Analysing assessment rubrics designed by preservice primary science teachers

Peter HudsonQueensland University of TechnologyEmail: pb.hudson@qut.edu.au

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007

AbstractReform in science education is becoming more globalised with the promotion of science education standards that focus on outcomes-based systems. Assessment has become an integral part of educational reform, which needs to be linked to syllabus outcomes for teaching and learning to be purposeful and systematic. Authentic assessment is linked to criteria that aim to gather information from a variety of sources, which may increase the validity and reliability of results. This study investigates 255 preservice teachers’ development of outcomes-based assessment for primary science education. The purpose of this paper is to present and analyse preservice teacher examples of assessment rubrics that aim to link indicators and outcomes for science education. Even though coursework provided guidance for devising assessment rubrics, these preservice teachers’ rubrics varied considerably. The preservice teachers presented scales, measures, and opportunities for assessing students’ achievement of science education outcomes. However, some focused on broad outcomes while others provided specific indicators linked to science education syllabus outcomes. Broad outcomes may lack depth in the assessment process if they are not associated with particular indicators. Indeed, reliability of assessment appeared low when the criteria were more general and not matched to particular pieces of work. Conversely, reliability may increase when tasks are closely related to specific criteria. State science education syllabuses are heavily weighted with outcomes, and assessment examples are severely marginalised. More explicit directions and examples of outcomes-based assessment must be embedded in state syllabus documents if an education system is to provide consistency for devising reliable and valid assessments.

Key words: assessment, education, science, preservice teachers, elementary, primaryWhen we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it is tied to everything else in the universe.

(John Muir 1838-1914, US naturalist, explorer)

As a result of promoting standards in science education with a focus on outcomes (Bednarski, 2003; National Science Teachers’ Association, 1996; Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999), reform in science education is becoming more globalised. Outcomes-based education infers that planning for learning experiences in science education has standards with desirable outcomes; hence assessment becomes an integral part of educational reform (Bond, 1995). Assessment needs to be linked to syllabus outcomes for teaching and learning to be purposeful and systematic (Perlman, 2002; Rogers & Sando, 1996) but is also used to measure the success of

1

students’ achievements in relation to anticipated outcomes (Moskal, 2003). In keeping with outcome-based reform measures (e.g., Beeth, 2001; Hudson & Ginns, 2007), assessment may be viewed as the process of collecting, analysing, and recording information about a student’s progress that indicates the level of achieving specific syllabus outcomes. However, there are key issues surrounding assessment. For example, more than likely, teachers are involved in an education system whether public or private, and as such these education systems have policies, principles and procedures that aim towards addressing quality assurance of educational outcomes and gaining public confidence in the system. So, contexts and principles for assessment need to be analysed before discussing the assessment forms and strategies for collecting, analysing and recording assessment.

Assessment: contextsThe contexts for assessment involve consideration of key stakeholders, economic conditions, equity and social issues, and the call for accountability (Brady & Kennedy, 2001). The key stakeholders include students, teachers, parents, principals, the education system, affiliated interest groups, and the government. Students are a focal point as outcome-based assessments revolve around student performance, therefore, students need to have input into assessments on many levels. Teachers have a vested interest in assessment as data gained from assessment may determine the effectiveness of teaching strategies and programs. The data may be used to report on a student’s progress, and enhance teaching programs, and signify the well being of a school’s education (Woolfolk, 2004). Parents are generally interested in their child’s achievement in particular subject areas, and as such assessment results are reported to parents to provide information about their child’s performance. Reporting assessment results may aid parents in making judgments about the quality of teaching and learning occurring within a particular school setting (Brady & Kennedy, 2001). Principals use assessment data to enhance teaching programs through meetings and/or professional development, and report to their education system who in turn reports to the government of the day, which forms a chain of accountability. In addition, there are affiliated interest groups concerned with student outcomes, for example, universities are interested in potential students who may enrol in science or science education degrees, and the science community (including scientists in the field) is interested in prospective scientists to carry on their work and research activities. Indeed, the standard of Year 12 assessment results can impinge upon the future of such organisations.

Economies develop because of their knowledge base, so assessments of learning outcomes in science education may provide information on forthcoming economic advancements. Hence, each and every person needs to be valued for their potential scientific contribution to the economy. Schools are fundamental to this process and, as such, need to facilitate socially just and equitable education, which is non-discriminatory and seeks improvement of science education outcomes for disadvantaged groups, including the Indigenous, cultural and linguistic sectors (e.g., Brady & Kennedy, 2001). Government money (through public taxes) supports and subsidises education at various levels. Australian governments spent $21.3 billion on primary and secondary education operating expenses in 2001-2002 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003); hence there is accountability for spending public money on education. Assessment, including science education assessment, may be viewed as a measure of worth and educational well-being, as noted by rank-ordering higher school certificate results (e.g., US, UK, and Australia). Accountability appears to be provided through results gained from basic skills tests at various

2

intervals throughout a child’s education (e.g., NSW Department of Education and Training [DET], and Education Queensland). The results from outcomes-based assessments can provide a measure of accountability for public spending on education (Woolfolk, 2004); however such assessment needs to be valid and reliable (Moskal, 2003).

Assessment: principlesThe principles for outcomes-based assessment are linked to learning experiences, explicit criteria, identifying achievements, and using indicators as evidence (Harlen, 2004). Outcomes-based education eliminates failure by declaring every student can succeed (McGhan, 1994). Students’ achievement of an outcome may be linked to a number of indicators (or pieces of evidence) as checkpoints on students’ ability to succeed. Assessable indicators need to be related to explicit criteria and the students’ learning experiences, as students generally focus their learning on how they will be assessed and explicit criteria can drive students to learn content, skills and processes (Albon, 2003). In this way, achievements can be identified to indicate students’ level of readiness for advancement to the next educational stage. Both educators and students need to be aware of the indicators for assessment (Moskal, 2003; Winking, 1997). It is also important that more than one indicator be gathered in different contexts. For example, indicators may involve individual, group, and class work associated with a learning outcome, and on a variety of tasks that allow for more comprehensive analysis of a student’s achievement.

Students need to be included in the assessment process, as self-assessment can provide another perspective on assessing students’ learning (Black & William 1998; Hart, 1999). It can present an avenue for engaging students in intellectual evaluation of their learning, and an opportunity to critically assess their progress (Woodward & Munns, 2003). Assessment needs to incorporate open-ended tasks that are closely linked to learning criteria. Open-ended tasks can cater more readily to the expanse of student abilities but must be sensitive to learning situations and inclusive of all learners (Brady & Kennedy, 2001). Furthermore, “teachers should not judge the accuracy of their assessments by how far they correspond with test results but by how far they reflect the learning goals” (Harlen, 2004, p. 96). Yet, assessment comes down to teacher judgment and the more thoroughly teachers understand the criteria the more consistently they apply them (Hargreaves, Galton, & Robinson, 1996; Tierney & Simon, 2004).

Assessment: forms and parametersThere are various forms of assessment, including formative and summative assessments. Formative assessment can include any activity that provides information on students’ learning for diagnostic analysis to improve teaching and learning (Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002; Black & Wiliam 1998). Formative assessment also aims to gather a cumulative profile of each student’s learning for providing feedback to particular key stakeholders (e.g., teachers, principals, parents). Feedback from formative assessment can assist the learner to become more aware of gaps between desired goals and current knowledge (Boston, 2002; Sadler, 1989). Summative assessment aims at collecting data for making judgments about teaching and learning at the end of a unit of work or school term (Lovat & Smith, 1995) and to establish whether the intended curriculum transpired (Print, 1993). Choi (1999) noted that this was likely to be a problem in systems where the summative assessment has “high stakes” for the students. Hence, there was a shift from one-off summative assessments for Australian Higher School Certificate examinations

3

to a combination of formative and summative assessments (e.g., New South Wales Department of Education and Training; Education Queensland).

The broad parameters for assessment are formed around students’ knowledge and understanding, demonstration of skills, and values and attitudes (Brady & Kennedy, 2001). There is also the issue of grading such assessments. For example, there is a shift from norm referencing (e.g., using the bell curve) to criterion-based referencing (e.g., Basic Skills Tests; University of New South Wales competitions; see also Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002). However, universities themselves grapple with norm and criterion referencing; even though students’ assessments are based on criteria, Australian universities place a ceiling on the number of distinctions or high distinctions any particular cohort may receive. Justification for this action includes using this ceiling as a moderation process across universities; otherwise any particular university may show bias in their gradings with more students receiving distinctions or high distinctions and the possibility of higher job prospects from that particular university. So realistic grading will also need to be considered in school settings, particularly with university entrance marks as cut-off points for acceptance into specific courses.

Assessment: strategiesApart from systematic observation as a common technique for obtaining authentic assessment, a variety of strategies need to be employed for assessing students’ work including tests and tasks (Benbow & Malby, 2002). Tests may take the form of multiple choice questions, true/false questions, short responses to questions or statements, matching statements, cloze activities, and essays (Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002). However, many tests, like multiple choice and true/false questions, do not provide students with opportunities to apply their knowledge (Bond, 1995). For more than a decade, standardised tests have been criticised as superficially matching syllabus content, and this type of assessment may emphasise teaching only basic knowledge and skills (Bond, 1995). Yet, a test can include more diverse ways of gathering student information such as students’ construction of a concept map, annotated diagrams, or a teacher-student interview with questions constructed purposefully.

Although all forms of assessment have advantages and disadvantages (see Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002), authentic tasks can provide greater scope for assessing students at various levels of competencies (Bond, 1995; Brady & Kennedy, 2001; Harlen, 2004). These tasks for science education can include written tasks such as descriptions, information reports, analytical expositions, explanations, reviews, scientific reports, and student journals but may also involve oral tasks such as group discussions, presentations, debates, role-plays, and interviews. There can be a wide variety of tasks associated with any particular criteria, especially if students can negotiate their demonstration of a criterion by providing physical evidence such as constructing models, posters, audio/videotapes, photographs, or presenting a project, exhibition, or portfolio. For example, Williams, Davis, Metcalf, and Covington (2003) argue that the presentation of a portfolio as an assessment item allows students greater opportunities and flexibility for demonstrating their achievement of the proposed outcomes.

Selecting assessment strategies is generally a teacher’s professional decision. However, authentic assessment is linked to criteria that aim to gather information from a variety of sources, which may increase the validity and reliability of results (Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002; Puckett &

4

Black, 2000). Reliability of assessment is low when the criteria are more general and not matched to particular pieces of work (Shapley & Bush, 1999). Conversely, reliability is increased when tasks are closely related to specific criteria. Importantly, teachers need to be aware of bias in their assessments with “school assessment procedures including steps to guard against unfairness” (Harlen, 2004, p. 96). This paper investigates preservice teachers’ development of outcomes-based assessment for primary science education. The aim of this paper is to present and analyse a selection of these preservice teachers’ assessment rubrics that link to syllabus outcomes.

Data collection methods and analysisPreservice teachers were involved in a primary science pedagogical development course of one semester duration at one university. These preservice teachers (n=255) represented two separate cohorts within their middle years of tertiary education. The course focused on developing their understanding of theoretical underpinnings for developing a science curriculum; understanding the development of children’s concepts, abilities, skills, and attitudes; understanding effective planning for science teaching and learning; and implementing effective science teaching practices. Included in the course content was the development of a primary science unit of work that required these preservice teachers to link outcomes and assessment for recording students’ learning and involvement in science activities.

Pairs of preservice teachers constructed units of work (i.e., a program for teaching) based on science topics (e.g., weather, electricity, pond studies, soil, and processed materials). The unit of work was an assessable item requiring them to follow explicit criteria, viz:

Provide a well-referenced rationale articulating clear reasons for teaching this unit of work, including potential school/class scenario, content significance, key concepts, theoretical design, teaching strategies, links to the syllabus, sustainable living, inclusivity, and methods of assessing and evaluating the unit.

Develop a well-structured overview of your science unit of work. Provide specific unit outcomes linked to key concepts and science syllabus outcomes. Develop a well-structured integrated overview with activities linked to syllabus outcomes. Present a detailed lesson description for achieving your outcome(s) and key concept(s) on

sustainable living, and providing hands-on experiences for students (including indicators for assessment and a comprehensive list of resources).

Present a detailed lesson description for achieving your outcome(s) and key concept(s) with links to integrating another key learning area, and providing hands-on experiences for students (including indicators for assessment and a comprehensive list of resources).

Highlight the teaching and classroom management strategies that provide inclusive learning for all students.

Present quality assessment and evaluation proposals, with assessment rubric examples in the appendices.

Provide quality evidence of links to contemporary science education issues arising from readings, lectures, tutorials, workshops, and other B Ed units.

Lectures, workshops and tutorials scaffolded the preservice teachers’ pedagogical development for meeting the above criteria. The link between outcomes and assessment was also emphasised with examples from educational texts (e.g., Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002) and previous

5

preservice teachers’ examples of assessment rubrics. These preservice teachers’ (n=255) units of work were examined for understandings of such links. This included justifying assessment procedures in the unit rationale, linking assessment and outcomes in the science unit overview and detailed lesson plans, and providing examples of assessment rubrics to demonstrate potential assessment forms. The following presents and analyses a selection of assessment rubric examples for the purposes of constructive debate.

Results and discussionAs expected, these preservice teachers’ assessments in their unit of work varied considerably. Some focused on very broad outcomes yet others provided specific indicators linking to an outcome. Assessment rubrics devised around broad outcomes in science education included checklisting, for example, Table 1 checklists on a student being able to: identify effects and characteristics of different forms of energy; predict the impact of science on community and environments; or display knowledge of different types of lifecycles. These broad outcomes may lack depth in the assessment process if they are not associated with particular indicators. To illustrate, the Core Learning Outcome (CLO) EB3.1 (QSCC, 1999) “Identifies interactions between systems on earth and beyond” has diverse applications. How and at what level does a student identify interactions between systems? What are these systems? Is this also inferring that the student needs to identify interactions between systems on earth and the solar system? Teachers’ expectations vary and as a result the interpretation of such an outcome may lead to invalid and unreliable assessments.

This assessment rubric (Table 1) was linked to eight science activities. One activity had three outcomes assigned (i.e., SS3.3, LL3.1, and LL3.2). This assessment implies 3 outcomes x 30 students = 120 assessable outcomes for the class. Would 120 outcomes be possible to assess in a 50 minute lesson? The number of outcomes per lesson does not appear to be clear in syllabus documents, nor does the balance between the time required for teaching and the time required for assessment. Assessment criteria need to be based around more specific indicators associated with an outcome. These indicators can be more tangible and assessable if they are explicit. However, these preservice teachers relied heavily upon observation for many of their assessments, particularly when students were involved in the physical demonstration of an assessable item (e.g., group work, project presentation). These potential teachers may form subjective judgments that may determine if a student is achieving a particular outcome, unless the outcomes are divided into more explicit criteria.

Table 1: Checklist of Science Education Outcomes

EC3.2 SS3.3 LL3.1 LL3.2 EB3.1

6

OUTCOME

STUDENT Can

iden

tify

effe

cts a

nd

char

acte

ristic

s of d

iffer

ent

form

s of e

nerg

y.

Pred

icts

the

impa

ct o

f sc

ienc

e on

com

mun

ity a

nd

envi

ronm

ents

Dem

onst

rate

s kno

wle

dge

of li

ving

thin

gs a

nd th

e en

viro

nmen

ts in

whi

ch

they

live

Dis

play

s kno

wle

dge

of

diff

eren

t typ

es o

f life

cycl

es

Iden

tifie

s int

erac

tions

be

twee

n sy

stem

s on

earth

an

d be

yond

The degree to which a student has achieved an indicator relies on teachers’ professional judgments. For example, one preservice teacher decided that students can be assessed on their understanding of Life and Living outcome 3.3 (QSCC, 1999) by observing students describing or observing particular changes or interactions (Table 2). How can teachers reliably observe a student’s observation of an interaction and make an assessment of the student’s learning? A student description of an interaction may provide evidence of the articulation of cognitive processes; however this too may be subjective, relying upon a teacher’s preconceived ideas about the content of such descriptions and the form these descriptions are articulated. One preservice teacher stated in the unit of work rationale, “Indicators of student learning have been developed to assist with an equitable assessment process and identification of student performance.” Undoubtedly, teachers need to be explicit about assessment criteria so students know what to expect and are given opportunities to shape their assessment accordingly. There are concerns when assessment is based solely on teacher observation (Harlen, 2004); therefore teachers need to use a variety of assessment methods.

Table 2:Indicators for Core Learning Outcome – Life and Living 3.3

The student can:1. Describe an observable relationship between living things (e.g., living together or a

feeding relationship).2. Observe interactions between living things and non-living parts of the environment.3. Describe an interaction between living things and non-living parts of the environment on

the beach.4. Observe and record natural changes in the environment.5. Describe natural changes in the environment in regards to weathering, erosion and

changes in temperature.

StudentName

Observed criteria Comments1 2 3 4 5

Proficient

7

DevelopingCompleted successfully

Some assessment criteria focused on social development rather than achievement of outcomes. Many preservice teachers incorporated social engagement as indicators on their science education assessment rubrics (e.g., Table 3). This emphasised the collaborative nature of science education learning but it may be overemphasised if key science concepts are not incorporated. Working scientifically is presented by science syllabuses as an essential component for learning about science, and constructivism is promoted as socially constructed knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). However, outcomes in the Queensland science syllabus are primarily focused on content knowledge with no explicit outcomes that allow teachers to provide feedback on social development. Parents are very interested in their child’s behaviour and participation at school, particularly in academic subject areas. Recording teacher observations about a student’s social development may assist in reporting to parents, and may also provide an indication of the balance between the student’s efforts and achievements. Stronger syllabus directions on student social participation will provide teachers with more directions on the types of social interactions that need to be observed. Nevertheless, overstating values and attitudes (see parameters for assessment) in science education is also flawed. The balance between social development in science classes and the student’s learning of scientific key concepts needs to be more explicit within syllabus documents in order to provide teachers with stronger guidelines and reducing the haphazard nature of interpreting such syllabus documents.

Table 3:Assessment Observation Sheet on Group Work Participation

Achievement Key: Achieved DevelopingX Not yet developed

Indicator

Student Take

s on

role

in

grou

p.

Res

pect

s rig

hts o

f ot

hers

.

Take

s tur

ns &

co

oper

ates

.

Lead

ersh

ip sk

ills

show

n.

List

enin

g sk

ills

show

n.

Act

ivel

y pa

rtici

pate

s.

Neg

otia

tes a

nd

com

prom

ises

.

Comments on individual progress and learning developments.

Various preservice teachers provided assessment criteria that linked to a particular task or project in order to gain a more detailed understanding of the students’ scientific understandings. Table 4, for example, provided criteria to assess students’ designs for an energy-efficient house. These preservice teachers provided lessons that taught students about the scientific understandings associated with elements of design an energy-efficient house (e.g., insulation or roof colouring). Providing an assessment rubric to students would not be sufficient unless specific teaching and learning complemented the scientific understandings behind the criteria. At this stage, it is interesting to note the different scales, measures or keys for determining the level of

8

achievement. Table 1 provided no scale or measure, whereas tables 2 and 3 used checks (ticks) or parts of checks to indicate a level of achievement. Table 4 provided faces (i.e., happy, no emotion, unhappy), which infers the teacher will check in the column linked to the relevant indicator. The scale indicated in Table 4 (i.e., three faces) may not be appropriate for the level of activity. These preservice teachers needed to be more aware of the student level and appropriateness of the scale. In addition, there appeared to be no direct link in this rubric to a syllabus outcome.

9

Table 4:Assessment Criteria for Designing an Energy-Efficient HouseNecessary Elements of Design InsulationCurtains/Blinds Exterior materialsFlooringShadeHouse orientationPlacement and size of windowsVentilationRoof colouringLandscaping

Table 5 provided a numerical scale for assessing particular indicators. The criteria key (e.g., EA=extensive achievement=9+) also allowed for efficient checking of each indicator. These preservice teachers needed to consider the scope of any one criterion. For example, the first criterion in Table 6, “Brochure is informative and contains relevant information,” is very broad, which may be left open to subjective interpretation. Further details may be outlined to indicate what made the brochure informative, and what was considered relevant and irrelevant information. Criteria clarity needs to be made explicit to students as part of teaching and learning activities. This was also emphasised to the preservice teachers involved in their BEd science education course. Specific scientific key concepts were not clearly evident in this assessment rubric. For example, the indicator “Brochure includes correct layout, structure, grammar and spelling” predominantly resides in the English syllabus, as there are no outcomes in the Queensland science syllabus stating students need to have correct grammar and spelling. Yet, scientific literacy includes effective communication (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001), which must rely upon English language structures.

Table 5:Criteria for Constructing a Brochure on BiomassStudent’s Name:______________________________

Criteria EA =9+

CA =7-8

MA =4-6

LA =0-3

Out of

Brochure is informative and contains relevant information. /10

Brochure identifies and describes the problem and its causes and effects. /10

Brochure incorporates an appropriate action plan to reduce pollution. /10

Brochure includes correct layout, structure, grammar and spelling. /10

Brochure is creative and visually appealing. /10

10

Key: EA = Extensive Achievement CA = Considerable Achievement MA = Moderate Achievement LA = Limited Achievement

Total Score __ 50

As the Queensland science syllabus bases outcomes around content knowledge, assessment criteria rubrics will need to reflect such outcomes. Table 6 demonstrates an assessment rubric based on students’ written information about biomass energy. The core learning outcome (4.3; QSCC, 1999) allows for “Students present alternative ways of obtaining and using energy (including energy from the sun and from fossil fuels) for particular purposes” (p. 22). The criteria key (or scale) allowed for assessment at three levels (i.e., beginning, developed, and proficient). In this case, the preservice teachers may be able to identify specifics such as three or more advantages of chosen biomass energy.

Table 6:Assessment Criteria for Biomass Fact Sheet

Student’s name: CLO: 4.3 Students present alternative ways of obtaining and using energy (including energy from the sun and fossil fuels) for particular purposes.

Key: (B) Beginning (D) Developed (P) Proficient

Generally, students need more than one opportunity for a teacher to determine the successful achievement of any particular outcome (Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002; Harlen, 2004). The following example in Table 7 demonstrated specific criteria associated with an outcome in the science strand Natural and Processed Materials (NPM). This preservice teacher emphasised in the rationale for the unit of work that assessment needs to be ongoing with multiple opportunities for students in a variety of contexts. The criteria, “Students can explain the purpose of insulation” allowed for a variety of explanations and focused on students’ communication skills. However, the form of the students’ explanations will need to be a stronger consideration (e.g., oral, written, diagram, presentation). How many opportunities are students provided before the teacher is compelled to move to the next teaching phase? These preservice teachers suggested three opportunities for students to demonstrate their ability to achieve an outcome (Table 7). Yet, unlike the attempts of an Olympic high jump, a student unable to achieve an outcome should not be “counted out”, which is a much wider issue not fully addressed in education to date. Not being counted out appears fundamental to the outcomes-based approach (McGhan 1994).

Student’s written report addresses the following criteria: B D PFact sheet has a titleDisplays three or more advantages of chosen biomass energyDisplays three or more disadvantages of biomass energyProvides links and explanation of biomass experiment within textProvides images that support the textHave shown evidence of copyright when using internet sourcesInformation is clearly presented with correct grammar and punctuation

11

Nevertheless, more direction and guidance are required on managing the education of students within the same classroom who are on different levels of academic and social achievement.

Table 7:Criteria for Assessing CLO NPM 4.3

NPM 4.3 - Students examine and assess ways that materials can be made more useful.Criteria Date Date Date CommentStudents can explain the purpose of insulation.Students are able to show an understanding by suggesting why certain materials are more effective than others for insulation.Students effectively communicate their results from the experiment to their peers.

Finally, education systems in Australia are now using a five-point scale (A-E) to record a student’s level of achievement. These levels were noted in many preservice teachers’ assessment rubrics. Some preservice teachers attempted to advance the assessment rubrics by incorporating Bloom’s six levels of thinking. Although there was a range of rubrics, determining the effectiveness of using these rubrics would require further research. Importantly, teaching is one of very few professions that interact with more than one client at any one time (e.g., a class of 25 students); for this reason, efficiency is paramount to teaching practices. As assessment is a key component in a teaching day, assessment rubrics need to be devised that address learning outcomes and system requirements effectively and efficiently.

ConclusionIt is important that teachers design assessment around current syllabus outcomes that are linked to specific assessable tasks (Brady & Kennedy, 2001; Harlen, 2004). As indicated in this paper, preservice teachers had devised criterion-referenced assessable tasks that focus on students’ social interaction and content knowledge. Social interactions (see Vygotsky’s constructivism, 1978) for learning about science were considered essential by these preservice teachers. However, content knowledge is emphasised in state and national examinations, and in syllabus outcomes, without incorporating clearly the role of social interaction. Teachers are expected to devise criterion-referenced assessments that link to syllabus documents without adequate modelling or guidance. Indeed, educators and education departments continue to debate outcomes-based education and associated assessments.

Syllabus documents need to provide teachers with clear examples of assessment practices. To illustrate, the Queensland science syllabus states, “Multiple opportunities for the demonstration of learning outcomes should be planned. A range of activities incorporating contents and contexts should be utilised to provide these opportunities” (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999, p. 32). However, the science syllabus for New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland has little or no clear criterion-referenced assessment rubrics that may lead teachers to adequately develop more effective and efficient practices. This also appears to be the case for other state education systems (e.g., see Schafer & Moody, 2004). Instead, these science syllabuses are heavily weighted with outcomes, and assessment examples are severely marginalised. Nevertheless,

12

assessment of learning outcomes is the focus for accountability to key stakeholders (Brady & Kennedy, 2001). Assessment drives (or should drive) teachers’ programs for learning (Athanasou & Lamprianou, 2002). The syllabus and departmental demand for assessment is not equally matched with clear examples of outcomes-based assessment (also see Schafer & Moody, 2004). It appears the ingredients are outlined but the recipe is vague. Whether performance based or product based, assessment records need to be carefully designed to reflect students’ achievements aligned with explicit criteria. More explicit directions and proposals for outcomes-based assessment must be embedded in syllabus documents.

Finally, there are many issues about assessment practices that need to be addressed by teachers, educators, and education departments. Further research is required on complex assessment issues to address such questions as:

How can teachers accurately assess students’ achievement of an outcome? When, and on what basis, can a teacher determine an outcome has been achieved by a

student? How can teachers judge the quality of an indicator as a link to achieving an outcome? Is there an “expiry date” on the results of an achieved outcome? That is, how do we know

students understand the concepts associated with their initial successful attainment of an outcome?

How many students in a class need to achieve an outcome before a teacher can move onto a new outcome? What happens to students who do not achieve an outcome?

How can teachers manage assessment of outcomes effectively when students work at different levels?

What will make assessment more manageable and time efficient for teachers? How can teachers, educators, departments, and universities work together for devising

practical and implementable models of assessment?

13

ReferencesAlbon, R. (2003, November). Assessment drives the learning: Raising the bar. Paper presented at

Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Adelaide, Australia. Athanasou, J. A., & Lamprianou, I. (2002). A teacher’s guide to assessment. Tuggerah, NSW:

Social Science Press.Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2003). Government finance statistics, education,

Australia - Electronic Delivery. Retrieved 10 June, 2005, from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/0465c11861d8c72aca256e6900009914?OpenDocument

Bednarski, M. (2003). Assessing performance tasks. The Science Teacher, 70(4), 34-37.Beeth, M. E. (2001). A continuum for assessing science process knowledge in grades k-6.

Electronic Journal of Science Education. Retrieved 2 August, 2006, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/beethetal.html

Benbow, A., & Mably, C. (2002) Science education for elementary teachers: An investigation – based approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Benchmarks – Project 2061. Retrieved 10 May, 2004, from http://www.project2061.org/ Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom

assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148. Retrieved 8 June, 2005, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm.

Bond, L. A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved 10 June, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm

Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9). Retrieved June 8, 2005 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9

Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2001). Celebrating student achievement: Assessment and reporting. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Educational.

Choi, C. C. (1999). Public examinations in Hong Kong. Assessment in Education 6, 405-418.Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and

learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

Hargreaves, D. J., Galton, M. J., & Robinson, S. (1996). Teachers' assessments of primary children's classroom work in the creative arts. Educational Research, 38, 199-211.

Harlen W (2004) A systematic review of the evidence of reliability and validity of assessment by teachers used for summative purposes. In: Research Evidence in Education Library (REEL). London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

Hart, D. (1999). Opening assessment to our students. Social Education: Arlington. 63(6), 343-345.

Hudson, P., & Ginns, I. (2007 in press). Developing an instrument to examine preservice teachers’ pedagogical development. Journal of Science Teacher Education.

Lovat, T. J. & Smith, D. L. (1995). Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited (3rd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Social Science Press.

McGhan, B. (1994). The possible outcomes of outcomes based education. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 70-72.

Moskal, B. M. (2003). Recommendations of developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(14). Retrieved 2 August, 2005, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=14.

14

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (1996). NSTA pathways to the science standards. Washington DC: Author.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design (2nd Ed.). Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin. Perlman, C. (2002). An introduction to performance assessment scoring rubrics. In C. Boston,

(Ed.). Understanding scoring rubrics, (pp. 5-13). University of Maryland, MD: ERIC Clearing house on Assessment and Evaluation.

Puckett, M. B., & Black, J. K. (2000). Authentic assessment of the young child: Celebrating development and learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Queensland School Curriculum Council. (1999). Science: Years 1 to 10 syllabus. Brisbane: Author.

Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2002). Position paper and guidelines: An outcomes approach to assessment and reporting. Brisbane, QLD: Author.

Rogers, G., & Sando, J. (1996). Stepping ahead: An assessment plan development guide. Terra Haute, Indiana: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.

Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.

Schafer, W. D., & M. Moody. (2004). Designing accountability assessments for teaching. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(14). Retrieved August 21, 2005, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=14.

Shapley, K. S., & Bush, M. J. (1999). Developing a valid and reliable portfolio assessment in the primary grades: Building on practical experience. Applied Measurement in Education 12, 11-32.

Tierney, R., & Simon, M. (2004). What's still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(2). Retrieved August 26, 2005 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=2.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, S., Davis, M., Metcalf, D., & Covington, V. (2003). The evolution of a process portfolio as an assessment system in a teacher education program. Current Issues in Education, 30(1), 544-546.

Winking, D. (1997). Ensuring equity with alternative assessments. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved 10 June, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as800.htm

Woodward, H., & Munns, G. (2003). Insiders’ voices: Self-assessment and student engagement. Paper presented at New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) and Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Joint Conference, Auckland, NZ.

Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. (9th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

15