Pre-Service Physics Teachers Learn to Assess Student Performance in the School Physics Laboratory

Year 2020, , 1080 - 1112, 31.12.2020

Olga Gkioka

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.742602

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The reported research was conducted within the context of a pre-service teacher education program in a Department of Physics Teaching. This study aimed to investigate pre-service physics teachers’ efforts to learn to assess student performance in the school physics laboratory. The participants developed learning objectives closely related to laboratory skills and designed laboratory activities. They also developed assessment methods and assessment tasks, which they used when teaching experiments in internship schools. As prospective teachers, they were asked to give feedback to actual secondary students’ laboratory reports. Evidence has shown that such a process helped them improve their own laboratory reports. The participants were also interviewed in order to identify and understand the difficulties and challenges they experienced related to the assessment of student performance in the laboratory. Implications for curriculum development and pre-service teacher education are discussed. For example, the issue of how to prepare pre-service teachers to become skillful in assessing student performance in the laboratory should be an important component of teacher education programs so that laboratory work receives more importance in secondary education in Turkey.

Keywords

performance assessment, assessment goals, laboratory work, physics teacher education

Supporting Institution

BAP Boğaziçi University

Project Number

SUP 10800

Thanks

The reported research is a part of a start-up research project (SUP 10800) funded by the BAP office.

Fizik Öğretmen Adaylarının Okul Fizik Laboratuvarlarındaki Öğrenci Başarılarını Değerlendirme Sürecini Öğrenimi

Abstract

Raporlanmış araştırma Fizik Eğitimi Bölümünde fizik öğretmen adayları ile yürütülmüştür. Bu çalışma fizik öğretmen adaylarının okul fizik laboratuvarındaki öğrenci performansını değerlendirme çabalarını araştırmayı hedeflemektedir. Katılımcılar laboratuvar becerileriyle ilgili kazanımlar geliştirmişler ve laboratuvar etkinlikleri tasarlamışlardır. Katılımcılar ayrıca staj okullarında deneyleri öğretirken kullandıkları değerlendirme yöntemleri ve etkinlikleri geliştirmişlerdir. Gelecekteki öğretmenler olarak, öğretmen adaylarından lise öğrencilerinin gerçek laboratuvar raporlarına dönüt vermeleri istenmiştir. Bulgular, böyle bir sürecin öğretmen adaylarının kendi laboratuvar raporlarını geliştirmelerine de yardımcı olduğunu göstermiştir. Katılımcılar, öğrencilerin laboratuvardaki performanslarını değerlendirme ile ilgili deneyimledikleri zorlukları ve güçlükleri belirlemek ve kavramak için mülakata alınmıştır. Müfredat geliştirme ve öğretmen adaylarının eğitimi konuları ile ilgili öneriler tartışılmıştır. Örneğin, Türkiye’de lise eğitiminde laboratuvar çalışmalarına daha fazla önem verilmesi için öğretmen adaylarının, öğrencilerin laboratuvardaki performanslarını değerlendirmede nasıl daha bilgili hale getirilebilecekleri konusu öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının önemli bir kısmını oluşturmalıdır.

Keywords

başarı değerlendirme, değerlendirme hedefleri, laboratuvar çalışmaları, fizik öğretmen eğitimi

Project Number

SUP 10800

References

• Abrahams, Ι. Reiss, M. J. & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). The assessment of practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 49 (2), 209-251. American Association of Physics Teachers (2014). AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers.
• Anderson, C. W. (2000). Challenges to science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 293-294.
• Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and Summative Assessment by Teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21, 49-97.
• Black, P. (1995). Assessment and feedback in science education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 257-279.
• Boudreaux, A., Shaffer, P.S., Heron, P. R. L. & McDermott, L. C. (2008). Student understanding of control of variables: Deciding whether or not a variable influences the behavior of a system. American Journal of Physics, 76 (2), 163-170.
• Bransford, J., Brown., A. & Cocking, R. R. (2000) (Eds.). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
• Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Brown, J. H. & R. J. Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Assessing hands-on science. A teacher’s guide to performance assessment. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Cameron, M., Loesing, J., Rorvig, V. & Chval, K. B. (2009). Using student work to learn about teaching. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15 (8), 488-493.
• Campbell, C. (2013). Research on teacher competency in classroom assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.) Research on classroom assessment (pp. 71-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. London: Sage.
• Department for Science Education (2014). Science programs of study. Key Stage 4. London: National Curriculum in England.
• Doran, R.L., Lawrenz, F. & Helgeson, S. (1993). Research on assessment in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp 388-442). New York: Macmillan.
• Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin and C. J. McRobbie (Eds.) Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp 1451-1469). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
• Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
• Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N. G. (1999). (Eds.) Examining pedagogical content knowledge. The Construct and its Implications for Science Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
• Herbel-Eisenman, B. A. & Phillips, E. D. (2005). Using student work to develop teachers’ knowledge of Algebra. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 11(2), 62-66.
• Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. M. (1982). The role of laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.
• Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
• Lazarowitz, R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp 94-128). New York: MacMillan.
• Luft, J. A. (2009). Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction programs: The first year of teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 2355-2384.
• Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd edition). Chichester: Wiley.
• Roth, K. J. (2007). Science Teachers as Researchers. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 1205-1259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Russell, M. K. & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Performance Assessments. In M. K. Russell and P. W. Airasian. Classroom Assessment: Concepts and Applications (pp 200-248). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Russell, T. & Martin, A. K. (2007). Learning to teach science. In S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 1151-1178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Séré, M -G. (2002). Towards renewed research questions from outcomes of the European project lab work in science education. Science Education, 86, 624-644.
• Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P. & Pine, J. (1991). Performance Assessment in Science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 347-362.
• Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P. & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30 (3), 215-232.
• Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P. & Pine, J. (1997). Performance assessments: Political Rhetoric and Measurement Reality. Educational Researcher, May, 22-27. Shepard, L. A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp 1066-1101) (4th Edition). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
• Solano-Flores, G., Javanovic, J., Shavelson, R. J. & Bachman, M. (1999). On the development and evaluation of a shell for generating science performance assessments. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (3), 293-315.
• Tobin (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
• Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating tests worth taking. Educational Leadership, May, 26-33.
• Wiliam, D. (2003). Validity: All you need in your assessment. School Science Review, 85 (311), 79-81.
• Wiliam, D. (2010). The role of formative assessment in effective learning environments. In H. Dumont, D. Istance & F. Benavides (Eds.). The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice (pp. 135-158). Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Wiliam, D. & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment: Practical techniques for K-12 Classrooms. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
• Wilson, S., Scweingruber, H. & N. Nielsen (2015) (Eds.) Science Teachers’ Learning: Enhancing Opportunities, Creating Supportive Contexts. Committee on the Strengthening Science Education through a Teacher Learning Continuum. Board on Science Education and Teacher Advisory Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: the National Academies Press.
• Yung, B. H. W. (2001). Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practical work in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 985-1005.
• Zeichner, K. M. & Conklin, H. C. (2005). Teacher Education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith and K. Zeichner (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp 645-735). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.