Expanding notions of assessment for learning: Inside science and technology primary classrooms

Expanding Notions of Assessment for Learning: Inside Science and Technology Primary Classrooms

Volumn 9789462090613, Issue , 2013, Pages 1-161

  Cowie, Bronwen ^a   Moreland, Judy ^a   Otrel Cass, Kathrin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^b AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84933050082     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6209-061-3     Document Type: Book

References (214)

1. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 27-49.
2. Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
4. Ancess, J., Barnett, E., & Allen, D. (2007). Using research to inform the practice of teachers, schools, and school reform organizations. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 325-333.
5. Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on learning science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, 3-30. Mahwah, New Jersey; Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Appleton, K., & Kindt, L. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers' practices. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 155-168.
7. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). "Doing" science versus "being" a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren's construction of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 1-23. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience. wiley.com).
8. Archer, B., & Roberts, P. (1992). Design and technological awareness in education. In B. Archer, K. Baynes & P. Roberts (Eds.), Modelling: The language of designing. Design: Occasional Paper 1 (3-4). Loughborough: Loughborough University.
9. Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops-linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew, (Ed.), Feedback for learning, 1-18. London: Routledge Falmer.
10. Atkin, J. M, Black, P., & Coffey, J. E. (Eds.), (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Atkin, J. M., Coffey, J. E., Moorthy, S., Sato, M., & Thibeault, M. (2005). Designing everyday assessment in the science classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
12. Atkinson, S. (2007). Why can't I design as well as other people? I thought I understood the process and what was required. In J. Dakers (Ed.), PATT18: Teaching and learning technology literacy in the classroom, Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 202-207.
13. Ball, D. L. (2000). Working on the inside: Using one's own practice as a site for studying mathematics teaching and learning. In A. Kelly, & R. Lesh, (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education, 365-402. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
14. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is- or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
15. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536-553.
16. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12.
17. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., Serret, N. (2011). Can teachers' summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance learning? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 451-469.
18. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2002). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London, UK: King's College London School of Education.
19. Black, P., Harrison, C. Lee, C., B., Marshall, B., & D. William. (2003a). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
20. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003b). The nature and value of formative assessment for learning. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 23 April 2003. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/education/papers/AERA%20Pres.pdf. Accessed1 March 2006.
21. Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 119-132.
22. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
23. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning, 81-100. London: Sage.
24. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31.
25. Boaler, J. (2003). When learning no longer matters - standardized testing and the creation of inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 502-506.
26. Bolstad, R., & Hipkins, R. (2008). Seeing yourself in science: The importance of the middle school years. New Zealand Council for Educational Research: Wellington New Zealand.
27. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.
28. Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings: Learning stories. Paul Chapman Publishing: London.
29. Carr, M. (2008). Can assessment unlock and open the doors to resourcefulness and agency? In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment: Understanding for reflection and application, 57-72. Routlege: New York.
30. Claxton, G. (1995). What kind of learning does self-assessment drive? Developing a nose for quality: comments on Klenowski. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2(3), 339-345.
31. Coffey, J., Sato, M., & Thiebault, M. (2005). Classroom assessment up close- and personal. Teacher development, 9(2), 169-184.
32. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 1-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Cowie, B. (2000). Formative assessment in science classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.
34. Cowie, B. (2005). Student commentary in classroom assessment in science: A sociocultural interpretation. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 199-214.
35. Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 102-116.
36. Cowie, B., & Moreland, J. (2007). It's a kiwi: Multimodal approaches to exploring and extending young children's science ideas. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 14(2), 37-46.
37. Cowie, B., & Moreland, J. (2009). Chapter 52. Methodological considerations in studying classroom interactions in technology education. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 625-636.
38. Cowie, B., Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2008). The classroom InSiTE project: Understanding classroom interactions to enhance teaching and learning in science and technology in Years 1-8. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
39. Cowie, B., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2011). Exploring the value of 'horizontal' learning in early years science classrooms. Early Years. online, Taylor & Francis Group, DOI:10.1080/09575146.2011. 609157, 1-11.
40. 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 Baljit Kaur (Ed.), Understanding teaching and learning: Classroom research revisited. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. 159-170.
41. Crawford, A., Saul, W., Mathews, S., & Makinster, J. (2005). Section 3.2: Assessment, in Teaching and learning strategies for the thinking classroom. Open Society Institute, New York, 172-181.
42. Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practise on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.
43. Crooks, T. (2002). Educational assessment in New Zealand schools. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 9(2):237-253.
44. Crooks, T. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era: New Zealand. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 71-77.
45. Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Representational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first-grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2069-2094.
46. Department of Education, (1989). Assessment for better learning: A public discussion document. Wellington: Department of Education.
47. Danish, J. A., Phelps, D. (2011). Representational Practices by The Numbers: How Kindergarten and First-Grade Students Create, Evaluate, and Modify Their Science Representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2069-2094.
48. De Vries, M. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Science and Technology Education Library, Vol 27, The Netherlands: Springer.
49. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
50. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
51. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4, 37-73.
52. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York. Random House.
53. Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009, March). From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the biologists world. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 39-68.
54. Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning in a comfort zone: Cultural and social capital in outcome based assessment regimes. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 30-47.
55. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.
56. Elwood, J. (2006). Formative Assessment: Possibilities, boundaries and limitations. Assessment in Education, 13(2), 215-232.
57. Engle, R., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principals for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners community. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
58. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettenen, & R-L. Punamaki, (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory, 19-38. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Eshach, H., Zeiderman, Y., & Arbel Y. (2011). Scaffolding the "scaffolding" metaphor: From inspiration to a practical tool for kindergarten teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 550-565.
60. Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32.
61. Frederik, I., Sonneveld, W., & De Vries, M. (2011). Teaching and learning the nature of technical artefacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 277-290.
62. Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment and learning: An introduction, In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning. London: Sage. 1-6.
63. Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.
64. Gee, J. P. (2008). Game-like learning: An example of situated learning and the implications for opportunity to learn. In P. Moss, D. Pullan, J. Gee, E. Haertel & L. Young, (Eds.), Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn, 200-221. New York: Cambridge University Press.
65. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.
66. Gipps, C. (1999). Sociocultural aspects to assessment. Review of Educational Research, 24, 353-392.
67. Gipps, C., & Clarke, S. (1998). Monitoring consistency in teacher assessment and the impact of SCAA's guidance materials at Key Stages 1, 2, and 3. Final Report. London, Institute of Education: 87.
68. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Investigating, 17(4), 5-7.
69. Greeno, J. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537-547.
70. Gresalfi, M., Taylor, M., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2008). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activities systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49-70.
71. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
72. Haertel, E., Moss, P., Pullin, D., & Gee, J. (2008). Introduction. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel & L. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn, 1-10. New York: Cambridge University Press.
73. Haggis, T. (2006). Pedagogies for diversity: Retaining critical challenge amidst fears of 'dumbing down'. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 521-35.
74. Haneda, M. (2009). Learning over time: Empirical and theoretical investigations of classroom talk and interaction. Language and Education, 23(4), 291-294.
75. Hargreaves, D. (2004). Personalizing learning-2: student voice and assessment for learning. London: Specialist Schools Trust.
76. Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers' understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education. 27, 323-337.
77. Harlen, W. (2005, June). Teachers' summative practices and assessment for learning - tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223.
78. Harlen, W. (2006). The role of assessment in developing motivation for learning. In J. Gardner, (Ed.), Assessment and Learning, 61-80. London: Sage.
79. Harrison, C. (2005). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Mapping teacher change. Teacher Development, 9(2), 255-264.
80. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity? A project of Margaret Heritage and the Council of Chief State School Officers (Paper prepared for the Council of Chief State School Officers). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
81. Hipkins, R. (2010). Reshaping the secondary school curriculum: Building the plane while flying it? Findings from NZCER National Survey of Secondary Schools 2009. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
82. James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning. 47-60. London: Sage.
83. James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: Assessment and learning practices and values, Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109-138.
84. Jayashree, R. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on "Visual and spatial modes in science learning". International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 297-299.
85. Jewitt, C. (2003, March). Rethinking assessment: Mulitmodality, literacy and computer-based learning. Assessment in Education, 10(1), 83-102.
86. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodal classroom research, Review of Research in Education, 32, 241-267.
87. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2003). Considering pedagogical content knowledge in the context of research on teaching: An example from technology. Waikato Journal of Education, 9, 77-89.
88. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers' pedagogical content knowledge in technology, International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 14, 101-119.
89. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2005). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in assessment for learning practices: A case study of a whole school approach. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 193-206.
90. Jones, A., & Simon, S. (1991). Strategies for educational change: The work of the OPENS project in the context of a new national curriculum for science. SAME papers 1991. Auckland: Longman Paul.
91. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
92. Kelly, K., & Brown, C. (2003). Communicative Demands of Learning Science through Technological Design: Third Grade Students' Construction of Solar Energy Devices. Linguistics and Education, 13, 483-501.
93. Kelly, G., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices though oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
94. Kelly, G., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23-5.
95. Kelly, G., Luke, A., & Green J. (2008, February). What counts as knowledge in educational settings: Disciplinary knowledge, assessment and curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 32, vii-x.
96. Kimbell, R. (1994). Progression in learning and the assessment of children's attainments in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 45-59.
97. Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2008). Researching design learning. Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Science and Technology Education Library, Volume 34. Springer Science.
98. Kimbell, R. A., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
99. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelius, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
100. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
101. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Mathematics, teaching, and multimedia: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
102. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.
103. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-by minute and day-by-day, Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24.
104. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 87-163.
105. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing.
106. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science, 87-113. London: Routledge.
107. Lemke, J. L. (2000a). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum, Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 247-271.
108. Lemke, J. (2000b). Across the scales of time: Artefacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(4), 273-290.
109. Lemke, J. L. (2001a). The long and the short of it: Comments on multiple timescale studies of human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1), 17-26.
110. Lemke, J. L. (2001b). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
111. Liberg, C., Af Geijerstam, A., & Folkeryd, J. (2011). Scientific literacy and students' movability in science texts. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy, 74-89. New York: Routledge.
112. Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 133-149.
113. McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(2), 113-127.
114. McGee C., Jones, A., Cowie, B., Hill, M., Miller, T., Harlow, A., & MacKenzie, K. (2003). Teachers' experiences in curriculum implementation: Mathematics, science and technology. Report to the Ministry of Education. Hamilton: University of Waikato.
115. McGinnis, J. R. (2005). Cultural considerations. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: Contemporary issues and practice, 275-298. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
116. McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
117. Mercer, N. (1995). Guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and students. United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
118. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33-59.
119. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. (2009) Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369.
120. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York: Routlege.
121. Miettenen, R. (2001). Artifact mediation in Dewey and in cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 297-308.
122. Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
123. Ministry of Education. (1994). Assessment: Policy to practice. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
124. Ministry of Education. (1995). Technology in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
125. Ministry of Education. (1999). National Assessment Strategy. http://www.tki.org.nz/r/assessment/strategy-e.php
126. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
127. Mitchell, J. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. Ellen (Ed.), Enthnographers guide to conduct, 237-241. San Diego, CA: Academic.
128. Moreland, J. (2003). Becoming effective technology teachers: Enhancing assessment practices in primary classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waikato.
129. Moreland, J. (2004). Putting students at the centre: Developing effective learners in primary technology classrooms. Set (1), 37-43.
130. Moreland, J., & Cowie, B. (2007). Making masks for Maui: Keeping the macro in mind. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 14(1), 81-93.
131. Moreland, J., & Cowie, B. (2009). Making meaning in primary technology classrooms through assessment for learning. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education, 461-476. Rotterdam: Sense.
132. Moreland, J., Cowie, B., & Jones, A. (2007). Assessment for learning practices in primary technology classrooms. International Journal of Design and Technology Education, 12(2), 37-48.
133. Moreland, J., & Jones, A. (2000). Emerging assessment practices in an emergent curriculum: Implications for technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 283-305.
134. Moss, P. (2006). Thinking systematically about assessment practice. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for quality: A handbook, 355-374, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
135. Moss, P. (2008). Sociocultural implications for assessment I: Classroom assessment. In P. Moss, D. Pullan, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Young, (Eds.), Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn, 222-258. New York: Cambridge University Press.
136. Moss, P., Pullin, D., Gee, J., Haertel, E., & Young, L. (2008). Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
137. Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: the REAL framework. Assessment in Education, 13(2), 193-213.
138. Newfield, D., Andrew, D., Stein, P., & Maungedzo, R. (2003). No number can describe how good it was: Assessment issues in the multimodal classroom. Assessment in Education: Policy & Practice, 10(1), p. 61-81.
139. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
140. O'Byrne, B. (2009). Knowing More than Words Can Say: Using multimodal assessment tools to excavate and construct knowledge about wolves, International Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 523-539.
141. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005, November). Policy Brief. Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD.
142. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011). Integrating formative and summative assessment: Progress toward a seamless system? OECD Education Working Paper No. 58. Paris: OECD.
143. Otrel-Cass, K., Cowie, B., Moreland, J., & Jones, A. (2009). Teachers and researchers working together: A subject specific planning framework as a boundary object. Partnership in Education. Theoretical approach and case studies. The Book Edition. Com, 128-152.
144. Pea, R. (2004). Commentary: The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
145. Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: Assessment and learning practices and values. The Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109-138.
146. Perkins, D. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. 88-110. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, Camp
147. Perrenoud, P. (1991). Towards a pragmatic approach to formative evaluation. In P. Weston (Ed.), Assessment of pupil achievement. 79-101. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
148. Perrenoud, P. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 85-102.
149. Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W.-M. (2007). On performing concepts during science lectures. Science Education, 91(1), 96-114. doi:10.1002/sce.20172.
150. Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009, April). Multiple representations in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787-808.
151. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers' and students' use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866.
152. Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). A sociocultural theorization of formative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 33 (5) 1-20.
153. Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2010). Challenging formative assessment: disciplinary spaces and identities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 265-276.
154. Pryor, J., & Torrance, H. (1996). Teacher-pupil interaction in formative assessment: Assessing the work or protecting the child? The Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 205-226.
155. Pullan, D. (2008). Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. In P. Moss, D. Pullan, J. Gee, E. Haertel & L. Young, (Eds.), Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn, 33-352. New York: Cambridge University Press.
156. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
157. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
158. Reay, D., & Wiliam, D. (1999). 'I'll be a nothing': Structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 343-54.
159. Roth, W.-M. (1994). Thinking with hands, eyes, and signs: Multimodal science talk in a Grade 6/7 unit on simple machines. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(2), 170-187.
160. Roth, W.-M. (1997). Interactional structures during a grade 4-5 open-design engineering unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 273-302.
161. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Talking science: Language and learning in science classrooms. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
162. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86, 368-385.
163. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configuration and physical arrangements. Journal of Learning Sciences, 8, 293-347.
164. Rotherham, A., & Willingham, D. (2009, September). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 16-21.
165. Ruiz-Primo, M. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students' learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 15-24.
166. Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers' practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3-4), 205-235.
167. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
168. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77-84.
169. Salomon, S. (1993). Distributed cognitions, psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
170. Sato, M. (2003). Working with teachers in assessment-related professional development. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom, 109-120. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
171. Sato, M., Wei, R., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008, September). Improving teachers' assessment practices through professional development: The case of National Board Certification. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 669-700.
172. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tensions between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631.
173. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge, Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3-36.
174. Shanahan, M. (2009). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 43-64.
175. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture, Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
176. Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63, 66-70.
177. Shepard, L. A. (2006). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan, (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.), 623-646. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
178. Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Evaluating the validity of formative and interim assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 23(3), 32-37.
179. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
180. Shute, V. J. & Becker, B. J. (2010). Prelude: Assessment for the 21st century. In V. Shute & B. J. Becker (Eds.). Innovative assessment for the 21st Century: Supporting educational needs. 1-12. New York: Springer.
181. Stein, M., Smith, M., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for teacher professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
182. Stiggins, R. (2007, May). Assessment through the student's eyes. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 22-26.
183. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge.
184. Swaffield, S. (2008). Chapter 4: Feedback: The central process in assessment for learning. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking Assessment: Understanding for Reflection and Application, 57-72. London and New York: Routledge.
185. Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433-449.
186. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
187. Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2008). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms. In C. Wylie (Ed.), Tight but loose: Scaling up teacher professional development in diverse contexts, 1-44. Educational Testing Service.
188. Tierney, R. (2006, November). Changing practices: influences on classroom assessment. Assessment in Education, 13(3), 239-264.
189. Tibergien, A., Vince, J., Gaidioz, P., & Coince, D. (2010). Professional development of teachers and researchers in a collaborative development of teaching resources. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P-O. Wickman, G. Ericksen & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy. 255-271. New York: Routledge.
190. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
191. Torrance, H. & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 615-631.
192. Trauth-Nare, A., & Buck, G. (2011). Assessment for Learning. The Science Teacher, 78(1), 34-39.
193. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
194. Valencia, S. W., & Au, K. H. (1997). Portfolios across educational contexts: Issues of evaluation, teacher development, and system validity. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 1-35.
195. Van De Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Research, 21, 271-296.
196. Varales, M., Pappas, C., Kane, J., & Arsenault, A. (2010). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92, 65-95.
197. Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning, Assessment in Education, 16(2), 165-184.
198. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
199. Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, culture and activity, 9(1), 43-66.
200. Wells, G. (2003). Lesson plans and situated learning-and-teaching. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 265-272.
201. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
202. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
203. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
204. Wickmann, P. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning making as situated talk and action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
205. Wiliam, D. (2003). The impact of educational research on mathematics education. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education, 469-488. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
206. Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for Learning: Why, what and how. In R. Oldroyd, (Ed.), Excellence in Assessment: Assessment for Learning, A supplement to the Cambridge Assessment Network Assessment for Learning Seminar. 2-10. Cambridge Assessment Network, UK.
207. Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning: why, what and how? Institute of Education, University of London.
208. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. US: Solution Tree Press.
209. 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, 53-82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
210. Willis, J. (2011). Affiliation, autonomy and assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 399-415.
211. Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716-730.
212. Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112-143.
213. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89-100.
214. Wyatt-Smith, C., & Kimber, K. (2009). Working multimodally: Challenges for assessment. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(3), 70-90.