Connected Classroom Technology Facilitates Multiple Components of Formative Assessment Practice

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 56-68

  Shirley, Melissa L ^a,b,c   Irving, Karen E ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^c Knowles Science Teaching Foundation   (United States)

Author keywords

Audience response system; Connected classroom technology; Education technology; Formative assessment; ICT; Science instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943589011     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-014-9520-x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Beatty ID, Gerace WJ, Leonard WJ, Dufresne RJ (2006) Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. Am J Phys 74(1):31–39
2. Bell B, Cowie B (2001) The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Sci Educ 85(5):536
3. Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Assessment in classroom learning. Assess Classr Learn Princ Policy Pract 5(1):7–74
4. Black P, Harrison C, Lee C, Marshall B, Wiliam D (2004) Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1):9–21
5. Burnstein RA, Lederman LM (2003) Comparison of different commercial wireless keypad systems. Phys Teach 41:272–275
6. Caldwell JE (2007) Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 6:9–20
7. Cowie B, Bell B (1999) A model of formative assessment in science education. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract 6(1):101
8. Creswell JW (2012) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 4th edn. SAGE Publications Inc, Washington
9. Creswell JW (2013) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications Inc, Washington
10. Daws N, Singh B (1996) Formative assessment: to what extent is its potential to enhance pupils’ science being realized? Sch Sci Rev 77(281):93–100
11. Erickson F (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In MC Wittrock (ed) Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edn. pp 119–161
12. Fies C, Marshall J (2006) Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 15(1):101–109
13. Furtak EM (2006) Formative assessment in K-8 science education: a conceptual review. Commissioned paper for the Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade, National Research Council
14. Grigg WS, Lauko MA, Brockway DM (2006) The Nation’s report card: science 2005. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington
15. Irving KE, Sanalan VA, Shirley ML (2009) Physical science connected classrooms: case studies. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 28(3):247-275
16. Kay R, Knaack L (2009) Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary school science classrooms. J Sci Educ Technol 18:382–392
17. Lee H, Feldman A, Beatty ID (2012) Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers’ initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response system. J Sci Educ Technol 21:523–539
18. Martin MO, Mullis IVS, Gonzalez EJ, Chrostowski SJ (2004) Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill
19. O’Sullivan CY, Lauko MA, Grigg WS, Qian J, Zhang J (2002) The nation’s report card: science 2000. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington
20. Pape S, Irving KE, Owens DT, Boscardin CK, Sanalan VH, Abrahamson AL et al (2013) Classroom connectivity in Algebra I classrooms: results of a randomized control trial. Effective Education 4(2):169–189
21. Penuel WR, Tatar DG, Roschelle J (2004) The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. J Educ Comput Res 30(4):353–370
22. Programme for International Student Assessment (2007) PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world: executive summary. OECD, Paris
23. Ribbens E (2007) Why I like clicker personal response systems. J Coll Sci Teach 37(2):60–62
24. Ridley RT (2007) Interactive teaching: a concept analysis. J Nurs Educ 46(5):203–209
25. Roschelle J, Penuel WR, Abrahamson L (2004) The networked classroom. Educ Leadersh 61(5):50–54
26. Ruiz-Primo MA, Furtak EM (2006) Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educ Assess 11(3/4):205–235
27. Ruiz-Primo MA, Furtak EM (2007) Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 44(1):57–84
28. Shavelson RJ, Yin Y, Furtak EM, Ruiz-Primo MA, Ayala C, Young DB et al (2008) On the role and impact of formative assessment in science inquiry teaching learning. In: Coffey J, Douglas R, Stearns C (eds) Assessing science learning: perspectives from research and practice. NSTA Press, Arlington
29. Shirley M (2009) A model of formative assessment practice in secondary science classrooms using an audience response system. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) The Ohio State University, Columbus OH
30. Shirley ML, Irving KE, Sanalan VA, Pape SJ, Owens DT (2011) The practicality of implementing connected classroom technology in mathematics and science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 9(2):459–481
31. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks
32. Torrance H, Pryor J (1998) Investigating formative assessment: teaching, learning, and assessment in the classroom. Open University Press, Philadelphia
33. Wiliam D (2006) FA: getting the focus right. Educ Assess 11(3/4):283–289
34. Wiliam D, Lee C, Harrison C, Black P (2004) Teachers developing assessment for learning: impact on student achievement. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract 11(1):49–65
35. Yourstone SA, Kraye HS, Albaum G (2008) Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: do clickers improve learning? Decis Sci J Innov Educ 6(1):75–88