Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 110Science Education and PedagogyStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

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

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.20270

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Atkin J. M., 2003, Everyday assessment in the science classroom, 10.2505/9781935155706 · DOI
  2. Atkin J. M., 2005, Designing everyday assessment in the science classroom
  3. 10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.56 · DOI
  4. Bell B., 2001, Formative assessment and science education
  5. Black P., 1998, Formative Assessment: Raising standards inside the classroom, School Science Review, 90, 39
  6. Black P., 2001, Self‐ and peer‐assessment and taking responsibility: The science student's role in formative assessment, School Science Review, 83, 43
  7. Brown A. L., 1990, Toward a scientific practice of science education, 111
  8. 10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Campbell D. T., 1966, Experimental and quasi‐experimental designs for research
  10. Furtak E. M.(2006).The dilemma of guidance in scientific inquiry teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Stanford University Stanford CA.
  11. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I · DOI
  12. Li M.(2001).A framework for science achievement and its link to test items. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Stanford University Stanford CA.
  13. Li M., 2006, Contexts of learning mathematics and science: Lessons learned from TIMSS, 291
  14. Minstrell J., 2003, Everyday assessment in the science classroom, 61
  15. National Research Council, 1996, National Science Education Standards
  16. National Research Council, 2001, Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards
  17. 10.1002/tea.20035 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Pellegrino J. W., 2001, Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment
  19. Piaget J., 1974, The child's construction of quantities
  20. Pottenger F. M., 1992, Foundational approaches to science teaching
  21. Pottenger F. M., 1996, The local environment teacher's guide
  22. 10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U · DOI
  23. Ruiz‐Primo M. A., 1997, Toward a framework of subject‐matter achievement assessment
  24. Ruiz‐Primo M. A., 2007, Assessment of technology education, CTTE 56th yearbook, 203
  25. 10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_4 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/tea.20163 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1045::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
  28. Shavelson R. J., 1999, Leinstungsbewertung im naturwissenschaftllichen. Unterricht (On the assessment of science achievement), Unterrichtswissenschaft, 27, 102
  29. Shepardson D. P., 1997, Children's science journals: Tools for teaching, learning, and assessment, Science and Children, 34, 13
  30. Smith M. L., 2006, Handbook of complimentary methods in education research, 457
  31. 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90025-3 · DOI
  32. 10.1207/s1532690xci1503_2 · DOI
  33. 10.1207/s1532690xci0903_3 · DOI
  34. Yerrick R., 2005, Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research, 231
  35. Yin Y.(2005).The influence of formative assessments on student motivation achievement and conceptual change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Stanford University Stanford CA.

Cited by

See all 110

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
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.