From the teacher’s eyes: facilitating teachers noticings on informal formative assessments (IFAs) and exploring the challenges to effective implementation

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 181-212

  Sezen Barrie, Asli ^a   Kelly, Gregory J ^b  

^a TOWSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

discourse analysis; Formative assessments; teachers' noticing; video reflection

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009767630     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1274921     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P., (1993). Classroom assessment techniques:A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
2. Atkin, J. M., Coffey, J. E., Moorthy, S., Sato, M., & Thibeault, M., (2005). Designing everyday assessment in the science classroom. New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
3. Bell, B., & Cowie, B., (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D., (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., (1999). How people learn:Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
6. Brown, B. A., (2006). ‘It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff’:Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 96–126. doi:10.1002/tea.20096
7. Chin, C., & Osborne, J., (2008). Students’ questions:A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39. doi:10.1080/03057260701828101
8. Christie, F., (2002). Classroom discourse analysis:A functional perspective. London:Continuum.
9. College Board. (2009). The college board standards for college success:Science. New York, NY:Author.
10. Crawford, T., (2005). What counts as knowing:Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 139–165. doi:10.1002/tea.20047
11. Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A., (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12. doi:10.1007/BF01189290
12. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P., (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007005
13. Duschl, R. A., (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In M., Atkin & J., Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Boston:NSTA Press.
14. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H., (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37–73. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea0401_2
15. Furtak, E. M., (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers’ enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1181–1210. doi:10.1002/tea.21054
16. Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A., (2005, January). Questioning cycle:Making students’ thinking explicit during scientific inquiry. Science Scope, 28(4), 22–25.
17. Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A., (2008). Making students’ thinking explicit in writing and discussion:An analysis of formative assessment prompts. Science Education, 92(5), 799–824. doi:10.1002/sce.20270
18. Gee, J. P., (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Routledge.
19. Gitomer, D., & Duschl, R., (2007). Establishing multi-level coherence in assessment. In P., Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making, NSSE 2007 yearbook (pp. 288–320). Oxford:Blackwell.
20. Goodwin, C., (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
21. Green, J. L., & Wallat, C., (1981). Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
22. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A., (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.
23. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., Philipp, R. A., & Schappelle, B. P., (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In M. G., Sherin, V. R., Jacobs, & R. A., Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing:Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 97–116). New York, NY:Routledge.
24. Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W., (2014). The practical turn in teacher education:Designing a preparation sequence for core practice frames. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(3), 195–206. doi:10.1177/0022487113518584
25. Janssen, F. J. J. M., Westbroek, H. B., Doyle, W., & Van Driel, J. H., (2013). How to make innovations practical. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1–43.
26. Keeley, P., (Ed.). (2008). Science formative assessment:75 practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
27. Kelly, G., (1999, updated in 2004). The interjectionally accomplished nature of science as disciplinary knowledge in school settings. Interim report for the National Academy of Education Postdoctoral Fellowship 1998–2000. Retrieved through personal communication on November, 10 2009.
28. Kelly, G. J., (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. Handbook of research on science education, 443–469.
29. Mason, J., (2002). Researching your own practice:The discipline of noticing. London:RoutledgeFalmer.
30. McDonald, S. P., (2016). The transparent and the invisible in professional pedagogical vision for science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 116(2), 95–103. doi:10.1111/ssm.12156
31. McDonald, S., & Kelly, G. J., (2007). Understanding the construction of a science storyline in a chemistry classroom. Pedagogies:An International Journal, 2(3), 165–177. doi:10.1080/15544800701366563
32. Mehan, H., (1979). Learning lessons:Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
33. National Research Council. (1999). The assessment of science meets the science of assessment. Board on Testing and Assessment Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
34. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
35. National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. Committee on Developing Assessments of Science Proficiency in K-12. J.W. Pellegrino, M.R. Wilson, J.A. Koenig, & A.S. Beatty (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
36. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards:For states, by states. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.
37. Powell, K., (2010). Making sense of place:Mapping as a multisensory research method. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(7), 539–555. doi:10.1177/1077800410372600
38. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., (2011). Informal formative assessment:The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003
39. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M., (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84. doi:10.1002/tea.20163
40. 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 (pp. 109–120). Arlington, VA:National Science Teachers’ Association Press.
41. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A., (1997). A splintered vision:An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic.
42. Schoenfeld, A. H., (2011). How we think:A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York, NY:Routledge.
43. Scott, P. H., & Mortimer, E. F., (2005). Meaning making in high school science classrooms:A framework for analyzing meaning making interactions. In K., Boersma, M., Goedhart, O., de Jong, & H., Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 395–406). Springer.
44. Sezen-Barrie, A., Tran, M. D., McDonald, S. P., & Kelly, G. J., (2014). A cultural historical activity theory perspective to understand preservice science teachers reflections on and tensions during a microteaching experience. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 675–697. doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9503-x
45. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., … Yin, Y., (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning:A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314. doi:10.1080/08957340802347647
46. Sherin, M. G., (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. Advances in Research on Teaching, 10, 1–27. doi:10.1016/S1479-3687(03)10001-6
47. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M., (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
48. Spradley, J. P., (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
49. Stage, E. K., Asturias, H., Cheuk, T., Daro, P. A., & Hampton, S. B., (2013). Opportunities and challenges in next generation standards. Science, 340(6130), 276–277. doi:10.1126/science.1234011
50. Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Windschitl, M., & Colley, C., (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1–58.
51. Tytler, R., & Aranda, G., (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425–446. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9617-6
52. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G., (2002). Learning to notice:Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–595.
53. Wells, G., (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence:A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–37. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4
54. Yin, R. K., (2003). Case study research:Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
55. Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J., (2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454–462. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.015