The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making students’ thinking explicit in writing and discussion: An analysis of formative assessment prompts
Abstract
The National Research Council ([NRC], 2001) has stated that formative assessment is essential to fulfilling the mission of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). This paper explores the relative utility of four different types of formative assessment prompts in eliciting middle school students' ideas about sinking and floating. Students' written responses and statements in classroom discussions around each of the prompts are compared. Results indicate that the relative success of the prompts in eliciting a range of conceptions may depend on the openness and familiarity of the prompts. Prompts with fewer constraints and unfamiliar settings elicited a range of student conceptions in writing; however, discussions surrounding the prompts were more likely to elicit ideas at the expected level, or no student ideas at all. A comparison of the prompts revealed that the diversity of students' responses in writing was not reflected in classroom discussions. The study suggests that open‐format formative assessment prompts may function better when used as a basis for teachers to elicit a range of student ideas in writing, whereas constrained‐outcome space prompts may be more appropriate for whole‐class conversations that focus students upon scientifically appropriate responses. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Sci Ed92:799–824, 2008
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Furtak and Ruiz-Primo (2008) found that it is important that teachers are able to ask the right questions at the right time (planned and unplanned formative assessment).”
From Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice (2020) · cites this paper as Furtak and Ruiz-Primo (2008)
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152
BRUNER, J. S. (1960) · doi:10.4159/9780674028999 · Cited by 6,042
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285
Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172171009200119 · Cited by 4,231
Ramaprasad, A. (1983) · Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/bs.3830280103 · Cited by 915
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9780203761342 · Cited by 894
Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance.
Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.3.210 · Cited by 305
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Atkin J. M., 2003, Everyday assessment in the science classroom, 10.2505/9781935155706 · DOI
- Atkin J. M., 2005, Designing everyday assessment in the science classroom
- 10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.56 · DOI
- Bell B., 2001, Formative assessment and science education
- Black P., 1998, Formative Assessment: Raising standards inside the classroom, School Science Review, 90, 39
- Black P., 2001, Self‐ and peer‐assessment and taking responsibility: The science student's role in formative assessment, School Science Review, 83, 43
- Brown A. L., 1990, Toward a scientific practice of science education, 111
- 10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474 · DOI · Paper page
- Campbell D. T., 1966, Experimental and quasi‐experimental designs for research
- Furtak E. M.(2006).The dilemma of guidance in scientific inquiry teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Stanford University Stanford CA.
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I · DOI
- Li M.(2001).A framework for science achievement and its link to test items. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Stanford University Stanford CA.
- Li M., 2006, Contexts of learning mathematics and science: Lessons learned from TIMSS, 291
- Minstrell J., 2003, Everyday assessment in the science classroom, 61
- National Research Council, 1996, National Science Education Standards
- National Research Council, 2001, Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards
- 10.1002/tea.20035 · DOI · Paper page
- Pellegrino J. W., 2001, Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment
- Piaget J., 1974, The child's construction of quantities
- Pottenger F. M., 1992, Foundational approaches to science teaching
- Pottenger F. M., 1996, The local environment teacher's guide
- 10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U · DOI
- Ruiz‐Primo M. A., 1997, Toward a framework of subject‐matter achievement assessment
- Ruiz‐Primo M. A., 2007, Assessment of technology education, CTTE 56th yearbook, 203
- 10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_4 · DOI
- 10.1002/tea.20163 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1045::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
- Shavelson R. J., 1999, Leinstungsbewertung im naturwissenschaftllichen. Unterricht (On the assessment of science achievement), Unterrichtswissenschaft, 27, 102
- Shepardson D. P., 1997, Children's science journals: Tools for teaching, learning, and assessment, Science and Children, 34, 13
- Smith M. L., 2006, Handbook of complimentary methods in education research, 457
- 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90025-3 · DOI
- 10.1207/s1532690xci1503_2 · DOI
- 10.1207/s1532690xci0903_3 · DOI
- Yerrick R., 2005, Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research, 231
- Yin Y.(2005).The influence of formative assessments on student motivation achievement and conceptual change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Stanford University Stanford CA.
Cited by
Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice
Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602 · Cited by 330
PIMENTEL, D. S., & McNEILL, K. L. (2013) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21061 · Cited by 162
Soncini, A., Matteucci, M. C., & Butera, F. (2021) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-020-00494-1 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz‐Primo, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- Corresponding author
- Furtak, Erin Marie
- ORCID
- Furtak, Erin Marie
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08-27
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 799-824
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2159033524
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 13.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- formative assessment, junior high school science, floating and sinking, student conceptions, written responses, classroom discussion, open-ended prompts, science education standards
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.