Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2022.42.5.501

Implications for Teacher Education through Pre-Service Science Teachers' Perception and Practice Cases on Online Formative Assessment  

Hyojoon, Kim (Pyeongchon High School)
Jinwoong, Song (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.42, no.5, 2022 , pp. 501-514 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to reveal what is necessary for pre-service science teachers to make good use of online formative assessment in the context of online classes. For 22 pre-service physics teachers, first, the preliminary perception of online classes, online formative assessment, and formative assessment was investigated; second, the practice process of online formative assessment was examined. Then the differences between perception and practice were compared and analyzed. Data were collected in preliminary surveys, lesson plans, online formative assessment items, and interview data. As a result of the study, an interaction was mentioned as the difficulty of online classes in the preliminary perception, and pre-service teachers mentioned the use of technology, feedback, and adjustment as advantages of online formative assessment. In most cases of practice, the automated feedback was used using the platform's technology, but it did not lead to adjustment and interaction. In addition, the use of items in online formative assessment was not suitable for formative functions. The reason why the interaction using formative feedback did not occur seems to be because the understanding of formative assessment was insufficient. Pre-service teachers need to be prepared for the 'formative' function through the feedback of online formative assessment so that can lead to interaction in online classes. The shift to online classes is creating difficulties, especially in interaction. It is necessary to prepare and educate pre-service teachers on fundamental aspects that can overcome these difficulties.
Keywords
online formative assessment; teacher education; preliminary perception and practice; feedback; interaction;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Abell, S. K., & Siegel, M. A. (2011). Assessment literacy: What science teachers need to know and be able to do. In The professional knowledge base of science teaching(pp. 205-221). Springer, Dordrecht.
2 Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 65-83.   DOI
3 Alonzo, A. C. (2018). An argument for formative assessment with science learning progressions. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(2), 104-112.   DOI
4 Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.   DOI
5 Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C. M. (2017). US teachers' conceptions of the purposes of assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 107-116.   DOI
6 Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 146-162.
7 Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science education, 85(5), 536-553.   DOI
8 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). 'In praise of educational research': Formative assessment. British educational research journal, 29(5), 623-637.   DOI
9 Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King's College.
10 Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9), 2-5.
11 Box, C., Skoog, G., & Dabbs, J. M. (2015). A case study of teacher personal practice assessment theories and complexities of implementing formative assessment. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 956-983   DOI
12 Hill, M. F., & Eyers, G. (2016). Moving from student to teacher: changing perspectives about assessment through teacher education. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 103-128). New York: Routledge
13 Hwang, Y., Kim, J., & Lee, M. (2015). The Influence of On-Off Line Blended Learning in Emphasizing the Interaction Between Teacher and Students on the Perception about Learning Environment and Science-Related Attitude. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(1), 27-35.   DOI
14 Irving, S. E., Harris, L. R., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). 'One assessment doesn't serve all the purposes' or does it? New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 413-426.   DOI
15 Kim, H. (2021). TPCK Formation and Technology-mediated Interactions-Focusing on a Case of Pre-service Physics Teachers' Design and Implementation of 'Platform-Based Formative Assessment'-(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
16 Kim, H., Park, J., Joung, Y., Park, S., Kim, C., Lee, C., & Cho, J. (2014). Introduction of formative assessment system to support customized education (I) -Design of online and offline formative assessment system. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, RRE 2014-9.
17 Kim, N., Park, C., & Sohn, W. (2020). Relationships of Pre-service Teachers' Formative Assessment Experience and Mastery Goal Orientation with their Conceptions of Assessment for Learning(AfL), The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 23(3), 129-148.   DOI
18 Kim, S. & Jhun, Y. (2005). How to do good assessment in science class. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. ORM-51-5.
19 Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of emerging trends in educational research and policy studies, 3(1), 83-86.
20 Lee, H., Choi, K., & Nam, J. (2000). Reserch Article : The Effects of Formative Assessment with Detailed Feedback on Students Science Achievement, Attitude, and Interaction between Teacher and Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 20(3), 479-490.
21 Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. D. (2012). Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers' initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 523-539.   DOI
22 Lee, J. (2015). International Comparative Study of the Use of ICT by Middle School Teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(5), 885-893.   DOI
23 McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 562-574.   DOI
24 McMillan, J. H. (2003). Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment decision making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 22(4), 34-43.   DOI
25 Mertler, C. A. (2004). Secondary teachers' assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference?. American secondary education, 49-64.
26 Na, J. & Jang, B. (2016). The Difficulties and Needs of Pre-service Elementary Teachers in the Science Class utilizing Smart Technologies in Teaching Practice. ELEMENTARY CCIENCE EDUCATION, 35(1), 98-110.
27 Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self- regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.   DOI
28 O'Donoghue, T., & Punch, K. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative educational research in action: Doing and reflecting.Routledge.
29 Noh, T., Lee, J., Kang, S., & Kang, H. (2015). Secondary School Science Teachers' Actual and Preferred Types of Assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(4), 725-733.   DOI
30 Noh, T., Lee, J., Kang, S., Han, J., & Kang, H. (2017). The Characteristics of the PCK Components of Pre-Service Secondary Chemistry Teachers Considered in Developing Performance Assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 37(2), 291-299.
31 Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715-721.   DOI
32 Park, C. (2013). Resurgence of formative assessment and the educational implication. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 26(4), 719-738.
33 Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental?. Theory into practice, 48(1), 4-11.   DOI
34 Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers' perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3), 261-276.   DOI
35 Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 77-84.   DOI
36 Seong, T., & Im, H. (2014) Suggestions for Teacher's Perception and Applicable Method Through the New Understanding of Formative Assessment. Korean Society for Educational Evaluation, 27(3), 597-615.
37 Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.   DOI
38 Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.
39 Smith, L. F., Hill, M. F., Cowie, B., & Gilmore, A. (2014). Preparing teachers to use the enabling power of assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 303-323).
40 Sohn, W. (2017). International Patterns of Formative Assessment in Science Lessons: Further Results from PISA 2015. Korean Society for Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 269-290.
41 Sorensen, E. K., & Takle, E. S. (2005). Investigating knowledge building dialogues in networked communities of practice. A collaborative learning endeavor across cultures. Interactive educational multimedia, 10, 50.
42 Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O'Connor, W. (2003). Analysis: Practices, principles and processes. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Eds). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Sciences Students and Researchers (pp. 199-218). London: Sage Publication.
43 Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International journal of qualitative methods, 8(1), 76-84.   DOI
44 Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22-27.   DOI
45 Stiggins, R. (2010). Essential formative assessment competencies for teachers and school leaders. In H. Andrade, G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment, (pp.233-250). NewYork, NY: Taylor & Francis.
46 van der Kleij F. & Adie L. (2018) Formative Assessment and Feedback Using Information Technology. In Voogt J., Knezek G., Christensen R., Lai KW. (Eds). Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham.
47 Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162.   DOI
48 van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1804-1817.   DOI
49 Vonderwell, S. K., & Boboc, M. (2013). Promoting formative assessment in online teaching and learning. TechTrends, 57(4), 22-27.   DOI
50 Wang, T. H., Wang, K. H., & Huang, S. C. (2008). Designing a web-based assessment environment for improving pre-service teacher assessment literacy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 448-462.   DOI
51 Chi, E. (2009). Exploring the Factors and Key Aspects of Teachers' Feedback Practice. Asian Journal of Education, 10(3), 77-102.   DOI
52 Choi, H., & Kim, J. (2013). A Study on Performance Level of Pre-service Physics Teachers in Constructing Questions for classroom assessment-Focused on Analysis of Multiple Choice Question about Physics Conceptest for Formative Assessment. Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 458-475.   DOI
53 Choi, K., Park, J., Choi, B., Nam, J., Choi, K., & Lee, K. (2004). Analysis of Verbal Interaction Between Teachers and Students in Middle School Science Classroom. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(6), 1039-1048.
54 DeLuca, C. (2012). Preparing teachers for the age of accountability: Toward a framework for assessment education. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5-6), 576-591.   DOI
55 Drumm, L. (2019). Folk pedagogies and pseudo-theories: how lecturers rationalise their digital teaching. Research in Learning Technology, 27.
56 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
57 Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2008). Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 82-99.
58 Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9).
59 Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & education, 57(4), 2333-2351.   DOI
60 Heitink, M. C., van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P, Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50-62.   DOI
61 Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do?. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.   DOI
62 Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogies. In Leach J. & Moon B. (Ed.), Learners and Pedagogy, (pp.4-21). London: Paul Chapman Publishing with The Open University.