“My assessment didn’t seem real”: The Influence of Field Experiences on Preservice Teachers’ Agency and Assessment Literacy

Year 2015, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 91 - 111, 24.11.2015

J. Spencer Clark

https://doi.org/10.17499/jsser.91829

Cited By: 5

Abstract

To date, there is little or no research that specifically examines assessment literacy in social studies education, or the relationship between preservice teachers assessment literacy and their thinking about their own agency. This article focuses on three preservice social studies teachers who demonstrated a high degree of assessment literacy in their lesson plans, by developing assessments that supported their purpose for teaching social studies and their instructional decisions. The preservice teachers’ thinking about their assessment decisions in their field experience classrooms was examined through artifacts, interviews, and reflections. The preservice teachers’ thinking demonstrated that their assessment literacy was distinct based upon their views of the teaching profession. The findings from this case study highlight the ways that the authoritative discourses of assessment can influence the agency of preservice teachers. The discussion of findings highlights several implications for social studies teacher education.

Keywords

Assessment Literacy, Preservice Teachers, Agency, Discourse, Field Experiences

References

• contextual and reflexive in relation to the students. Therefore, practice in field experiences
• should not be seen as generalizable to other contexts, because they are “articulating and
• negotiating classroom and cultural knowledges” with the specific learners of their classroom, “in
• the initiation, development and practice of assessment to achieve the learning goals of students”
• (Willis, Adie, & Klenowski, 2013, p. 242).
• Anderson, D. L., Mathys, H., & Mills, A. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ assessment of 7th-grade students’ social studies learning. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 3(1).
• Apple, M. W. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 4-11.
• Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, UK: Open. University Press.
• Biesta, G. & Tedder, M. (2006). How is agency possible? Towards an ecological understanding of agency-as-achievement. Working paper 5. Exeter, UK: The Learning Lives Project.
• Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach (revised ed.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Campbell, C., & Evans, J. A. (2000). Investigation of preservice teachers' classroom assessment practices during student teaching. Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 350-356.
• Clark, J. S. (2013). “Your credibility could be shot”: Preservice teachers’ thinking about nonfiction graphic novels, curriculum decision Making, and professional acceptance. The Social Studies, 104(1), 38-45.
• Clark, J. S., Brown, J. S., & Jandildinov, M. (2015). Enriching preservice teachers’ critical reflection through an international videoconference discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1-20.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cornbleth, C. (2001). Climates of Constraint/Restraint of Teachers and Teaching. In W. B. Stanley, Critical Issues in Social Studies Research for the 21st Century. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17:4, 419- 438.
• Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.
• Foucault, M. (1986). The care of the self: The history of sexuality of sexuality (R. Hurley, Ed. & Trans.) New York: Vintage Books.
• Fuchs, S. (2001). Beyond agency. Sociological Theory, 19, 24–40.
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
• Grant, S. G., & Salinas, C. (2008). Assessment and accountability in social studies. In L. Levstik & C. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Heafner, T. (2004). Assessment as magnification of internal, parallel, and external reflection. Action in Teacher Education, 25(4), 14-19.
• Kenna, J. L., & Russell III, W. B. (2015). Secondary social studies teachers' time commitment when addressing the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 6(1).
• Kohn, A. (2013) The case against grades. In J. Bowers & P.L. Thomas (Eds.), de-Testing and de- Grading Schools: Authentic Alternatives to Accountability and Standardization (pp. 143- 153). New York: Peter Lang.
• Kurfman, D. G. (1991). Testing as context for social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 210-221). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
• McGee, J., & Colby, S. (2014). Impact of an assessment course on teacher candidates’ assessment literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 36(5-6), 522-532.
• Merriam, S. B. (2008). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Mertler, C. A. (2003, October). Preservice versus in-service teachers’ assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH.
• Mertler, C. A. (2004). Secondary teachers’ assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference? American Secondary Education, 33 (1).
• Mertler, C. A., & Campbell, C. (2005, April). Measuring teachers’ knowledge & application of classroom assessment concepts: Development of the Assessment Literacy Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
• Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the “Get it or don’t” conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 247–255.
• Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment Literacy for Teachers: Faddish or Fundamental? Theory into Practice,48: 4-11.
• Popham, W. J. (2011). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A. and Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42: 191–214.
• Siegel, M., & Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers’ assessment literacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 371-391.
• Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: beyond the all good/all-bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2).
• Stiggins, R. J. (2002, June). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-766.
• Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education 30, (3): 749–70.
• Willis, J., Adie, L., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. The Australian Educational Researcher, 1- 16.