Browse > Article

Recognition of Assessment Strategies of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers  

Ko, Eun-Sung (Jeonju National University of Education)
Park, Mimi (Jeonju National University of Education)
Lee, Eun Jung (Jeonju National University of Education)
Park, Min-Sun (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics / v.27, no.2, 2017 , pp. 291-312 More about this Journal
Abstract
According to the current research of educational assessment, formative assessment which focuses on improving students' learning has been emphasized. Consequently, integration between instruction and assessment is crucial and various assessment strategies are required. In order to use different assessment strategies in classrooms, teachers should experience strategies and reflect their strengths and weaknesses. In this study, pre-service elementary teachers experienced six assessment strategies (feedback, providing assessment standard, providing exemplary cases, self assessment, peer assessment, and written assessment), and their perceptions toward each strategy were investigated. During one semester, pre-service teachers experienced each of them and they answered questionnaire at the end of the semester. From the results, it is found that pre-service teachers presented different strategies that were most helpful in their cognitive and affective domain according to their perception of assessment. The results imply that different assessment strategies should be applied in instruction and teachers should extend their perception of assessment purposes.
Keywords
pre-servicr elementary teachers; assessment strategies; feedback; providing assessment standard; providing exemplary cases; self assessment; peer assessment; written assessment;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 정상권, 이경화, 유연주, 신보미, 박미미, 한수연 (2012). 수학적 과정 중심 평가에 대한 교사들의 인식 조사. 수학교육학연구, 22(3), 401-427.
2 Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2012). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp.11-32). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
3 Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31.   DOI
4 Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.   DOI
5 Brookhart, S., Andolina, M., Zuza, M., & Furman, R. (2004). Minute math: an action research study of student self-assessment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 213-227.   DOI
6 Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of taskinvolving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1-14.   DOI
7 Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474-482.   DOI
8 Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-380.   DOI
9 Gardner, J. (2012). Quality assessment practice. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp.103-121). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
10 Harlen, W. (2012). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp.87-102). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
11 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112   DOI
12 Morgan, C., & Watson, A. (2002). The interpretative nature of teachers’ assessment of students’ mathematics: Issues for equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 78-110.   DOI
13 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
14 교육부(2015). 수학과 교육과정. 교육부.
15 Oliveira, H. & Hannula, M. S. (2008). Individual prospective mathematics teachers: Studies on their professional growth. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), The International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education, Vol 3, Participants in Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.13-34). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
16 김효선, 오영열(2014). 서술형 수학 쓰기 수업이 초등학생의 문제해결 및 수학적 성향에 미치는 효과. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 E <수학교육 논문집>, 28(1), 131-154.
17 이봉주(2007). 수학 문제해결 과정에서 학생의 자기평가 사례 연구. 중등교육연구, 55(2), 1-25.
18 Santos, Pinto (2009). Lights and shadows of feedback in mathematics learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 5, 49-56.
19 교육과학기술부(2011). 수학과 교육과정. 교육과학기술부.
20 Santos, L., & Semana, S. (2015). Developing mathematics written communication through expository writing supported by assessment strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88, 65-87.   DOI
21 Shepard, L. A. (2000). The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.   DOI
22 Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. For the learning of mathematics, 18(4), 433-449.
23 Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (1994). Using peer and self-assessment to develop modelling skills with students aged 11 to 16: A socio-constructive view. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(4), 413-431.   DOI
24 Watson, A. (2000). Mathematics teachers acting as informal assessors: Practices, problems and recommendations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 69-91.   DOI
25 Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.) The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning (pp.53-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26 Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.) Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.1053-1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.