagement: Principles for Quality Formative Assessment in Primary Science Classrooms. In: Milne, C., Tobin, K., DeGennaro, D. (eds) Sociocultural Studies and Implications for Science Education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4240-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4240-6_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4239-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4240-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)