CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Student Assessment and FeedbackScience Education and PedagogyEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Characterizing the formative assessment enactment of experienced science teachers

Open access
Dini, Vesal, Sevian, Hannah, Caushi, Klaudja, Orduña Picón, Raúl·2020·Science Education
DOI 10.1002/sce.21559
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Teachers' use of formative assessment (FA) has been shown to improve student outcomes; however, teachers enact FA in many ways. We examined classroom videos of nine experienced teachers of elementary, middle, and high school science, aiming to create a model of FA enactment that is useful to teachers. We developed a coding scheme through a validation‐in‐use approach to characterize teachers' practices using three streams of data that included teachers' self‐interviews about the purposes and outcomes of their FAs, our analysis of their noticing/interpreting and acting, and their comments on intentions behind the teaching acts they considered significant. In contrast to cycles of eliciting‐noticing‐interpreting‐acting, we found noticing/interpreting to be central to FA enactment, driving teachers' eliciting or advancing acts. We characterized ways of noticing/interpreting as more authoritative or dialogic and observed that eliciting acts and advancing acts occurred along a similar range. Teachers' in‐the‐moment purposes and larger learning goals were synthesized as they made choices about teaching acts. The model is framed in terms of utility to teachers to examine their own FA practices, with the aim of becoming better equipped to strategically enact FA in intentional ways to achieve their purposes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.21559

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Formative assessment approaches and skills are superior for meeting HEIs' needs to improve teaching levels, which in turn improves students' learning outcomes and raises their achievement level.

    “Formative assessment (i.e., provide immediate and meaningful feedback to students about the learning outcomes at the end of the course contents) approaches and skills are superior to meet HEIs needs-to improve teaching levels of teachers which in turn improvise students learning outcomes and raise their achievement level [13].”

    From Artificial Intelligence for Assessment and Feedback to Enhance Student Success in Higher Education (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1983/1934). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259-422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  2. Clinchot, M., Ngai, C., Huie, R., Talanquer, V., Lambertz, J., Banks, G., … Sevian, H. (2017). Better formative assessment. The Science Teacher, 84(3), 69.
  3. Colestock, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). What teachers notice when they notice student thinking: Teacher-identified purposes for attending to student thinking. In A. Robertson, R. Scherr & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive science teaching (pp. 126-144). New York: Routledge.
  4. Erickson, F. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 17-34). New York: Routledge.
  5. van Es, E. A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 134-151). New York: Routledge.
  6. Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2011). Using classroom artifacts to focus teachers' noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 169-187). New York: Routledge.
  7. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  8. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  9. Richards, J., & Robertson, A. D. (2016). A review of the research on responsive teaching in science and mathematics.
  10. In A. Robertson, R. Scherr & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive science teaching (pp. 36-55). New York: Routledge.
  11. Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736.
  12. Sandoval, W. A., Kwako, A. J., Modrek, A. S., & Kawasaki, J. (2018) Patterns of classroom talk through participation in discourse-focused teacher professional development. ICLS 2018 Proceedings, 760-767.
  13. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Noticing matters. A lot. Now what. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 223-238). New York: Routledge.
  15. Vološinov, V. N. (1986/1929). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987/1934). Thinking and speech. (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dini, V., Sevian, H., Caushi, K., & Orduña Picón, R.
Affiliations
  • Tufts University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
  • Department of Chemistry University of Massachusetts Boston Boston Massachusetts
Corresponding author
Sevian, Hannah
ORCID
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-08
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
290-325
ISSN
  • 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-237X
DOI
10.1002/sce.21559
OpenAlex
W2999331806
Cited by
61
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
11.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Science Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1621228)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
formative assessment, teacher enactment, noticing, interpreting, science education, learning objectives

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