Leveraging disciplinary practices to support students’ active participation in formative assessment

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 247-264

  Cowie, Bronwen ^a   Moreland, Judy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

authority; autonomous learners; disciplinary practices; formative assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926476156     PISSN: 0969594X     EISSN: 1465329X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2015.1015960     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2011). Teaching skillful teaching. The Effective Educator, 68(4), 40–45.
2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
3. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 151–167.10.1080/713695728
4. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–228). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136.10.1002/tea.20440
6. Cowie, B. (2005). Pupil commentary on assessment for learning. Curriculum Journal, 16, 137–151.10.1080/09585170500135921
7. Cowie, B., Moreland, J., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2013). Expanding notions of assessment for learning: Inside science and technology primary classrooms. Rotterdam: Sense.10.1007/978-94-6209-061-3
8. Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., Glynn, T., & Kara, H. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogy and assessment in primary science classrooms: Whakamana tamariki. Wellington: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.
9. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.10.3102/0091732X07309371
10. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.
11. Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: Possibilities, boundaries and limitations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13, 215–232.10.1080/09695940600708653
12. Engle, R. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 451–498.10.1207/s15327809jls1504_2
13. Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32.10.3102/0091732X030001001
14. Frederik, I., Sonneveld, W., & de Vries, M. (2011). Teaching and learning the nature of technical artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 277–290. doi:10.1007/s10798–010-9119–3
15. Gee, J. (2008). Game-like learning: An example of situated learning and the implications for opportunity to learn. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 200–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
16. Gipps, C. (1999). Sociocultural aspects to assessment. Review of Educational Research, 24, 353–392.
17. Gonzalez, N., & Moll, L. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16, 623–641.10.1177/0895904802016004009
18. Greeno, J. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 537–547.10.1207/s15327809jls1504_4
19. Greeno, J., & Gresalfi, M. (2008). Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 170–199). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
20. Gresalfi, M. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 327–369.10.1080/10508400903013470
21. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). Realising the potential and lost opportunities for peer collaboration in D & T settings. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 203–237.
22. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense.
23. Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Figuring the world of designing: Expert participation in elementary classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 425–442.10.1007/s10798-011-9187-z
24. Kelly, G. (2014). The social bases of disciplinary knowledge and practice in productive disciplinary engagement. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 211–214.
25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355
26. Lemke, J. (2001). The long and the short of it: Comments on multiple timescale studies of human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 17–26.10.1207/S15327809JLS10-1-2_3
27. Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21, 133–149.10.1080/02671520600615638
28. McClay, J., & Mackey, M. (2009). Distributed assessment in our space: This is not a rubric. In A. Burke & R. Hammett (Eds.), Assessing new literacies: Perspectives from the classroom (pp. 111–132). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
29. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.10.1080/10508400701793182
30. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
31. Moss, P. (2008). Sociocultural implications for assessment I: Classroom assessment. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 222–258). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
32. Moss, P., Girard, B., & Haniford, L. (2006). Chapter 4: Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30, 109–162.10.3102/0091732X030001109
33. Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. Linn, & J. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
34. Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 34, 1–20.10.1080/03054980701476386
35. Pullin, D. (2008). Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 333–352). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
36. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.10.3102/0013189X027002004
37. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Willis, J. (2011). Affiliation, autonomy and assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 399–415.
40. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2011). Ambitious pedagogy by novice teachers? Who benefits from tool-supported collaborative inquiry into practice and why. Teachers College Record, 113, 1311–1360.