Assessment practices: Empowering mathematics and science teachers in rural secondary schools to enhance student learning

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 417-436

  Panizzon, Debra ^a   Pegg, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assessment; Pedagogy; Professional development; SOLO model; Teachers' perceptions

Indexed keywords

EID: 44849086562     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-007-9084-9     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bell, B. & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Sci Educ, 85, 536-553.
2. Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. Alberta J Educ Research, 1, 1-17.
3. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Educ, 32, 347-364.
4. Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
5. Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behaviour. In Rowe, H. (Ed.), Intelligence: reconceptualisation and measurement (pp. 56-76). Melbourne, Victoria: ACER.
6. Black, P. & Harrison, C. (2000). Formative assessment. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp. 25-40). Buckingham, MK: Open University Press.
7. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ, 5(1), 7-74.
8. Board of Studies (2003). Assessment for learning in a standards-referenced framework. Board Bull, 12(1), 4-5.
9. Case, R. (1992). The mind's staircase: exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children's thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Clarke, D. (2003). International comparative research in mathematics education. In A.J. Bishop, M.A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 143-185). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Cobern, W.W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Cole, N.S. (1990). Conceptions of educational achievement. Educ Res, 19(3), 2-7.
13. Collis, K. & Romberg, T. (1991). Assessment of mathematical performance: an analysis of open-ended test items. In C. Wittrock & E. Baker (Eds.), Testing and cognition (pp. 83-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14. Collis, K., Jones, B., Sprod, T., Watson, J. & Fraser, S. (1998). Mapping development in student's understanding of vision using a cognitive structural model. Int J Sci Educ, 20(1), 44-66.
15. Cowie, B. (2005). Student commentary on classroom assessment in science: A sociocultural interpretation. Int J Sci Educ, 27(2), 199-214.
16. Fischer, K.W. & Knight, C.C. (1990). Cognitive development in real children: levels and variations. In B. Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and thinking styles: classroom interaction (pp 43-67). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
17. Gipps, C. & James, M. (2001). Broadening the basis of assessment to prevent the narrowing of learning. Curric J, 9(3), 285-297.
18. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
19. Goodrum D, Hackling M, Rennie L (2001) The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: a research report. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra ACT.
20. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Hackling, M.W. (2004). Assessment in science. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of teaching science (pp. 126-144). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
22. Halford, G.S. (1993). Children's understanding: the development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Rev Res Educ, 27, 25-68.
24. Hargraves, A. (2000). Educational outomes, modern and postmodern interpretations: response to Smyth and Dow. Brit J Sociol Educ, 21(1), 27-43.
25. Harry, B., Sturges, K.M. & Klingner, J.K. (2005). Mapping the process: an exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educ Res, 34(2), 3-13.
26. Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educ Res, 29(2), 4-16.
27. Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: a philosophical and practical guide. London, UK: The Falmer Press.
28. Morgan, C. & Watson, A. (2002). The interpretative nature of teachers' assessment of students' mathematics: Issues for equity. J Res Math Educ, 33(2), 78-107.
29. National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: a report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. Panizzon, D. (2003). Using a cognitive structural model to provide new insights into students' understandings of diffusion. Int J Sci Educ, 25(12), 1427-1450.
31. Panizzon D, Pegg J, McGee S (2005) Incorporating different assessment tasks to gauge student understandings of planetary processes. Refereed paper presented at the Annual Conference for the Australian Association for Research in Education in Melbourne, Victoria on 28th November-2nd December, pp 1-18 http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/abs04.htm.
32. Patchen, M. (2004). Making our schools more effective: what matters and what works. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publisher.
33. Pegg, J. (2003). Assessment in mathematics. In J. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition (pp. 227-259). Greenwich, CT: New Age Publishing.
34. Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res, 29(7), 4-14.
35. Skuy, M., Young, S., Ajam, A., Fidjhon, P. & Lomofsky, L. (2001). Instrumental enrichment as a vehicle for teachers in implementing outcomes based education in South Africa. Int J Spec Educ, 16(2), 1-15.
36. Strauss, A.L. & Cobin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research-grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37. Swain, J. (2000). Summative assessment. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp. 139-157). Buckingham, MK: Open University Press.
38. Thomson, S., Cresswell, J. & De Bortoli, L. (2004). Facing the future: a focus on mathematical literacy among Australian 15 year-old students in PISA 2003. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.
39. Treagust, D.F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallagher, J.L. & Parker, J. (2001). Using assessment as a guide in teaching for understanding: a case study of a middle school science class learning about sound. Sci Educ, 85, 137-157.
40. Watson, J., Collis, K. & Campbell, K. (1994). Developmental structure in the understanding of common and decimal fractions. Foc Lear Prob Math, 17(1), 2-25.
41. Watson, J., Collis, K., Callingham, R. & Moritz, J. (1995). A model for assessing higher order thinking in statistics. Educ Res Eval, 1(3), 247-275.
42. Wilson, M. & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: an embedded assessment system. Appl Meas Educ, 13(2), 181-208.
43. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Identifying literacy demands of adult numeracy. Literacy and Numer Stud, 10(1/2), 39-53.