NSTA-On Role & Impact Form Assess on Sci Inquiry

8/7/2019 NSTA-On Role & Impact Form Assess on Sci Inquiry

1/48

AssessingScience LearningPerspectives From Research and PracticeCopyright 2008 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.


2/48

Copyright 2008 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.


3/48

Alto, VA

AssessingScience LearningPerspectives From Research and PracticeEdited by Janet Coffey,Rowena Douglas, andCarole StearnsCopyright 2008 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.


4/48

Claire Reinburg, DirectrJennier Hrak, Managing EditrJudy Cusick, Senir EditrAndrew Ccke, Assciate EditrBetty Smith, Assciate Editr

ArtAnd design

Will Thmas, Jr., Directr

PrintingAnd Production

Catherine Lrrain, DirectrNguyet Tran, Assistant Prductin Manager

nAtionAl science teAchersAssociAtion

Gerald F. Wheeler, Executive DirectrDavid Beacm, Publisher

Cpyright 2008 by the Natinal Science Teachers Assciatin.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States America.11 10 09 08 4 3 2 1

Libraryof Congress CataLoging-in-PubLiCation Data

Assessing science learning : perspectives rm research and practice / edited by Janet E. Cey,

Rwena Duglas, and Carle Stearns.p. cm.

Includes index.ISBN 978-1-93353-140-31. ScienceStudy and teachingEvaluatin. 2. ScienceAbility testing. I. Cey, Janet. II.Duglas, Rwena. III. Stearns, Carle.LB1585.A777 2008507.1073dc22

2008018485

NSTA is cmmitted t publishing material that prmtes the best in inquiry-based scienceeducatin. Hwever, cnditins actual use may vary, and the saety prcedures and practicesdescribed in this bk are intended t serve nly as a guide. Additinal precautinary measuresmay be required. NSTA and the authrs d nt warrant r represent that the prcedures andpractices in this bk meet any saety cde r standard ederal, state, r lcal regulatins. NSTAand the authrs disclaim any liability r persnal injury r damage t prperty arising ut rrelating t the use this bk, including any the recmmendatins, instructins, r materialscntained therein.

PERMISSIoNSYu may phtcpy, print, r e-mail up t ve cpies an NSTA bk chapter r persnaluse nly; this des nt include display r prmtinal use. Elementary, middle, and high schlteachers only may reprduce a single NSTA bk chapter r classrm- r nncmmercial,pressinal-develpment use nly. Fr permissin t phtcpy r use material electrnically rm

this NSTA Press bk, please cntact the Cpyright Clearance Center (CCC) (www.copyright.com; 978-750-8400). Please access www.nsta.org/permission r urther inrmatin abut NSTAsrights and permissins plicies.



5/48

vLAssessing science LeArning

cott

Fowod ..................................................................................................xElizabeth Stage

itoduto ............................................................................................ x

Janet Cey and Carle Stearns

Section 1Formative Assessment: Assessment for Learning ......................1

Chapter 1 .................................................................................................3impov La s Wt Fomatv AmtDylan Wiliam, Institute of Education, University of London

Chapter 2 ...............................................................................................21

Ot rol ad impat of Fomatv Amt o siquy Ta ad LaRichard J. Shavelsn, Yue Yin, Erin M. Furtak, Maria Araceli Ruiz-Prim,

Carls C. Ayala, Stanford Educational Assessment Laboratory, and Dnald

B. Yung, Miki K. Tmita, Paul R. Brandn, and Francis M. Pttenger III,

Curriculum Research and Development Group, University of Hawaii

Chapter 3 ...............................................................................................37

Fom Pat to ra ad Bak: Pptv ad Tool A fo LaJim Minstrell, Ruth Andersn, Pamela Kraus, and James E. Minstrell,

FACET Innovations, Seattle

Section 2Probing Students UnderstandingThrough Classroom-BasedAssessment .................................................................................69



6/48

v n A T i O n A L s c i e n c e T e A c h e r s A s s O c i A T i O n

Chapter 4 ...............................................................................................73Doumt ealy s LaJacqueline Jnes, New Jersey State Department of Education, and Rsalea

Curtney, Educational Testing Service

Chapter 5 ...............................................................................................83U s notbook a a ifomal Amt ToolAlicia C. Alnz, University of Iowa

Chapter 6 .............................................................................................101A Mddl sool studt cott Kowld adReasoning Through Written Scientifc Explanations

Katherine L. McNeill, Boston College, and Jseph S. Krajcik,University of Michigan

Chapter 7 .............................................................................................117Mak Ma: T U of s notbook a a efftvAmt Toololga Amaral and Michael Klentschy, San Diego State UniversityImperial Valley

Campus

Chapter 8 .............................................................................................145

Amt of Laboatoy ivtatoArthur Eisenkrat, University of Massachusetts, Boston, and Matthew Anthes-

Washburn, Boston International High School

Chapter 9 .............................................................................................167

A s Kowld: s Mo Tou t FomatvAmt LKathy Lng, Larry Malne, and Linda De Lucchi, Lawrence Hall of Science,

University of California, Berkeley

Chapter 10 ...........................................................................................191explo t rol of Toloy-Bad smulato sAmt: T calp PojtEdys S. Quellmalz, West Ed; Angela H. DeBarger, Geneva Haertel, and Patricia

Schank, SRI International; Barbara C. Buckley, Janice Gbert, and Paul Hrwitz,

Concord Consortium; and Carls C. Ayala, Sonoma State University

Chapter 11 ...........................................................................................203

U stadad ad cotv ra to ifom t D adU of Fomatv Amt PobPage D. Keeley and Francis Q. Eberle, Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance



7/48

vLAssessing science LeArning

Section 3High-Stakes Assessment: Test Items and Formats .................227

Chapter 12 ...........................................................................................231Amt Lkd to s La goal: Pob studtTk Tou AmtGerge E. DeBer and Cari Hermann Abell, Project 2061 at AAAS; Arhnda

Ggs, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals; An Michiels, Leuven, Belgium; Thmas Regan,

American Institutes for Research, and Paula Wilsn, Kaysville, Utah.

Chapter 13 ...........................................................................................253A s Ltay U extdd

cotutd-rpo itmAudrey B. Champagne, Vicky L. Kuba, University at Albany,State University of

New York, and Linda Gentilum, Schenectady N.Y. School District

Chapter 14 ...........................................................................................283

Al claoom-Bad Amt Wt h-stak TtMarian Pasquale and Marian Grgan, EDC Center for Science Education

Chapter 15 ...........................................................................................301

sytm fo stat s Amt: Fd of t natoalra coul commtt o Tt D fo K12 s

AvmtMeryl W. Bertenthal, Mark R. Wilsn, Alexandra Beatty, and Thmas E. Keller,

National Research Council

Chapter 16 ...........................................................................................317Fom rad to s: Amt Tat suppot ad Dbstudt AvmtPeter Aferbach, University of Maryland

Section 4Professional Development: Helping Teachers Link Assessment,Teaching, and Learning ...........................................................337Chapter 17 ...........................................................................................341Wat ra say About s Amt Wt

el Laua LaKathryn LeRy, Duval County, Florida, Public Schools, and okhee Lee,

University of Miami



8/48

v n A T i O n A L s c i e n c e T e A c h e r s A s s O c i A T i O n

Chapter 18 ...........................................................................................357Wato stat s Amt sytm: O DttAppoa to Ppa Ta ad studtElaine W and Kathryn Shw, Seattle Public Schools

Chapter 19 ...........................................................................................387Lk Amt to studt Avmt a Pofoal

Dvlopmt ModlJanet L. Struble, Mark A. Templin, and Charlene M. Czerniak,

University of Toledo

Chapter 20 ...........................................................................................409

U Amt D a a Modl of Pofoal DvlopmtPaul J. Kuerbis, Colorado College, and Linda B. Mney,

Colorado Springs Public Schools

Chapter 21 ...........................................................................................427U Fomatv Amt ad Fdbak to impovs Ta PatPaul Hickman, science education consultant, Drew Isla, Allegan, Michigan, Public

Schools, and Marc Rei, Ruamrudee International School,Bangkok

Chapter 22 ...........................................................................................447U Data to Mov sool Fom rato to rult: T Powof collaboatv iquyNancy Lve, Research for Better Teaching

Volum edto .....................................................................................465

cotbuto .........................................................................................467

idx .....................................................................................................473



9/48

x

Fowod

Elizabeth StageDirector, Lawrence Hall of ScienceUniversity of California, Berkeley

it is all t cmmn t pick up a newspaper and see an article abutstudent achievement (usually declining test scres) r district testingplicies and the eects N Child Let Behind n the allcatin

instructinal time. All arund the cuntry, annual testing r the purpse accuntability is dminating public cnversatins abut educatin. Thiscus n accuntability testing is just ne many assessment respnsibili-ties teachers juggle daily, and prbably the least imprtant r supprtingstudent learning. As the essays in this bk attest, teachers als need tassess students t guide daily instructinal decisins, t prmte their ur-

ther learning, and t assign grades. In a mre perect wrld, assessment raccuntability and assessment r student learning wuld align, reinrcingne anther. Unrtunately, mre ten than nt, such synergy remainselusive.

In 2005, NSTA invited a distinguished grup researchers and teachereducatrs t share their current research and perspectives n assessmentwith an audience teachers. As the cnerence demnstrated, a rich bdy research n what wrks and what des nt is available t inrm teach-ers assessment practices. The cnerence als demnstrated the value an

pen dialgue amng researchers and teachers n practical applicatins assessment research t practice. The gal this bk, with chapters by thecnerence presenters, is t share these research-based insights with a largeraudience and t help teachers bring tgether dierent assessment priritiesand purpses in ways that ultimately supprt student learning.

This bk is als a call r greater teacher invlvement in assessmentdiscussins, particularly at the state and lcal levels. Just as we knw rmclassrm-based research that teachers can gain great insight by listeningcareully t their students, s t researchers and plicy makers will be

better inrmed by listening t teacherst the questins they have, the



10/48

x n A T i O n A L s c i e n c e T e A c h e r s A s s O c i A T i O n

realities they ace, and the dilemmas with which they struggle. Teachersshuld actively engage in cnversatins, participate in test design and item

develpment, and help imprve the assessment literacy students and par-ents. Indeed, teachers vices are prminent in many the research ertsdescribed in this bk; teachers c-authred many the chapters. Insightsrm teachers will help generate strands research that cntribute tricher understandings assessment practice and its ultimate inluence nstudent learning. While n simple ixes exist r the seemingly divergentassessment purpses, by wrking tgether, teachers and researchers can de-sign pwerul assessment cntexts that help all students reach deep levels cnceptual understanding and high levels science achievement.



11/48

x

itoduto

Janet Cey and Carle Stearns

i

n an era accuntability, talk assessment ten cnjures up images large-scale testing. Althugh it dminates attentin, annual testing isnly a small crner what ccurs in the classrm in the name as-

sessment. Assessment is the chapter test, the weekly quiz, the checking nightly hmewrk assignments. Assessment can be the bservatins madeas students engage in an activity r the sense-making student talk asthey er explanatins. It is the teacher eedback ered n the lab reprt,prvided t students as they cmplete an investigatin r ater they havecmpleted a jurnal entry. As all these things and mre, assessment is acentral dimensin teaching practice.

As the multiple images assessment suggest, within any classrm, as-sessment takes n many rms, and must serve multiple purpses. Thesepurpses include accuntability and grading. Anther imprtant purpsethat has received increasing attentin is assessment that supprts studentlearning, rather than slely dcumenting achievement. Dierent ways ttalk abut assessment have emerged. We can talk abut its purpose, as wejust did abve. We can talk abut the form assessment takesthe multiple-chice test, the prtli, the alternative assessment, the written cmmentsr ral eedback, r the piece student wrk. Dierent uses inrmatingleaned rm assessment have led us t talk abut assessment oflearningand assessment for learning, r, in assessment terminlgy, summative andrmative assessment. All these purpses, rms, and unctins are im-prtant; all are at play in the classrm.

over the past decade, the Natinal Science Fundatin (NSF) hasunded numerus research erts that seek t better understand assessmentin science and math educatin at all levels; the varius strategies and sys-tems; and the variety rms, rles, and cntexts r assessment ofand forstudent learning. NSF has als unded assessment-centered teacher pres-sinal develpment erts and creatin mdels r assessment systemsthat seek synergy amng dierent purpses. In 20052006, the NatinalScience Teachers Assciatin cnvened tw ull-day cnerences t help



12/48

x n A T i O n A L s c i e n c e T e A c h e r s A s s O c i A T i O n

disseminate these NSF-unded research indings t practitiners. Many the recipients thse grants shared their wrk at the cnerences and have

prepared chapters r this bk in an ert t build cnnectins betweenresearch and practice and t acilitate meaningul cnversatin.Cnversatins between research and practice are nt cmmnplace,

yet greater exchange is essential. Practitiners help researchers better un-derstand the terrain, including the practitiners underlying ratinales rtheir everyday decisin making. These insights rm thse n the grundcan inrm research and cntribute t generative lines questining. Al-thugh starting pints and perspectives may dier, ultimately the assess-ment research and practitiner cmmunities are wrking tward the same

gal: t better understand the relatinships between assessment and learn-ing in rder t create classrm envirnments that supprt ur studentslearning.

Researchers are arded the luxury stepping back; they can extracta part rm the whlethe rmative rm the summative, r example.They can cus n particular strategies r activities, such as use nte-bks r assessment lab reprts. Teachers, n the ther hand, need tmake sense assessment in all its cmplexity and juggle what may seemlike cmpeting pririties and purpses. There may even be times when the

dierent rles teachers take n with respect t assessment appear t cn-lict: They are, at nce, judge and jurr, cach and reeree. Teachers areasked t igure ut ways t navigate these dierent rles and t align strate-gies t pririties. They are asked t implement assessment activities andstrategies in such a way that a variety purpses is served, and served well,while mitigating tensins that appear unavidable.

Research des nt hld all the answers. The research cmmunity stillwrestles with very real and diicult issues that teachers ace every day, suchas equitable assessments, challenges assciated with wide-scale pressinal

develpment, and assessment designs that capture the cmplexity disci-plinary reasning and understanding. As the educatin cmmunity makesprgress n these rnts, new challenges and questins arise. N silver bul-let exists, nr des a ne-size-its-all ix. Hwever, research can er in-sights int strategies and eatures that are particularly prductive, and intramewrks that are particularly cmpelling.

The essays in this cllectin will intrduce readers t sme the manyvices in the natinal discurse n science assessment, a ield currently atthe crssrads educatin and plitics. The essays present authrs deeply

held values and perspectives abut the rles assessment and hw assess-ment must nt nly prvide accuntability data but als supprt the learn-



13/48

xLAssessing science LeArning

ing students rm dierent backgrunds. Readers will ntice that many the research studies are grunded in classrm practices and invlve

teachers as cllabratrs r in pressinal develpment settings. Practi-tiners expertise in understanding the cmplexity classrms is crucialt realizing the imprtance assessment in deep science learning r allstudents.

Yu will nt hear a message cnsensus here. The research cmmunitydes nt speak in a unitary vicebeynd the claims that there exists atight cupling between assessment and student learning and that eventsand interactins that ccur in classrms in the name assessment dmatter.This is nt a hw-t manual. Yu will nt ind plished strategies

r assessments t try tmrrw in yur classrm. Research cannt erassistance in that rm. Strategies, appraches, and ramewrks will needmdiicatin and accmmdatin in rder t be meaningully integratedint yur classrm and schl. As yu read, we encurage yu t relectn yur wn practice, cnsider yur wn pririties, and make sense whatyu are learning in light yur wn schl cmmunity

Organization of the BookThe chapters in this bk are gruped int ur sectins: (1) rmative as-

sessment in the service learning and teaching; (2) classrm-based strat-egies r assessing students science understanding; (3) high-stakes tests;and (4) assessment-cused pressinal develpment.

Each sectin begins with a brie intrductin and verview the in-cluded chapters. The sectin intrductins als er a set raming ques-tins intended t help readers identiy imprtant themes and cnstructtake-hme messages that are relevant t their wn teaching envirnmentand needs.

The irst sectin, Frmative Assessment: Assessment r Learning, in-

trduces three perspectives n rmative assessment: its rle in imprvingstudent learning; research examining cnnectins between a sequence rmative assessments and their impact n teaching and learning; and theimprtance prbing hw students learn and their miscnceptins. Many the bks central ideas are intrduced in this sectin:

Rolesofassessmentinteachingandlearning, Characteristicsofmeaningfulassessmentitems, Needforresearchtovalidateassessmentpractices,

Significance of assessing both the knowledge andmisconceptions ofstudents,



14/48

xv n A T i O n A L s c i e n c e T e A c h e r s A s s O c i A T i O n

Valueofassessingstudentsabilitytoapplytheirknowledge,and Importanceofassessment-focusedprofessionaldevelopment.

The pening chapter deines classrm-based rmative assessment asan nging activity inrming daily instructinal decisins and accmpa-nied by meaningul eedback t students. The authr asserts that an es-sential precursr t raising student achievement in science is prvidingpressinal develpment that will help teachers imprve their assessmentpractices, a tpic addressed in many the chapters and explred in greatdetail in Sectin 4.

A research study n crrelatins between use embedded rmative

assessments, teacher practice, and student achievement is the subject Chapter 2. The cus the third chapter is the imprtance knwing howstudents learn and the nature their miscnceptins. Readers will learnabut tls the authrs develped t gather and analyze this inrmatin.

The chapters in Sectin 2, Prbing Students Understanding ThrughClassrm-Based Assessment, present speciic classrm-based strategiesr assessing students science knwledge and understanding. Several these strategies are clsely linked with students literacy and cmmunica-tin skills, primarily writing, but als drawing, reading, and ral cmmuni-

catin. These chapters address the day-t-day issues that teachers cnrnt,such as Hw much d my students understand? What still cnusesthem? Hw can I encurage them t cmmunicate mre clearly? andWhat cnstitutes a gd rmative assessment?

Several authrs write abut using amiliar classrm artiacts such asstudents drawings and ntebk entries r assessment purpses. There is achapter n teaching students t cnstruct reasned scientiic explanatinsbased n their wn bservatins and analysis data. Secndary teachersmay be particularly interested in the chapter n assessing labratry wrk.

one chapter reprts a research study n the use science ntebks tassess English language learners. (Chapters in later sectins als addressthe needs English language learners, ne in the cntext eliminat-ing bias in test items [Chapter 12] and anther in a large-scale study crrelatins between the science achievement nn-native speakers andthe amunt assessment-based pressinal develpment their teachersreceive [Chapter 17].)

Many the chapters in this sectin cnsider assessments based n a-miliar classrm rutines and artiacts (e.g., science ntebks, lab reprts,

cnversatins with and amng students) that, when bserved thrugh anassessment lens, reveal valuable inrmatin abut what and hw students



15/48

xvLAssessing science LeArning

are learning. other chapters in this sectin describe classrm-based as-sessment rmats and items that were develped by researchers and sub-

jected t ield testing in multiple classrm settings. A team develpersdescribes a suite rmative assessment tasks designed t mnitr studentlearning at several pints during a multi-week unit study. Anther chap-ter intrduces a technlgy-based assessment system develped t trackstudents prblem-slving skills as they interact with a cmputer simula-tin. This sectin cncludes with a chapter ering teachers guidelines ncnstructing standards-based rmative assessment prbes.

Sectin 3, High-Stakes Assessment: Test Items and Frmats, beginswith an examinatin the cgnitive demands several high-stakes test

item rmats. Authrs cus n what students must knw and be able t dt succeed n high-stakes tests and hw teachers wn classrm assessmentcan help students meet these challenges. The pening chapter takes read-ers thrugh the prcess designing and ield testing items that are clselylinked t speciic standards-based learning gals. The next chapter analyzescnstructed-respnse test items, a rmat cmmnly used in natinal andinternatinal tests, such as TIMSS and NAEP. The authrs present sampleitems and detailed scring guides t help teachers better understand hwsuch items are scred. Anther chapter prvides teachers with guidelines

r analyzing the cntent and rmat high-stakes test items and creatingclsely aligned questins t use in their wn classrms.Sectin 3 cntinues with a chapter summarizing the Natinal Research

Cuncils (NRC) reprt n design principles r state-level science assess-ment systems. The authrs discuss the gals state-level assessment, callingattentin t the distinct dierences between these tests and the classrm-based assessments described in Sectin 2. The cncluding chapter ers re-lectins by a literacy expert n high-stakes testing practices and test itemsin his ield. He summarizes the lessns learned and ers sme suggestins

t science test develpers.In Sectin 4, Pressinal Develpment: Helping Teachers Link Assess-ment, Teaching, and Learning, authrs describe several large-scale pres-sinal develpment initiatives that emphasize building assessment expertise.Prgrams in Seattle, Washingtn, Tled, ohi, Miami, Flrida, and ClradSprings, Clrad are discussed. While each had a dierent apprach t pr-essinal develpment design, all included a research cmpnent investigat-ing ptential crrelatins between the teachers experiences and their studentperrmance n high-stakes tests. Each study reprts cmpelling data shwing

a psitive crrelatin between teachers participatin in the pressinal de-velpment erts and student achievement n high-stakes science tests.



16/48

xv n A T i O n A L s c i e n c e T e A c h e r s A s s O c i A T i O n

A chapter n a classrm bservatin research tl titled the RermTeacher observatin Prtcl (RToP) ers anther apprach t pres-

sinal develpment. The authrs discuss the use this tl by secndaryteachers t sel-evaluate their classrm assessment practices. The inalchapter describes strategies that schl teams can use t analyze assessmentdata rm multiple surces; including high-stakes tests, classrm-based as-sessments, and teacher bservatins, r the purpses prgram evalua-tin and guiding instructinal decisins.

* * *This brie summary des little justice t the richness the essays herein

and t the multiple examples meaningul science assessment practicesthey explre. The cllectin relects wrk with sciecnmically and eth-nically diverse ppulatins t better understand the attributes equitableassessment practices. While the authrs may describe an assessment studycnducted within a narrw cntext (science teachers will recgnize thecnstraints required by a cntrlled experiment), the indings and recm-mendatins are bradly applicable. Fr example, pressinal develpmentprgrams in Seattle, Washingtn, er many ideas equally relevant rschls and districts in ther parts the United States. Similarly the as-

sessment ptential student ntebks extends ar beynd classrms inEl Centr, Calirnia.We hpe that this bk can be used t uel the cnversatins abut as-

sessment sparked in the initial NSTA cnerence. Frm the inrmal inter-actins that ccur amng students and teachers t mre rmal exchanges,rm item design t grading, and rm classrm systems reprting nprgress t large-scale external state tests, dder exists r deep and pr-vcative discussin. In the essays that llw, readers have an pprtunityt cnsider the issues clsely and t relect n the ways in which assessment

can be better crdinated. We hpe that, eventually, the entire system willbecme mre synergistic in rder t meet the many purpses assessmentwhile nt neglecting r undermining any single ne.

The editrs are grateul t the researchers wh cntributed t this vl-ume r their cmmitment t cmmunicating their wrk t practitiners,the ultimate cnsumers science assessment knwledge. We hpe thatreaders will ind many ideas that enrich their wn understanding the as-sessment landscape and help them better serve their students. We encur-age teachers t actively engage in the natinal assessment cnversatin

and t share insights they develp in their wn classrms.



17/48

c h a p t e r 2

21

on rl and iaf Fa Assssnn Sn inquytang and Lanng

RichardJ.Shavelson,YueYin,ErinM.Furtak,MariaAraceliRuiz-Primo,CarlosC.AyalaStanford Educational Assessment Laboratory

DonaldB.Young,MikiK.Tomita,PaulR.Brandon,FrancisM.PottengerIII Curriculum Research & Development Group

Science education researchers, like science teachers, are committed tofindingwaystohelpstudentslearnscience.Liketeachers,weresearch-ersstartwithaninformedhunchaboutsomethingthatwethinkwill

improveteaching.Thenweworkwithteachersandtryoutourhunchinrealclassrooms.Ifwegetpositiveresults,wesharethemwithawiderangeofeducators.Sometimeswefindoutthatourhunchdoesnotwork,andwetrytofigureoutwhatwentwrongsothatwecanimproveitthenexttime.Inothercases,wefindthatwhiletheideamayhavebeengood,thetech -niquewillnotworkinpractice.Inthosecases,wecontinueoursearchforotherwaystohelpimprovestudentslearningofscience. Inreviewingtheliteratureonassessment,PaulBlackandDylanWiliamfound strong evidence that embedding assessments in science curriculawouldleadtoimprovedstudentlearningandmotivation(BlackandWil -iam1998;seealsoWiliam,Chapter1inthisbook).Basedonthisfinding,our team of teachers, curriculum and assessment developers, and scienceeducation researchers developed a series offormative assessments to embedinamiddleschoolphysical-scienceunitonsinkingandfloating.Wewanted



18/48

22 N A t i o N A L S c i e N c e t e A c h e r S A S S o c i A t i o N

chApter

2 SectioN 1: FormAtive ASSeSSmeNt

toseeifthiskindofassessment,whichhelpsteacherstodeterminethestatusofstudentslearningwhileaunitisstillinprogress,wouldimprovesixth-andseventh-gradestudentsknowledgeandmotivationtolearnsci-ence.Ifitworked,weknewwemighthavealarge-scaleimpactonteachingand learning. Inthischapter,webeginbydescribingwhatwemeanbyformativeas-sessmentandoutlinethepotentialandchallengesoftryingtoimplementandstudythispromisingtechniqueforscientificinquiryteaching.Wethendescribeourstudyonformativeassessmentinmiddleschools,including

somemistakesandwrongturns,andwhatwefoundwhenwetestedourideasexperimentally.Weconcludewithfuturechallengesinimprovingsci-enceeducationwithformativeassessment.

W is Fomv assssmn?Formative assessment isaprocessbywhichteachersgather informationaboutwhatstudentsknowandcando,interpretandcomparethisinforma -tionwiththeirgoalsforwhattheywouldliketheirstudentstoknowandbeabletodo,andtakeactiontoclosethegapbygivingstudentssuggestions

astohowtoimprovetheirperformance.Inthisway,formativeassessmentiscarriedout for the purposeof improving teachingand learningwhileinstruction is still in progress. To clarifywhatwemean by formative assessment, consider the large-scale,high-stakesassessmentsthatarecarriedoutinallU.S.schoolstoday.Thesetypesofassessmentsaresummativeinnature;thatis,theyprovideasummaryjudgmentabout,forexample,studentslearningoversomeperiodof time. The goal of summative assessment is to inform external audiencesprimarilyforevaluation,certification,andaccountabilitypurposes.Since

thefederalNoChildLeftBehindlegislationwaspassedin2001,summa-tiveassessmenthascertainlyreceivedagreatdealofpublicityinthepopu-larmediaandhas,toacertaindegree,swampedtheimportantformativefunction of assessment. Byfocusingonformativeassessment,wehopetoputassessmentbackinto its rightful place as an integral part of the teaching-learning process.Formativeassessmenttakesplaceonacontinuousbasis,isconductedbythe teacher, and is intended to inform the teacher and students, ratherthananexternalaudience(Shavelson2006).Weviewclassroomformative

assessment as a continuum ranging from informal formative assessment to



19/48

2323A S S e S S i N G S c i e N c e L e A r N i N G

chApter

2SectioN 1: FormAtive ASSeSSmeNt

Fgu 2.1 vaan n Fa Assssn pas

formal formative assessment. The position of a particular formative assess-ment technique onthe continuumdependsonthe amount ofplanninginvolved,theformalityoftechniqueused,andthenatureofthefeedbackgiventostudentsbytheteacher.Wefocusonthreeimportantformativeassessmenttechniques(1)on-the-fly,(2)planned-for-interaction,and(3)embeddedinthecurriculum(Figure2.1)anddescribeeachinturn.

Informal Unplanned Planned Formal

On-the-Fly Planned-for- Embedded-in-the- Interaction Curriculum

On-the-Fly Formative Assessment.On-the-flyformativeassessmentoc-curswhenteachablemomentsunexpectedlyariseintheclassroom.Forexample,teacherscirculatebetweengroupstolisteninonconversationsandmakesuggestionsthatgivestudentsnewideastothinkabout.Ateachermight overhear a student in a small group investigating sinking and float-ingsaythat,asaconsequenceofanexperimentjustcompleted,Densityisapropertyoftheplasticblock.Itdoesntmatterwhatthemassorvolume

is,thedensitystaysthesameforthatkindofplastic.Theteacherrecog-nizesthatthestudenthasagraspofwhatdensitymeansforthatblock,andpresentsthestudentwithothermaterialstoseeifsheandhergroup-matescangeneralizethedensityideatoanewsituation.Inthisway,theteacherchallengesthestudenttotesthernewideabyhavingherandhergroupmeasurethemass/volumerelationshipsofanewmaterial.Moreover,whensatisfied that the students are onto something, the teacher calls for otherstudentstohearwhatthisgroupfoundout. Thisvisionoftakingadvantageoftheteachablemomentsoundsalot

likegoodteaching,notnecessarily assessment. Thisisexactlyourpoint:Teaching and assessment are and should be considered as one and the same.



20/48


chApter


Rather than teachers planning assessment as a separate event during theclassperiod,on-the-flyassessmentisseamlesswithinstructionandisbasedontheteachercapitalizingonopportunitiesastheyarisetohelpstudentstomoveforwardinreachinglearninggoals. However,aswelearnedfromourresearch,suchon-the-flyformativeassessmentandaction(feedback)maybenaturalforsometeachersbutdifficultforothers.Identificationofthesemomentsis initiallyintuitiveandthenlaterbasedoncumulativewisdomofpractice.Moreover,evenifteacherscanidentifythemoment,theymaynothavetheconfidence,

techniques,orcontentknowledgetosufficientlychallengeandrespondto students.

Planned-for-Interaction Formative Assessment. In contrast, planned-for-interaction formative assessment is deliberate. Teachers plan for andcraftwaystogetinformationaboutthegapbetweenwhatstudentsknowandneedtoknow,ratherthanusequestionsjusttokeeptheshowgoingduringaninvestigationorwhole-classdiscussion.Consider,forexample,teacherquestioningaubiquitous classroomevent.While developing a

lessonplan,ateachercanprepareasetofcentralquestionsthatgetattheheartofthelearninggoalsforthatdayslessonandthathavethepotentialtoelicitawiderangeofstudentideas.Forexample,thesequestionsmaybegeneral(Whydothingssinkandfloat?)ormorespecific(Whatistherelationshipbetweenmassandvolumeinfloatingobjects?Canyougivemeanexampleofsomethingreallyheavythatfloats?Whydoyouthinkitfloats?).Attherightmomentduringclass,theteacherposestheseques-tionstotheclass,andthroughadiscussiontheteacherlearnswhatstudentsknowandallowsdifferentideastobepresentedanddiscussed.Inthisex-

ample, the teacher planned the assessment prompt in advance rather thanwaitingforunexpectedopportunitiestoarise.Althoughnoteverystudentinclassmay respondtoeachquestion, the informationgainedfromthestudentsresponsesallowstheteachertoactontheinformationcollectedbyfine-tuninginstructionorinterveningwithindividualstudents.Embedded-in-the-Curriculum Formative Assessment. Alternatively,teachers or curriculum developersmay embedmore formal assessmentsaheadoftimeintheongoingcurriculumtointentionallycreateteachable

moments.Theseassessmentsareembeddedafterjuncturesorjointsina



21/48


chApter


unitwhereanimportantgoalshouldhavebeenreachedbeforegoingontothenextlesson.Embeddedassessmentsinformtheteacheraboutwhatstudentscurrentlyknowandwhattheystillneedtolearn(i.e.,thegap)sothatteacherscanprovidetimelyfeedbacktostudents. In their simplest forms, formal formativeassessmentsaredesigned toprovide information on important goals that students should have reachedatcriticaljointsinaunitbeforegoingontothenextlesson.Intheirad -vanced forms, formative assessments are based on a developmental progres-sionoftheideasstudentshaveaboutaparticulartopic(suchaswhythings

sinkandfloat).Incontrasttotheothertwotypesofformativeassessment,embeddedassessmentsaremoresophisticatedbecausetheyaredesignedtocollect critical information about student learning at the same time. Themaindifferencebetweenplanned-forandembeddedformativeassessmentisinthedesigner.Whereasplanned-forassessmentisusuallydonebytheteacher as a part of the lesson-planning process, embedded assessments areusuallydesignedbycurriculumand assessment developersworkingwithexperienced teachers. Embeddedformativeassessmentsarevaluableteachingtoolsforatleast

fourreasons.First,theyareconsistentwithcurriculumdevelopersunder -standingofthecurriculumandarethereforeconsistentwithinstructionalgoals. Second, assessment developers contribute technical expertise thatincreasesthequalityoftheassessments.Third,theinvolvementofexpe-riencedteachersindevelopingembeddedassessmentsmeansthattheyarepracticalandbasedonthewisdomofpractice.Andfourth,embeddedas-sessmentsprovidethoughtful,curriculum-aligned,andvalidwaysofdeter-miningwhatstudentsknow,ratherthanleavetheburdenofplanningonthe teacher.

Formalembeddedassessmentscomeready-to-useaspartofapreexist-ingcurriculum,andinstructionaldecisionsmadefromthemmayimprovestudentslearning.Therefore,inourstudy,wesoughttolearnwhetherem -beddedformativeassessmentsactuallyhelpedteachersclosethelearninggaps in their classrooms.

ponl nd cllngsFormativeassessmentisapotentiallypowerfulteachingideaembodyingknowledgeandskillsforcreatingandcapitalizingonteachablemoments.

Inthecontextofscienceeducation,formativeassessmentlinksteaching



22/48


chApter


and learning in the service of building students understanding of the natu-ralworldandofhowthemethodsofsciencejustifyknowledgeclaims.Inusingformativeassessments,wesoughttomovestudentsfromnaivecon -ceptionsofthenaturalworldtoscientificallyjustifiableconceptions(con -ceptualchange).Tochangetheirconceptions,studentsneedtolinkwhattheyfindoutthroughinquiryinvestigationstotheircurrentconceptionsofthenaturalworldandtochangethoseconceptionswhentheirevidencedoesnotfittheirtheory.Formativeassessmentscriticalcharacteristic,then,liesinidentifyinglearninggapsandprovidingimmediatefeedbackto

students that helps them close gaps. Thissaid,manyteachersareinsomewaysskepticalaboutincorporat-ingformativeassessmentsubstantivelyintotheirteachingpractice,evenwhentheyknowthatitisimportant.Teachershavemanyquestionsabouttheir role in formative assessment, and for good reason. For example, for-mativeassessmentcreatesaconflictwiththeteacherstraditionalgrade-givingroleinsummativeassessment.Howcantheteacherontheonehandaskstudentstolaybaretheirunderstandingofaconceptandatthesametimehavetheresponsibilityforgivingthestudentagrade?Inother

cases,teachersmayhaveonlyexperienced summativeassessmentwhentheywerestudentsthemselves,orintheirteachereducationprograms.Consequently, theymaynothave personal experiencewith thewaysthat formative assessmentcanimprovethequalityofteachingandlearn-ing.Otherquestionsariseaswell.Should teachers reallychangetheirbeliefsabouttheirroleasassessors?Whyshouldteacherschangetheirpracticestoaccommodateayetunproventeachingtechnique?Willouremphasisonformativeassessmenteventuallyfadeawayashaveotherreformtechniques?

Clearly,teachersskepticismisappropriate;partofthescienceeduca-tionresearchersroleistotestoutnew(ornotsonew)techniquestoseeiftheystanduptoscientificscrutiny.Tothisend,ourteamdesignedandconductedastudythatputformativeembeddedassessmenttothetest.

embddng Fomv assssmn n Sn cuulumOurstudyofformativeembeddedassessmentaddressedtwocentralresearchpurposes:first,tolearnhowtobuildandembedformativeassessmentsinscience curricula and, second, to examine the impact of formative assess-

ments on students learning, motivation, and conceptual change.



23/48


chApter


Building and Embedding Formative Assessments in Science CurriculaAsnotedabove,wesought tomovestudentsfromnaiveconceptionsofthenaturalworldtoscientificallyjustifiableones.Tothisend,wewantedstudentstolinkwhattheywerefindingoutthroughinvestigationstotheirconceptionsaboutthenaturalworld.Theintentwasforstudentstochangethoseconceptionswhentheirevidencedidntfittheirtheory. WeembeddedformativeassessmentsintheFoundationalApproachesinScienceTeaching(FAST)curriculumunitonthepropertiesofmattermorespecifically,buoyancy(PottengerandYoung1992).Asafirststep,we

identified the goalsfortheunit.Themaingoalwasforstudentstodevelop,throughaseriesofinquiryinvestigations,arelativedensity-basedexpla -nationforsinkingandfloating(or,aswecametocallitduringthestudy,WhythingssinkandfloatorWTSF).Wethenworkedfromthegoalsbackwardtothebeginningoftheunit,identifyingkeyjuncturesbetweenlessons(investigations)whereimportantgoalsneededtobemet.Wetheninserted assessments to provide information about student performance. Despiteourwell-conceivedplans,intheend,aseeminglystraightforwardprocessofdevelopingformativeassessmentswasanythingbutstraightfor -

ward.Wemadesomewrongturnsandlearnedfromourmistakes.

Pilot Study: From Embedded Formative Assessments to

Reflective Lessons

Ourbasicideawastodevelopandembedformativeassessmentswheretherubberhittheroadthatis,atcriticalcurricularjointswherestudentsconceptualunderstandingwasexpectedtodevelopfromasimpleleveltoamoresophisticatedone.Inthisway,teacherswouldknowwhetherstu-dentswereadvancingintheirknowledgeasthecurriculumprogressed.We

expectedthatassessmentsembeddedatthecriticaljointswouldprovidetimelyinformationto(a)helpteachersandstudentslocatethelevelsofstudentsunderstanding,(b)determinewhetherstudentshadreachedthedesiredlevel,(c)diagnosewhatstudentsstillneededtoimprove,and(d)help students move to the next level. Ateachcriticaljoint,wecreatedasetofassessmentsdesignedtotapdifferent kindsofknowledge that students should construct in learningaboutsinkingandfloating.Therewerefacts(e.g.,densityismassperunitvolumedeclarative knowledge)andprocedures(e.g.,usingabalancescale

tomeasurethemassofanobjectprocedural knowledge).Butmostimpor-



24/48


chApter


tant,andoftenimplicit incurricula,was theuseofthisdeclarativeandproceduralknowledgeininquirysciencetobuildamodelormini-theoryofwhythingssinkandfloat(e.g.,amodelofrelativedensitiesschemat-ic knowledge).Consequently,weembeddedassessmentsofthesetypesofknowledgeatfournaturaljointsina10-weekunitonbuoyancy.Theassess-ments served to focus teaching on different aspects of learning about mass,volume,density,andrelativedensity.Feedbackonperformancefocusedonproblematicareasrevealedbytheassessments. Inordertoembedassessmentsthatwerebasedonresearchandthatcould

identifyinavalidandreliablewaywhatstudentsknow,wecreatedfourextensive assessment suites (combinationsof individual assessmentsgraphing, short answer, POE [predict-observe-explain], and PO [predictandobserve]).Theseassessmentscoveredthedeclarative,procedural,andschematicknowledgeunderlyingbuoyancy.Eachsuiteincludedmultiple-choice(withspaceforstudentstojustifytheirselections)andshort-answerquestionsthattappedallthreetypesofknowledge.Wealsoincludedasub -stantialcombinationofconceptmaps(structureofdeclarativeknowledge),performanceassessments(proceduralandschematicknowledge),predict-

observe-explain assessments based on lab demonstrations (schematicknowledge),and/orpassportsverifyinghands-onproceduralskills(e.g.,measuringanobjectsmass). Threebraveteachersvolunteeredto tryoutthis extensivebatteryofembeddedassessmentsinapilotstudy.Afterthecompletionofthepilotstudy,theteacherswarnedusthattheoriginalformativeassessmentsweretoo time-consuming and the amount of information obtained from themwasoverwhelming.Ourleadpilot-studyteacher,whowasalsoamemberofourassessmentteam,gentlypointedouttheproblemsthatpilot-study

teachers faced using our assessment suites. She suggested that perhaps therecouldbeonlyafewassessmentsthatdirectlyledtoasingle,coherentgoal,suchasknowingwhy things sink and float. She pointed out that FAST pro-videdampleopportunityforteacherstoobserveandprovidefeedbacktostudentsontheirdeclarativeandproceduralknowledge.Sheurgedustofocusonschematic knowledge and onstudents developing anaccuratementalmodelofwhythingssinkandfloatintheassessmentsuite. Moreover,Lucks(2003) viewed andanalyzed videotapes of thepilotstudyteachersusingtheassessmentsuites.Shefoundthatourteacherswere

treatingtheembeddedassessmentsmoreasexternalteststhatweresome-



25/48


chApter


thingapartfromthecurriculuminotherwords,assummativeassessmentratherthanusingtheformativeassessmentsasawaytofindoutwhatthestudentswerelearning.Thus,theteacherstreatedthenewassessmentslikeanyothertestthattheywererequiredtogivetothestudentsduringtheyear,ratherthanasopportunitiestoincreasetheirstudentslearning. Basedonthethoughtfulfeedbackwereceivedfromtheteachersandtheresearcher,werevisedour initialembeddedassessments,greatlyreducingtheirnumbersandfocusinginontheoverarchinggoalofexplainingwhythingssinkandfloat.Afterward,whentalkingwithteachers,wenolon -

gerspokeofembeddedassessments,whichwethoughtwouldtriggertheirstereotypesaboutassessments.Instead,westartedcallingthemReflectiveLessonstoemphasizetheirfunctionasacomponentoftheteachingandlearning process.

The New Generation of Formative Embedded Assessments:

The Reflective Lessons

A second look at the FAST unit and the information collected during thepilotstudyledustoadevelopmentalprogressionofstudentideas,which

then became the basis for redesigning the original embedded assessmentsuites into Reflective Lessons (Figure 2.2, p. 30). This progressionwasaligned to the unit and based on different conceptions students have astheydevelopanunderstandingofsinkingandfloating.Theseconceptionsdevelopfromnaive(e.g.,thingswithholesinthemwillsink)toscien-tificallyjustifiableconceptions(e.g.,sinkingandfloatingdependontherelativedensitiesoftheobjectandthemediumsupportingtheobject). AlthoughFigure2.2mayappearquitecomplicated, theideasbehinditarestraightforwardandconsistentwithstudentsdifferentideasabout

sinkingandfloating.Beforeinstruction,studentshavealldifferentkindsof ideasabout sinking and floating, suchas thatheavythings sink, flatthingsfloat,thingswithairinthemfloat.WewouldplacetheseideasatLevel1orNaiveConceptions.Asstudentsprogressthroughtheunit,theycompleteinvestigationsthatapplyeithermassorvolumetosinkingandfloating;thatis,asingleuni-dimensionalfactor(Level2),holdingallelse constant.Next,studentssimultaneouslyapplymassand volume,ormultipleuni-dimensional factors, toexplain sinkingandfloating(Level3).Afterward,studentsintegratemassandvolumeintodensity,asinglebi-

dimensionalfactor,intheirexplanations(Level4).Finally,studentsconsider



26/48


chApter


Fgu 2.2 cnual Dln f Undsandng Wy tngsSnk and Fla

theobjectsdensityandtheliquidsdensity,ormultiplebi-dimensionalfac -tors(Level5),intheirexplanations(Yin2005). ThefinalReflectiveLessonsuitesareshownattheircriticaljuncturesinFigure2.3.TwotypesofReflectiveLessonswereembeddedintheunit.EachofthetypeoneReflectiveLessonsincludedasequenceofthefollowingac -tivities:(a)graphingandinterpretingevidenceanddrawingconclusionsaboutWTSF(Whythingssinkorfloat),(b)applyingknowledgelearned

topredictandexplainwhatwouldhappeninanewsituation( Predict,Ob-

Level 5:

MultipleBi-dimensional

Factors

Density of

Object

and

Medium

Level 4:SingleBi-dimensionalFactors

Density ofObjectsb

Density

of

Liquids

Level 3:Multiple

Uni-dimensional

Factors

Mass and

Volumeb

Level 2:Single

Uni-dimensional

Factor

Massab

Volumebc

Level 1:

PriorKnowledge

Naive

Conceptions

Investigations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Conceptualdevelopmenttrajectory

a Hold volume constantb Hold liquid (water) constantc Hold mass constant



27/48


chApter


serve, Explain),(c)writingabriefexplanationaboutwhythingssinkandfloat,and(d)predictingandobservingasurprisephenomenontointroducethenextsetoflessons.ThesecondtypeofReflectiveLessonwasconceptmapping,whichencouraged studentstomake connectionsbetween theconceptstheylearned.

Fgu 2.3 rfl Lssns and Junus a W ty W

ebddd n Un

Physical ScienceInvestigations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Reflective Lesson @ 4A graph

Reflective Lesson @ 4B Mass POE

Reflective Lesson @ 4C WTSF

Reflective Lesson @ 4D PO


Reflective Lesson @ 7B Volume POE




Reflective Lesson @ 10B Density POE



Reflective Lesson

@ 6 & 12 Concept Map

TheReflectiveLessonsweredesigned toenable teachers to (a)elicitstudentsconceptions,(b)encouragecommunicationofideas,(c)encour-age argumentation (comparing, contrasting, and discussing students con-ceptions),and (d) reflectwithstudentsabouttheirconceptions. Inthisway,teacherscouldguidestudentsalongadevelopmentaltrajectorythattheyhadinhandfromnaiveconceptionsofsinkingandfloatingtomorescientificallyjustifiableones(Figure2.2).

Notes:POE=predict,observe,explain;WTSF=whythingssinkorfloat;PO=predictandobserve



28/48


chApter


The Experimental StudyTotestwhetherthefinalReflectiveLessonscouldhelpstudentsimprovelearning,motivation,and conceptualchange,weconducted a smallex-periment.Werandomlyassigned12teacherstoteacheithertheregularinquirycurriculum(controlgroup6teachers)orthecurriculumwiththeReflectiveLessonsincluded(experimentalgroup6teachers).Teachersintheexperimentalgroupattendedatrainingworkshopwiththeresearchers,curriculumdevelopers,andoneofthepilotteachers.Duringthetraining,teachersparticipatedintheReflectiveLessonsasstudents,talkedaboutthe

processofthelesson,andthenpracticedteachingtheReflectiveLessonsthemselveswith lab school students.Teachers inthe controlgroupalsoattendedatrainingworkshopthatorientedthemtothestudyandinvitedthem to share their assessment practices, among other things. Inthestudy,wegavepretestsandpostteststothestudentsinbothgroups.WeexaminedtheeffectoftheReflectiveLessonsbycomparingimprove -mentmadeby the two groups, regarding studentsmotivation,achieve-ment,andconceptionsofsinkingandfloating(Figure2.4)(Yin2005).

Fgu 2.4 Sa f rsa Dsgn

SincetheReflectiveLessonsintegratedformativeassessmentideas,cur-riculumgoals,andteachersinput,weexpectedthatstudentsintheexperi -mentalgroupwouldbenefitfromtheReflectiveLessonsandshowhigherlearning gains than the control group. To our surprise, our findings did notsupportthisconjecture.Wefoundnostatisticallysignificantdifferencesbe-tweenaverageperformanceinthecontrolandexperimentalgroups.That

Random Assignment Pretest Treatment Posttest

Control Group(C)

C:

FAST

Experimental Group(E)

C and E:

Motivation

AchievementE:

FAST + EA*

C and E:

Motivation

Achievement

*embedded assessment



29/48


chApter


is, students in the experimental group and control group did not differ,on average, on motivation, learning, or conceptual change. This findingpersistedevenafterweaccountedfordifferencesamongstudentsachieve-mentandmotivationbeforethestudybegan. Despitethefactthatthestudydidnotcomeoutasexpected,welearnedalotabouthowteachersactuallyusedtheReflectiveLessonsintheirclass -rooms.Ineachgroup,teachersvariedsubstantiallyinproducingdifferencesinstudentsmotivation,learning,andconceptualchange.Inviewingclass -roomvideoswefoundthatalthoughtheReflectiveLessons(embeddedas-

sessments)wereimplementedbyteachersintheexperimentalgroup,notalltheteachersusedthemeffectivelytogivestudentsfeedbackormodifyteachingandlearning(Ruiz-PrimoandFurtak2006,2007).Thatis,amongtheteachersintheexperimentalgroup,thoseteacherswhosestudentshadhigher learninggains reliedmore on the other two typesof assessmenttechniqueson-the-fly and planned-for-interaction assessmentratherthanontheReflectiveLessons. Togiveanideaofthedifferencesamongteachers,letusconsidertwoteachersintheexperimentalgroup,GailandKen.1Gailtookanactiverole

inusingtheReflectiveLessonswithherstudents.Shewouldbuildknowl-edgewithstudentsbychallengingtheirideas,askingthemforempiricalevidencetojustifytheirideas,andmakingclearhowamodelofsinkingandfloatingwasemerging.TheReflectiveLessonscreatedteachablemo -mentsforher,whichshethentookadvantageofwithinformalassessmenttechniques.Ken,incontrast,reliedontheReflectiveLessonsthemselvestohelpthestudentslearnandlookedattheactivitiesasdiscoverylearning;thatis,hedependedonthestudentstodeveloptheirownunderstandingswithlimitedteacherintervention(Furtak2006).Hereasonedthatitwas

not his role to act on the students ideas about sinking and floating and toguidethestudentsortellthemtheanswers;ratheritwasuptostudentstodiscoverforthemselveswhythingssinkandfloat. InFigure2.5,page34,weseethedevelopmentaltrajectoryforatypicalstudentfromGailsclassandanotherfromKens.WhileGailsstudentpro -gressedalongthetrajectory,Kensstudentheldtoheroriginalexplanation.Theachievementtestscoresforthetwostudentsreflectedthedifferences1Thesenamesarepseudonyms.Weusemaleandfemalenamesforwritingease(e.g.,to

avoidhe/she,his/her).Wedidnot findgenderdifferencesinteachingeffectsinourstudy.



30/48


chApter


inlearning(Gailsstudent:pretest15andposttest36;Kensstudent:23and

23,respectively)(Yin2005).

conludng commnsAsweknow,whenanynewreformideacomesalong,thereisalotofhype.Moreover,teachersareexpectedtopickupthenewtoolsandimplementtheideasperfectlyonthefirsttry,aftertheyhavebeentrained(briefly!)todoso.EventhoughweworkedintenselywithourexperimentalteacherstolearnhowtouseReflectiveLessonsandprovidedfollow-upduringtheexperiment,thekindsofknowledge,belief,andpracticechangeswewant-

edtobringaboutconceptualchangesneededmuchmoretime.Those

Fgu 2.5 Dln f Undsandng f Wy tngs Snk andFla n tw exnal tas (Gals And Kns) Sudns

Gails

Student

Mass &

Volume

Object

Density

Relative

Density

After Lesson 4 After Lesson 7 After Lesson 10 After Lesson 12 Sequence of Lessons

Goal

Things sink andfloat becauseone thing maybe lighter orheavier than theother object.

Things cause of massand volum nking cartonsexperiment, the small carton sank a lotmore than the large carton with thesame water. It did not sink as farbecause the mass is more s

sink and float bee. In the si

pread out. Things sink and float becauseof density. In the lab we did,the cork floated because thedensity was .3g/cm3, which isway under the water line,which is 1g/cm3. So it floated.Unlike the black stopper whichhad 1.29 g/cm3 which is overthe density of water.

Because howlight or heavy

Because they areheavy or light anda lot of mass.

Because of themass....

Kens

Student

Volume

Mass /



31/48


chApter


teacherswhoalreadybelievedinandhadalreadyincorporatedsomeofthetechniquesintheirpracticethatwesoughttobuildintheexperimentalgroupperformedlargelyaswehadhoped.However,thoseteacherswhosebeliefsweresomewhatdifferenttookevenlongertoacquirethehabitsofmindandteachingtechniquesrequiredtouseReflectiveLessons(forma-tiveassessment)effectively. Wecontinuetobelievethatformativeassessmentpracticesholdprom-ise for improving science inquiry teaching, and for improving studentsmotivation,learning,andconceptualchange.However,ifwearetoput

formativeassessmenttothetestfairly,weneedtimetoworkwithteachersontheir formative assessmentknowledge,beliefs,and practices.Onceareasonablelevelofexpertisehasbeenreached,thatisthetimetotrytheexperimentagain(andagainandagain).Ifsuccessful,wemayhavesome-thingthatwouldhelpimprovescienceeducation;ifnot,weknownottopursuethisaspectofreformfurther.Perhapsnotsurprisingly,wearecur-rentlyengagedinareplication(hopefullywithappropriateimprovements)oftheexperiment.Staytuned!

rfnsBlack,P.J.,andD.Wiliam.1998.Assessmentandclassroomlearning.Assessment in Edu-

cation 5(1):773.

Furtak,E.M.2006.The dilemma of guidance in scientific inquiry teaching. Doctoraldiss.,Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity.

Lucks,M.A.2003.Formative assessment and feedback practices in two middle school scienceclassrooms.Mastersthesis.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity.

Pottenger,F.,andD.Young.1992.The local environment: FAST 1 Foundational Approaches

in Science Teaching.Manoa,HI:UniversityofHawaii,CurriculumResearch&Devel-

opmentGroup.Ruiz-Primo,M.A.,andE.M.Furtak.2007.Exploringteachersinformalformativeassess-

mentpracticesandstudentsunderstandinginthecontextofscientificinquiry. Journalof Research in Science Teaching44(1).

Ruiz-Primo,M.A.,andE.M.Furtak.2006.Informalformativeassessmentandscientificinquiry: Exploring teachers practices and student learning.Educational Assessment

11(3/4):237263.

Shavelson,R.J.2006.Ontheintegrationofformativeassessmentinteachingandlearn-ing:Implicationsfornewpathwaysinteachereducation.InF.Oser,F.Achtenhagen,

andU.Renold(Eds.), Competence-oriented teacher training: Old research demands and

new pathways.Utrecht,TheNetherlands:SensePublishers.



32/48


chApter


Yin,Y.2005.The influence of formative assessments on student motivation, achievement, andconceptual change. Doctoraldiss.,StanfordUniversity.



33/48

473

IndexPage numbers in boldface type reer to fgures or tables.

assessment paradigms intoclassroom practices, 185188

classroom culture, 187188coverage, 186reection, 187time, 185186trust, 186187

embedded assessments o, 178183,190

quick write, 178179response sheets, 181183, 182science notebook entries, 179181,

180

feld test centers or, 171unding or, 169goals o, 171

I-Checks, 170171, 183184organization o, 171purpose o, 169valuing progress rather than

achievement in, 184185Assessment, defned, 308309Assessment design as model o

proessional development,409425. See also Science TeacherEnhancement Project-uniying thePikes Peak region

Assessment or learning, 613. See alsoFormative assessment

cost-beneft analysis o, 56eect on student achievement, 56,

4445integrated assessment, 18to keep learning on track, 1314perspectives and tools in, 3756strategies or, 713

activating students as learningresources or one another,1213

activating students as owners otheir learning, 1112

AAAAS (American Association or the

Advancement o Science), 108,117, 194, 195, 227, 228, 231232,

233, 235, 258, 267, 413, 414Abell, C. H., 227, 231Accountability

assessment and, 319, 410NCLB and, 303standards-based, 232or student collaborative learning, 12or teacher change, 17

Accountability assessments, 168Active Chemistry, 148, 149Adequate yearly progress (AYP), 303, 322

Advanced Placement tests, 6Aerbach, P., 229, 317Alonzo, A., 70Amaral, O., 70, 117American Association or the

Advancement o Science(AAAS), 108, 117, 194, 195, 227,228, 231232, 233, 235, 258, 267,413, 414

American Federation o Teachers, 233Americas Lab Report, Investigations in High

School Science, 150

Anderson, R., 2, 37Anthes-Washburn, M., 71, 145Assessing Science Knowledge (ASK)

Project, 7172, 169190activities o, 176178assessment triangle as theoretical

ramework o, 171176, 172cognition, 172, 173interpretation, 175, 175observation, 173, 174

background o, 169171

benchmark assessments o, 183184challenges o incorporating new



34/48

I N D E X

474 N a t I o N a l S c I E N c E t E a c h E r S a S S o c I a t I o N

clariying and sharing learningintentions and successcriteria, 1011

engineering eective classroomdiscussions, questions,activities, and tasks, 7, 78

providing eedback, 810teacher learning communities or

implementation o, 1418Assessment or learning cycle, 3943, 45

acting with purpose, 3940, 42planning based on fndings, 42targeting needs, 42

developing skills and classroom cultureor, 4243

gathering inormation, 39, 41anticipating student responses, 41choosing and implementing

appropriate strategy, 41determining learning goal, 41

implementation o, 5052interpreting inormation, 3940, 4142

determining needs to move learningorward, 42

identiying problems and strengthsin student thinking, 41

repeating until students achievelearning goal, 40

Web-delivered tools or supporto, 5255, 5866 (See alsoDiagnoser Tools)

Assessment linked to content standards,231251

background o, 232235development o, 235250

aligning assessment items tostandards, 238240

clariying content standards,235238, 239pilot testing: using student data to

improve items, 240250, 241Project 2061, 227, 231251stakeholders needs ulflled by,

234235Assessment probes, defned, 206207. See

also Formative assessment probesAssessment triangle, 162, 162163

use in Assessing Science KnowledgeProject, 171176, 172

Atlas o Science Literacy, 194, 238, 258,267, 413

Audiences or assessment, 324326, 325Authentic assessment, 329Ayala, C. C., 21, 71, 84, 191

AYP (adequate yearly progress), 303, 322

BBall, D. L., 5Beatty, A., 228, 301Bellina, Jr., J. J., 436Benchmarks

creating explanation assessment tasksbased on, 108, 108109

development in STEP-uP project,413414

Benchmarks or Science Literacy, 41, 58, 79,195, 209, 231232, 235, 257, 258,413, 414

Berkeley Evaluation and AssessmentResearch Center, 177

Bertenthal, M. W., 228, 301BioLogica, 194Black, P., 14, 21, 45, 46, 169Bloom, B., 328Brandon, P. R., 21Buckley, B., 71, 191

CCaliornia Standards TestScienceSubtest, 139140

Calipers simulation-based scienceassessments, 71, 194201

alignment with national standards,195, 200

development o, 194199or ecosystems, 198199, 199,200or orces and motion, 195198, 196principled assessment design

approach to, 195goals o, 194pilot testing o, 200promise o, 201technical quality o, 200201

Carr, E., 393Champagne, A. B., 228, 253Chinn, C. A., 159Choice, in process o teacher change, 17Classroom Assessment and the National

Science Education Standards, 396Classroom culture

Assessing Science Knowledge (ASK)Project and, 187188



35/48

I N D E X

475475a S S E S S I N G S c I E N c E l E a r N I N G

assessment o learning cycle and, 4243challenges in transormation o, 188

Classroom Observation Protocol, 397

Classroom technology, 5253simulations, 191201

Classroom video records, 431432Classroom-based assessment, 6972, 168,

233aligning to high-stakes tests, 292299,

294298

or English language learners,348349

Assessing Science Knowledge (ASK)Project, 7172, 169190

discussions, questions, activities,and tasks to elicit evidence ostudent learning, 7, 78

documenting early science learning,6970, 7381

ormative assessment probes, 72,203225

to identiy teachable moments, 320importance o high-quality assessments,

318321laboratory investigations, 71, 145164lessons rom other disciplines, 320321

rubrics or, 129137science notebooks, 70, 8397, 117140student sel-assessment, 332333summative vs. ormative, 22, 168technology-based simulations: Calipers

project, 71, 191201traditional paradigm o, 169written scientifc explanations, 70,

101113zone o proximal development and,

319, 319320

Class-size reduction and studentachievement, 45Clement, J., 48Clymer, J. B., 10Coey, J., xiCognition

assessment o higher-order thinkingskills, 283, 304

in assessment triangle, 162, 162, 172,172

cognitive processes used by scientists,159160

metacognitive approaches toinstruction, 118, 127

Model o Student Cognitive Processes,126

Cognitive and aective learning

outcomes, 330331Cognitive demands

o constructed-response items, 255,256

on PISA, 262, 262263on TIMSS, 267269, 268

o high-stakes state tests, 283284Collaborative inquiry among teachers,

447462building oundation or, 461462connecting data to results, 450451,

451,452establishing times or, 462guiding questions or, 447448impact on student achievement,

448450, 449to improve students graphing skills,

456459or instructional improvement,

460461school culture or, 461sources o data or, 462use o Data Pyramid, 453, 453456

Collaborative learning, 1213two stars and a wish ormat or, 13

Colorado Science Model ContentStandards and Benchmarks, 413

Colorado Student Assessment Program(CSAP), 285286, 286, 289,290291, 338, 409, 419, 424

Concept maps, 28Conceptual storylines, in STEP-uP

project, 412414, 414418Conceptual strand maps, 238, 239

Concord Consortium, 195Connected Chemistry project, 193Constructed-response items, 253271

analysis o, 257to assess science content vs. practices,

256257cognitive demands o, 255, 256determining correct responses to, 257extended vs. short, 253on high-stakes tests, 287, 287on international assessments, 254269

PISA, 258263, 259,260,262

TIMSS, 263264, 263269, 266,268, 273282



36/48

I N D E X


placing in context, 257258, 271scoring o, 270

Cost-beneft analyses, 3, 46

o assessment or learning, 56o class-size reduction, 45

Courtney, R., 6970, 73CRESST (National Center or Research

on Evaluation, Standards, andStudent Testing), 362, 370

Criteria or learning, 1011Critical Friends protocols, 420, 423CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment

Program), 285286, 286, 289,290291, 338, 409, 419, 424

CTS. See Curriculum Topic Studydeveloped assessment probes

Curriculum developers/researchers,benefts o assessment linked tocontent standards or, 234235

Curriculum Topic Study (CTS)developed assessment probes, 204,205

analysis o, 218219as basis or urther inquiry into student

ideas, 220deconstruction o, 219220

development o, 211214, 212,213feld testing o, 209publication o, 214relation to learning goals, 209210scaold or design o, 211, 212teachers reection on, 222225teaching inormed by responses to,

220222, 221vs. traditional assessment items, 207,

207211, 208two-tiered ormat o, 214

to uncover students ideas, 214215,215218Curriculum-embedded assessment. See

Embedded assessmentCzerniak, C. M., 338, 387, 399

DData use to improve instruction, 447462.

See also Collaborative inquiryamong teachers

De Fronzo, R., 126De Lucchi, L., 71, 167

DeBarger, A., 71, 191DeBoer, G., 227, 231

Declarative knowledgecognitive demands o, 255, 256

on PISA, 262

on TIMSS, 268, 269embedded ormative assessment o,

2728in National Science Education

Standards and Benchmarks, 258DeNisi, A., 8Density labs, 148150, 149Development o high-quality assessments,

18Developmental approach to assessment,

312313Developmental storylines, 125Diagnoser Tools, 2, 5355, 5866

Developmental Lessons, 6162eective teacher use o, 5355Elicitation Questions, 54, 59, 60Facet Cluster, 5960, 61Learning Goals, 5859Prescriptive Activities, 6566, 67Question Sets, 55, 6263, 63,64Teacher Report, 6364, 65

Diranna, K., 447Disabilities, NCLB and assessment o

students with, 304diSessa, A., 48Documenting early science learning,

6970, 7381, 74collecting evidence that shows

understanding o groups ochildrens drawings, 78, 79

record o class discussion, 78, 79collecting orms o evidence over a

period o time or, 76, 77collecting variety o orms o evidence

or, 7475drawing, 74, 75drawing and dictation, 75, 75photographs, 75, 76

fve-stage process o, 7981principles or, 74

Dweck, C. S., 11

EEberle, F. Q., 72, 203Ecologist, 161Education reorm, value or money in, 3,

46Eectiveness assessments, 168



37/48

I N D E X


Eisenkrat, A., 71, 145Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA), 302

Elementary Reading Attitude Survey, 330Elementary Science Study (ESS), 83ELL students. See English language

learner studentsEmbedded assessment, 2122, 23, 2435,

169, 292. See also Assessment orlearning cycle

to assess declarative, procedural, andschematic knowledge, 2728

in Assessing Science Knowledge(ASK) Project, 7172, 178183,190

building and embedding o, 27creation o assessment suites, 2728at critical curricular joints, 2728design o Reective Lessons suites,

2932, 30,31experimental study o Reective

Lessons, 32, 3234, 34outcome o study o, 3435pilot study o, 2729in STEP-uP project, 410in TAPESTRIES project, 393, 394, 395

English language learner (ELL) students,341351

aligning classroom assessment withhigh-stakes assessments or,348349

assessment accommodations or, 304,348, 350

assessment in their home languages,341, 350

designing science and literacyassessment instruments or,

346347assessment results, 347, 348reasoning task, 347science test, 346writing prompt, 346347, 352355

how to assess science and literacyachievement o, 349350

inquiry-based science or, 342345,344,345

low science achievement o, 348NCLB and, 304, 341, 348, 350

ESEA (Elementary and Secondary

Education Act), 302ESS (Elementary Science Study), 83

Extended constructed-response items,253271

analysis o, 257

to assess science content vs. practices,256257

cognitive demands o, 255, 256determining correct responses to, 257on high-stakes tests, 287, 287on international assessments, 254269

PISA, 258263, 259,260,262TIMSS, 263264, 263269, 266,

268, 273282placing in context, 257258, 271scoring o, 270vs. short constructed-response items, 253use in classroom, 287

FFACET Innovations, 53, 66Facets o student thinking, 48Falconer, K., 436FAST (Foundational Approaches in

Science Teaching), 27, 28, 29F-CAT (Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test), 338Feedback to improve teacher practice,

427433Feedback to students, 810, 167

in assessment or learning cycle, 45rom other students, 13on science notebooks, 125126,

128129on written scientifc explanations,

106107Fellows, N., 287Fishbowl techniques, in STEP-uP

project, 420, 423

5-E Learning Model, use in TAPESTRIESproject, 387, 393395Classroom Tools or, 394, 402406

Flexibility, in process o teacher change,1617

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test(F-CAT), 338

Formative assessment(s), 118, 2135,3756, 168169, 233, 292,327328

Assessing Science Knowledge (ASK)Project, 7172, 169190

assessment or learning cycle, 3943,45



38/48

I N D E X


classroom-based, 6972, 168, 233connecting practice to research, 4352

developing Web-delivered tools

to support assessment orlearning cycle, 5255, 5866(See also Diagnoser Tools)

extending practice to virtualcommunity o colleagues,4850

implementing strategy vs. adoptingpractice, 5052

moving rom misconceptions toacets o student thinking,48

moving rom teacher curiosity tounded research, 4647

personal style vs. sharable practice,4748

reasons or lack o, 46continuum o techniques or, 23, 23cost-beneft analysis o, 56defnition o, 22, 44development in STEP-uP project,

421423eect on student achievement, 56,

4445

embedded-in-the-curriculum, 2122,23, 2435, 169 (See alsoEmbedded assessment)

ormal and inormal, 6, 2223, 25to improve teacher practice, 427433integrated assessment, 18to keep learning on track, 1314moving beyond did they get it, 3839on-the-y, 23, 2324perspectives and tools in, 3756planned-or-interaction,23, 24

potential and challenges o, 2526science notebooks as tool or, 8397,117140

strategies or, 713activating students as learning

resources or one another,1213

activating students as owners otheir learning, 1112

clariying and sharing learningintentions and successcriteria, 1011

engineering eective classroomdiscussions, questions,

activities, and tasks, 7, 78providing eedback, 810

vs. summative assessment, 22, 168

teacher learning communities orimplementation o, 1418

teachers skepticism about use o, 26uses o, 168169

Formative assessment probes, 72, 203225Curriculum Topic Studydeveloped

probes, 204, 205analysis o, 218219as basis or urther inquiry into

student ideas, 220deconstruction o, 219220development o, 211214, 212,213feld testing o, 209publication o, 214scaold or design o, 211, 212teachers reection on, 222225teaching inormed by responses to,

220222, 221vs. traditional assessment items,

207, 207211, 208two-tiered ormat o, 214to uncover students ideas, 214215,

215218

defnition o, 206207vs. tasks, 206207upront part o backward design, 206

FOSS (Full Option Science System),71, 84, 171, 176, 183, 187, 390,393394, 409, 410, 414, 417418

Foundational Approaches in ScienceTeaching (FAST), 27, 28, 29

Frederiksen, J. R., 10Full Option Science System (FOSS),

71, 84, 171, 176, 183, 187, 390,

393394, 409, 410, 414,417418

Fulwiler, B. R., 371Funded research, 4647Furtak, E. M., 21

GGentiluomo, L., 228, 253Glynn, S., 118, 126Gobert, J., 71, 191Gogos, A., 227, 231Grades, 26, 168

related to rubrics or evaluating lab

reports, 155, 156157Gradualism, in process o teacher change, 16



39/48

I N D E X


Graphic assessmentson high-stakes tests, 287288, 288use in classroom, 289

Graphing skills, collaborative inquiry orimprovement o, 456459

Grogan, M., 228, 283Guided inquiry, 160161

HHaertel, G., 71, 191Handelsman, J., 429Haney-Lampe proessional development

model, 387, 388Harlen, W., 127

Harrison, C., 14Hickman, P., 338, 427Hiebert, J., 427Higher-order thinking skills, 283, 304High-stakes tests, 227229

aligning classroom assessment to,292299, 294298

or English language learners,348349

extended constructed-response itemson, 253271

extrapolations rom reading to science,

317335inuence o, 321324linked to content standards, 231251No Child Let Behind Act and

mandated tests, 232233, 301,302304, 322

state science assessments, 301315traditional test items on, 322323,

322323

types o assessment items on, 283,284292

constructed-response questions, 287,287graphic assessments, 287289, 288multiple-choice questions, 284286,

285,286perormance assessments, 289292,

290291

Washington Assessment o StudentLearning, 338, 357376

Hill, H. C., 5Ho, P., 118Horizon Research, 397, 398

Horwitz, P., 71, 191Hubble, E. P., 145

Hunt, E., 48, 53

IImbalances in assessment, 317318,

324335assessment done to or or students vs.

assessment done with and bystudents, 332333

assessment o knowledge, skills, andstrategies vs. how students usethis knowledge, 328330

cognitive and aective learningoutcomes and characteristics,330331

demands or teacher/schoolaccountability vs. proessionaldevelopment to developexpertise in assessment, 334

ormative and summative assessments,327328

meeting needs o dierent audiencesand purposes o assessment,324326, 325

process and product assessments,326327

Imperial Valley, Caliornia, Mathematics

Science Partnership, 139Inquiry-based science

creating explanation assessment tasksor, 109, 112

developing students competence in, 118or English language learners, 342345,

344,345essential eatures o activities or, 147guided vs. open inquiry, 160161impact o ormative assessment on,

2135

laboratory investigations or, 71,145164scaolding student initiative and

responsibility in, 344345, 345scaolding writing or, 9196, 9296,

119121, 120in TAPESTRIES project, 394

Insights kits, 409, 410Instructional planning principles,

117118Integrated assessment, 18International assessments, 253254

constructed-response items on,254269



40/48

I N D E X


PISA, 258263, 259,260,262TIMSS, 263264, 263269, 266,

268, 273282

development o, 254importance to teachers, 254

Interpretationin assessment or learning cycle, 3940,

4142in assessment triangle, 162, 162,172,

175Inverness Research Associates, 365Iowa Test o Basic Skills (ITBS), 10Isola, D., 338, 427, 435ITBS (Iowa Test o Basic Skills), 10

JJenkins, A., 5Jepsen, C., 4Jones, J., 6970, 73Justifed multiple-choice questions,

285286, 286

KKatz, A., 129Keeley, P. D., 72, 203, 413Keeping Score or All, 304

Keller, T. E., 228, 301Kentucky Core Content Test, 287, 287,

293, 294Klentschy, M., 70, 117, 119, 121, 128Kluger, A. N., 9Knowing What Students Know: The

Science and Design o EducationalAssessment, 171

Kouba, V. L., 228, 253Krajcik, J. S., 70, 101Kraus, P., 2, 37

Kuerbis, P. J., 338, 409KWL chart, 393394, 395

LLaboratory investigations, 71, 145164

aspects that promote student learning,146

assessing student perormance in,152157

grading, 155, 156157profciency criteria or rubrics,

155157, 157159in relation to goals o task, 154155rubrics, 152, 153154, 164

student rubrics or sel-evaluation,155

assessment triangle or, 162, 162163

components o assessment o, 145to create student scientists, 159162defnition o, 150density labs, 148150, 149design principles or, 151152disparities in access to, 152essential eatures o inquiry activities,

147example o inquiry-based lab activity,

147148goals o, 146, 150151

evidence that students haveaccomplished, 146

improvement o, 146152, 163164isolation o typical labs rom ow o

science teaching, 151logical placement in curriculum, 152NRC report on, 150151

Learning goals. See also Standardsin assessment or learning cycle, 40, 41assessment linked to, 231251Blooms taxonomy o educational

objectives, 328

clarifcation o, 235238in Diagnoser Tools, 5859ormative assessment probes and,

209210laboratory investigations and, 154155necessity and sufciency criteria or,

238Learning perormances, 109110, 110,

308Learning progressions, 306308, 307Learning-or-learnings sake, 328

Lee, C., 14Lee, O., 337, 341LeRoy, K., 337, 341Lesson plans, evaluation o, 398399Levacic, R., 5Li, M., 84, 119, 121, 140Long, K., 71, 167Love, N., 339, 447, 452Lucks, M. A., 28

MMacIsaac, D., 436

Making Sense o Secondary Science:Research Into Childrens Ideas, 413



41/48

I N D E X


Malhotra, B. A., 159Malone, L., 71, 167Marshall, B., 14

Maryland Student Assessment, 323Marzano, R., 125, 130, 136Massachusetts Comprehensive

Assessment System (MCAS),284285, 285, 288, 288

Massvolume ratios, 148149, 149MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive

Assessment System), 284285,285, 288, 288

McNeill, K. L., 70, 101McTighe, J., 130, 136, 292, 419Metacognitive approaches to instruction,

118, 127Michiels, A., 227, 231Minstrell, J., 2, 37Minstrell, J. E., 2, 37Model o Student Cognitive Processes,

126Model-It, 193Molina De La Torre, E., 121, 128Mooney, L. B., 338, 409Motivation to Read Profle, 330Motivations or learning, 330331

Multiple-choice questionson high-stakes tests, 284286, 285,

286

justifed, 285286, 286Mundry, S., 447Muth, D., 118, 126

NNAEP (National Assessment o

Educational Progress), 228,253255

National Academy o Sciences, 150National Assessment o EducationalProgress (NAEP), 228, 253255,346

cognitive demands o, 255, 256defnitions o principles, practices, and

perormances in, 254255determining students motivation to

learn, 331Reading Framework or, 318, 328Science Framework or, 254, 255

National Center or Research on

Evaluation, Standards, and StudentTesting (CRESST), 362, 370

National Mathematics Advisory Panel,233, 251

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), 376National Research Council (NRC),

101102, 117, 126, 127, 138, 150,151, 171, 228229, 231, 232, 233,301304, 344, 393, 396, 429

National Science Education Standards(NSES), 41, 58, 79, 101, 112, 192,194, 195, 209, 231232, 235, 257,258, 358, 393, 396, 410, 413

National Science Foundation (NSF),xixii, 46, 148, 169, 204, 301, 331,357358, 387, 397, 410, 448

National Science Teachers Association(NSTA), xi, 211, 214, 317

Nations Report Card, 331NCLB. See No Child Let Behind ActNelson-Denny Reading Test, 323NetLogo, 193No Child Let Behind Act (NCLB), 3,

22, 192, 232233, 322, 357adequate yearly progress ormulas o,

303requirement or multiple measures o

student achievement, 303state science assessment and, 301,

302304, 30

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	suhartojago
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

NSTA-On Role & Impact Form Assess on Sci Inquiry

Documents