preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: the coherence...

8
Preservice teachers’ initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science Jing-Ru Wang * , Huey-Lien Kao, Sheau-Wen Lin Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science Education, National Pingtung University of Education, 4-18 Ming Shen Road, Pingtung 900, Taiwan article info Article history: Received 14 February 2008 Received in revised form 17 April 2009 Accepted 15 June 2009 Keywords: Assessment Learning Preservice teacher Conceptions abstract This study utilized responses from Taiwanese preservice elementary teachers to describe and analyze their conceptions about the assessment of science learning and the extent that these conceptions were coherent with their views of learning science. A methodological framework of phenomenography was used for the study. The results revealed that the preservice teachers’ mode of assessment was coherent with a traditional view of learning but their performance mode of assessment was not well developed. Improving preservice teachers’ conception of assessment requires clarifying and reconstructing their conceptions of and coherence between assessment, curriculum, pedagogy, and learning. Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction The importance of teachers’ knowledge of assessment for learning science is evidenced in the US National Research Council’s (NRC, 1996) National Science Education Standards (NSES). NSES Teaching Standard C states, ‘‘ assessment tasks are not afterthought to instructional planning but are built into the design of teaching’’ (NRC, p. 38). Similarly, Wiggins and McTighe (1998) suggest that ‘‘Good teaching is dependent upon good design, and a good teacher needs to think like an assessor prior to designing lessons’’ (p. 159). Thus, teachers have responsibilities not only for setting goals, objectives, and instruction but also for assessment (Enger & Yager, 2001). The alignment of assessment, learning, and instruction implies a teacher’s conceptions of assessment, learning, and teaching, the effectiveness of how well the lesson was designed and taught, and how well students achieved the full range of desired educational goals. However, many teacher professional development researchers only consider teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about subject matter, teaching, and learning and their impacts on instruction (Hancock & Gallard, 2004; Hubbard & Abell, 2005; Porla ´ n & del Pozo, 2004; Smith & Southerland, 2007; Tsai, 2007); relatively few seek to investigate teachers’ purposes for and meanings of assessment as they relate to the science curriculum (Brown, 2004; Hargreaves, 2005; Maclellan, 2004). This study, which involves preservice elementary teachers who are in an elementary science methods course at a university in Taiwan, aims to investigate whether these postsecondary students have satisfactory knowledge about the assessment of science learning that would help them in developing their ability to teach science. 1.1. The trend Assessment has a significant role in education (see special issue of Educational Leadership, Scherer, 2007/2008). Historically, assess- ment – based on different theories of learning – serves different purposes. For example, traditional classroom teaching for the test is likely to be based on the perspective of behaviourist learning theo- ries in which preassessment identified teaching targets and post- instructional testing verified achievement of the prescribed objectives (Shepard, 2001). To date, influenced by constructivist learning theories, recent national reforms in the United States (NRC, 1996, 2000) and researchers (Atkin & Coffey, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) have claimed that assessment methods must change to support a new curriculum that emphasizes scientific inquiry and the construction of meaningful understanding rather than rote memorization of science content. Many proposals for science reform have called for improvement in assessment of science learning outcomes in multiple dimensions (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989). For example, from the perspective of competence and understanding of content knowl- edge, Baxter and Glaser (1998) provided a content-process frame- work for science assessment in which assessment tasks involve many possible combinations of content knowledge and process skills. Enger and Yager (2001) expanded Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 8 7220336. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.-R. Wang). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate 0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.014 Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529

Upload: jing-ru-wang

Post on 29-Oct-2016

222 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Preservice teachers’ initial conceptions about assessment of science learning:The coherence with their views of learning science

Jing-Ru Wang*, Huey-Lien Kao, Sheau-Wen LinGraduate Institute of Mathematics and Science Education, National Pingtung University of Education, 4-18 Ming Shen Road, Pingtung 900, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 February 2008Received in revised form17 April 2009Accepted 15 June 2009

Keywords:AssessmentLearningPreservice teacherConceptions

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 8 7220336.E-mail address: [email protected] (J.-R. W

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Published bydoi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.014

a b s t r a c t

This study utilized responses from Taiwanese preservice elementary teachers to describe and analyzetheir conceptions about the assessment of science learning and the extent that these conceptions werecoherent with their views of learning science. A methodological framework of phenomenography wasused for the study. The results revealed that the preservice teachers’ mode of assessment was coherentwith a traditional view of learning but their performance mode of assessment was not well developed.Improving preservice teachers’ conception of assessment requires clarifying and reconstructing theirconceptions of and coherence between assessment, curriculum, pedagogy, and learning.

� 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

The importance of teachers’ knowledge of assessment for learningscience is evidenced in the US National Research Council’s (NRC,1996)National Science Education Standards (NSES). NSES Teaching StandardC states, ‘‘ assessment tasks are not afterthought to instructionalplanning but are built into the design of teaching’’ (NRC, p. 38).Similarly, Wiggins and McTighe (1998) suggest that ‘‘Good teaching isdependent upon good design, and a good teacher needs to think likean assessor prior to designing lessons’’ (p. 159). Thus, teachers haveresponsibilities not only for setting goals, objectives, and instructionbut also for assessment (Enger & Yager, 2001). The alignment ofassessment, learning, and instruction implies a teacher’s conceptionsof assessment, learning, and teaching, the effectiveness of how wellthe lesson was designed and taught, and how well students achievedthe full range of desired educational goals. However, many teacherprofessional development researchers only consider teachers’ beliefsand knowledge about subject matter, teaching, and learning and theirimpacts on instruction (Hancock & Gallard, 2004; Hubbard & Abell,2005; Porlan & del Pozo, 2004; Smith & Southerland, 2007; Tsai,2007); relatively few seek to investigate teachers’ purposes for andmeanings of assessment as they relate to the science curriculum(Brown, 2004; Hargreaves, 2005; Maclellan, 2004). This study, whichinvolves preservice elementary teachers who are in an elementaryscience methods course at a university in Taiwan, aims to investigate

ang).

Elsevier Ltd.

whether these postsecondary students have satisfactory knowledgeabout the assessment of science learning that would help them indeveloping their ability to teach science.

1.1. The trend

Assessment has a significant role in education (see special issueof Educational Leadership, Scherer, 2007/2008). Historically, assess-ment – based on different theories of learning – serves differentpurposes. For example, traditional classroom teaching for the test islikely to be based on the perspective of behaviourist learning theo-ries in which preassessment identified teaching targets and post-instructional testing verified achievement of the prescribedobjectives (Shepard, 2001). To date, influenced by constructivistlearning theories, recent national reforms in the United States (NRC,1996, 2000) and researchers (Atkin & Coffey, 2003; Wiggins &McTighe, 1998) have claimed that assessment methods must changeto support a new curriculum that emphasizes scientific inquiry andthe construction of meaningful understanding rather than rotememorization of science content. Many proposals for science reformhave called for improvement in assessment of science learningoutcomes in multiple dimensions (American Association for theAdvancement of Science [AAAS], 1989). For example, from theperspective of competence and understanding of content knowl-edge, Baxter and Glaser (1998) provided a content-process frame-work for science assessment in which assessment tasks involvemany possible combinations of content knowledge and processskills. Enger and Yager (2001) expanded Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy

Page 2: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

J.-R. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529 523

by including science process and inquiry skills, orientation to thenature of science, and attitude toward science. They believed theproposed assessment framework for science learning and experi-ences promoted science literacy and included six domains: concepts,processes, applications, attitudes, creativity, and nature of science.Clearly, the function of assessment in science learning is shiftingfrom measuring content knowledge to assessing science literacy.

1.2. The issue

The movement of assessment from a behaviourist perspective toa constructivist perspective has changed the purpose of assessmentfrom providing valid measurements of a student’s knowledgeto providing information that empowers learning and informedteaching. Examples of constructivist-oriented assessment involvegood pedagogical practice and clear expectations of desiredcompetence (Shepard, 2000). However, in Chinese culture, successin the competitive national examination is valued as an authori-zation to access universities and postsecondary careers. Taiwaneseteachers are expected to put their efforts into helping their studentsachieve academic success in terms of the test outcomes rather thanthe full range of desired educational goals. The shift of this societalbelief about the role of assessment between a behaviourist andconstructivist perspective is a tension in Taiwan as well as in othercountries (Black & William, 1998; Stiggins, 2002).

Assessment reformers (Shepard, 2000; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998)suggest that teachers think like an assessor who needs to judge whatstudents should know, understand, and be able to do, what under-standing is worthy, what enduring understanding is desired, andhow to judge if students have achieved the desired results and meetthe standards. However, ‘‘The classroom is a powerful environmentfor shaping and constraining how practicing teachers think and act.’’(Putnam & Borko, 2000, p. 6). Thus, science methods students withtraditional classroom experiences and culture might have differentperspectives about desired outcomes and learners’ needs that mightbe coherent or incoherent with their conceptions of assessment andthe goals of the reform curricula. Conceptual alignment amongstlearning, instruction, and assessment remains as a considerablechallenge for subsequent science methods courses. Science educatorsand methods instructors need to understand these students’ initialconceptions of assessment in order to design a course to help themconstruct pedagogical knowledge of assessment for the reform-based elementary science.

1.3. Empirical studies

The topic of teachers’ conceptions of assessment in elementaryschool science is not well explored. Two investigations related tothis topic that focused on inservice teachers’ conceptions ofassessment were identified. Brown (2004) reported on New Zea-land primary school teachers’ conceptions of assessment throughadministration of a 50-item questionnaire; he found that elemen-tary teachers agreed with the conception that assessment makesstudents accountable for learning but disagreed with the concep-tion that assessment is irrelevant to the work of teachers. Similarly,Hargreaves (2005) surveyed 83 teachers in the United Kingdomand found that the majority of teachers viewed assessment forlearning as monitoring students’ performance against objectivesand they wanted their assessment to be objective. It seems thatthese studies on inservice teachers’ conceptions of assessment didnot link assessment to the science curriculum. If assessment is notclearly defined and aligned to classroom practices and educationalgoals, it will fail to enhance science teaching and learning. Teachers’conceptions of assessment for learning science must be identifiedand systematically investigated so we can facilitate changes in their

classroom practice toward the visions of science education reform.Therefore, of far more practical importance is the relative lack ofresearch and knowledge concerning preservice teachers’ concep-tions of assessment that paves the way to the current study.

1.4. Purposes and research questions

Learning to teach is an active process of mental construction andsense making. People with a constructivist orientation to professionaldevelopment assume that, in a learner-centred context, teachers arelike children whose learning experiences can serve as a foundation onwhich subsequent ideas and actions of teaching can be built (NRC,2000). Thus, in order to enhance teaching in a manner consistent withemerging understandings of the goals and techniques of assessmentfor learning, examining the teacher’s initial conceptions of sciencelearning assessment is required. The terms teachers’ conceptions,perceptions, or beliefs has different meanings in its use in the literature(Pajares, 1992). In this study, conceptions connote a value judgmentabout something; and related teachers’ actions are filtered throughsocial and affective components, viability, and willingness to act. Thefollowing research questions guided this study:

1. How do the science methods students view assessing learningscience in elementary science?

2. How do science methods students view learning science inelementary schools?

3. How are the science methods students’ conceptions aboutassessing science learning coherent or incoherent with theirviews of learning science?

2. Methods

Considering the problem space (elementary preservice teachers’conceptions of assessment and learning) and the lack of existingpublished research on the topic, it was decided to use a qualitativeresearch design. It was judged that a qualitative approach wouldallow the development of assertions and provide a foundation forfuture research and for evaluating the effectiveness of the elementaryscience methods course under consideration. The rationale, specificapproach, and procedures are described in the following sections.

2.1. Rationale

Within the qualitative research paradigm, phenomenographicapproaches (i.e., recognizing individual’s views as part of a concep-tualization that gives meaning to the surrounding world anddirecting how one will behave in that world) focus attention onrelations between the individual and some aspects of the world, anddescribe how things appear to people within a particular context(Mathison, 1993). This approach was employed by the current studyfor mapping the different ways in which the participants experi-enced and conceptualized the phenomena around them.

The specific purpose of this study was to represent the partici-pants’ conceptions of assessment and learning of science in elemen-tary school as well as to understand whether the conceptions ofeach are congruent with each other. A refined phenomenographicapproach (Bradbeer, Healey, & Kneale, 2004) – analyzing a set ofindividual interview transcripts with written responses – was used inthis study to differentiate the variant frameworks of participants’conceptions of assessment and learning in elementary school science.

2.2. Subjects

The subjects in this study consisted of 215 methods students(110 nonscience majors and 105 science majors) who passed the

Page 3: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

J.-R. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529524

national entrance examination and met the criteria (the average scoreof academic performance must be higher than 80) for enrolment inthe Bachelor Teacher Program (BTP) that aimed to produce teacherswho will teach Chinese, mathematics, science, and social science inelementary schools. The BTP consists of four and a half years ofuniversity study. In addition to the requirements of their disciplinemajors, BTP program students take a minimum of 20 credits ofeducational courses, including teaching methods in the subjects theywill teach, and other courses in the first four years. Then they starta school-based experience, completely separate from the universityand lasting five months. Upon successful completion of the schoolexperience and the Teacher Certification Examination, they seekteaching positions in elementary schools. The sample of elementarymethods students is unrepresentative since they were mainly indig-enous people enrolled in a university located in a small city insouthernTaiwan during a single year (the third year of their program).

2.3. Data collection

Data were collected through a series of in-depth, open-ended,written questions and interviews that focused on allowing each personto fully describe their understanding of a phenomenon and experi-ences (Bowden,1996). At the very beginning of the elementary sciencemethods course, open-ended questions were initially presented to theparticipants to elicit descriptions of their conceptions of assessmentand learning science in elementary schools. The participants were firstrequested to respond in writing to these questions without conferringwith others. They were then interviewed to confirm and elaboratetheir written responses to the questions, to clarify their conceptions,and to provide deeper insights into their thinking behind theresponses, such as to think critically about which dimensions oflearning they really value and want to assess and promote for youngstudents. The initial part of the interview explored the participants’learning experiences in an elementary science classroom. The inter-view questions addressed some common knowledge of science, suchas clouds and food chains, and learning activities, such as planting greenbeans, raising worms, making popcorn, and watching moon phases. Theparticipants’ reflections on science learning experiences, which mighthave impacted on their conceptions of assessment and learning ofscience, were elicited prior to the major part of the interview when theconversations focused on the participants’ conceptions of the targetconstructs. All interviews were conducted on an individual basis witheach lasting approximately 20 min. These interviews were audio tapedand transcribed.

2.4. Data analysis

The interview and written responses were analyzed using aninductive approach because it allows the important analysisdimensions to emerge from patterns found in the cases under studywithout presupposing in advance what the important dimensionswill be (Creswell, 2003; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002).The participants’ conceptions of assessment and learning sciencewere considered separately. The written responses and interviewswere the data sources for this study. To analyze the data, each of thethree researchers independently read and reread the dataset tosearch for common patterns. After the third reading, some tentativecategories were sketched out and tested against the responses, andthe responses themselves were temporarily allocated to the cate-gories. The researchers then discussed these categories. Initially,more than ten descriptors (coding keywords) in the participants’conceptions about assessment were revealed. Next, a frameworkfor representing participants’ conceptions of assessment wasdeveloped by merging and clustering the descriptions with

a common emphasis. An identical process was used for theparticipants’ conceptions of learning science.

The initial categorization of the written and interview responseswas done independently by the three researchers. The categorieswere compared and the broad category definitions determinedby consensus. When interview data categorizations did not havecomplete agreement, the researchers reviewed the transcriptsagain and discussed them until reaching a final agreement.

3. Results

In this section, the results of categorization of the participants’conceptions of assessment and learning are presented first. Thentheir conception and alignment of assessment and learning in scienceare presented in accordance with the three research questions.Quantitative interpretations are followed with elaborations based onthe qualitative responses. The participants’ actual responses, insmaller type font, are provided to illustrate and justify claims.

3.1. Categories of conceptions of assessment and learning

Six categories emerged about assessing science learning, threerelated to participants’ conceptions about the target of assessmentand three related to their methods of assessment. The three dimen-sions of assessment were focused on the participants’ conceptionsabout what needed to be assessed. These dimensions are contentknowledge, process of inquiry, and attitude toward learning. First,assessing content knowledge involved measuring whether or not theknowledge was acquired and used by the students. This domainwas divided into two subdimensions: basic level of substantiveknowledge and application of science knowledge. Second, assessingprocesses of inquiry involved documenting observable behavioursand thinking processes used to solve specific problems. Under thisdomain of assessment, two levels of inquiry were identified: lowerlevel and higher level. The lower level of inquiry referred toa behaviourist position that focuses on the observable behaviourswhile doing a scientific investigation (Klopfer, 1971). The higher levelof inquiry involved taking an epistemic position that focuses onstudents making and reporting judgments, reasons, and decisionsduring three critical transformations while doing inquiry: data toevidence, evidence to patterns or models, and patterns/models toexplanations (Duschl, 2003). Actually, for this group of participants,the higher level of inquiry is inclined to the naıve-realist approach toscience, the belief that theory emerges from data, thus providinga faithful explanation of nature (Windschitl, 2004). Yet, none of theparticipants’ responses provided evidence of the most authenticapproach of scientific thinking, such as model-based inquiry. Third,assessing attitude toward learning involved measuring students’interests and involvement, such as attendance and taking responsi-bility in learning science (Enger & Yager, 2001).

Three modes (methods) of assessment were identified by thescience methods students: measurement, performance, and informalassessment. The measurement mode perceives assessing learningscience as measuring whether or not the knowledge is acquired andused by the students through the administration of pencil-and-papertest. The performance mode perceives assessing learning scienceby observable behaviours and thinking processes used to solvespecific problems through reviewing student journals or laboratoryreports. The informal mode perceives assessing learning through oralquestioning or observational checking for diagnosing studentunderstanding.

In addition to the categories of assessment, two categories aboutlearning science emerged for the science methods students:empirical tendency and constructivist tendency. First, the empiricaltendency perceives that knowledge is derived directly from the

Page 4: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

J.-R. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529 525

sensory experience. The essence of learning is the internalization ofrepresentations of the external world gained primarily throughreading, listening, observing, and hands-on activities. This tendencywas divided into two subcategories: learning science throughlistening-and-reading, and learning science through doing. Second,the constructivist tendency viewed learning science as a complexinteraction of the learner’s prior conceptions, experiences, andenvironment in which knowledge is constructed through individualinteractions within the sociocultural environment (Brooks & Brooks,1993). This tendency was also divided into two categories: learningscience through interactions and communications, and learningscience through thinking processes. Although there are establishedconnotations regarding the terms empiricism and constructivism(Nussbaum, 1989), this study used the terms to imply a broaderphilosophical position concerning science learning and teachingusing classification of various philosophies of science according tothe different assumptions regarding how scientific knowledgegrows. Although the participants’ conceptions of assessment andlearning were classified into groups, some conceptions related totwo or three categories.

3.2. Research question 1: how do the science methods studentsview assessing learning science in elementary science?

We found that these science methods students’ conceptions ofassessment varied across five outcomes and three methods. Interms of the assessment dimensions, a majority of the respondents(65%) made reference to a basic level of substantive knowledgewhile a minority (40.2%) referred to application of knowledge, andsmaller percentages referred to process (17.4%; lower level ofinquiry ¼ 13.4%, higher level of inquiry ¼ 4%), and attitude (11%).The distribution of their responses regarding the assessmentmethods revealed that a majority (61%) focused on performanceand learning tasks, a slight minority (45.9%) referred to tests ormeasurement mode, and a smaller percentage (18.4%) referred tothe oral questioning or informal mode.

3.2.1. Participants’ conceptions about the dimensions of assessmentThe participants identified three areas of learning outcomes:

content, processes, and attitudes. Content was subdivided intobasic level of knowledge and applications while processes weresubdivided into lower level and higher level.

3.2.1.1. Assessing basic level of substantive knowledge. Basic level ofsubstantive knowledge is defined as fundamental, common, andcorrect knowledge that is relevant to the daily experiences ofchildren. The written responses revealed that more than half of theparticipants (65%) conceived of assessment as measuring the levelreached by the students with respect to the knowledge defined inthe textbook. They stated:

I will check whether students have learned the correct knowl-edge covered in the unit . [or] measure the extent of under-standing about basic knowledge of the nature in their responses.(CD092110, written responses, 04/05)

The participants’ conceptions of assessment recognized thedevelopmental nature of the science curricula and instruction;responses such as the following were common:

In the elementary level, teachers should check whether studentshave learned the basic knowledge covered in the lecture ortextbook. If students do not have that fundamental knowledgeas a basis, they could not build up advanced knowledge coveredin the middle or high school science courses. (CM091136,interview, 04/03)

The above statements reveal that this science methods studentlikely conceived of assessment as a ‘gatekeeper function’ for studentsmoving to the next step of science education. When participantsconceived of assessing content knowledge, their conceptions werelimited to assessing the basic level of substantive knowledge coveredin the lecture or textbook, not the syntactic element of knowledge(Schwab, 1978).

3.2.1.2. Assessing the application of science knowledge. Applicationof knowledge refers to linking the acquired knowledge to daily-lifesituations, applying acquired theories to resolve real-world problems.The written responses revealed that more than one third (40.2%) of theparticipants conceived that the application of knowledge should beassessed. The following response, referring to the Chinese phrase xue yızhı yong [learning for using], reflects this perspective:

People say that ‘learning for using’ (xue yı zhı yong, )means that knowledge in the book is useless if it is not applied toresolve daily problems in the real world. Therefore assessment is toassess whether the knowledge is acquired and furthermore appliedin daily life. The goal of teaching science is to teach children how touse science knowledge in daily life. (CD092135, interview, 04/08)

Although this group of participants valued assessing the appli-cation of science knowledge, most of their emphasis was to assesswhether or not students could apply the acquired knowledge toresolve problems. Compared to the nine dimensions of application(Enger & Yager, 2001) and understanding in terms of application, inwhich ‘‘authentic application involves novel problems, realisticallymissing/messy situations, and required adaptations and adjust-ments to theoretical knowledge and skill’’ (Wiggins & McTighe,1998, p. 61), these participants had only a general and underde-veloped view of application. They apparently lacked a derived senseof scientific literacy (Yore, Pimm, & Tuan, 2007).

3.2.1.3. Assessing lower-level inquiry processes. Lower-level inquiryrefers to senses or skills required for carrying out a laboratoryactivity, such as observation, skills of hands-on operation, skills ofmeasuring, data recording, drawing, and writing a laboratory report.The written responses revealed that more than one eighth (13.4%) ofthe participants conceived that these fundamental process skillsshould be the target of assessment, such as:

I will examine whether or not students complete and have theresults of their experiment. (CM091139, written responses, 04/05)

The following response was perhaps the most common judg-ment of the importance of assessing hands-on inquiry skills:

Students should learn scientific skills. Hands-on activities canmotivate students’ curiosity, ongoing exploration, and longermemorization of the knowledge. (CK092108, written responses,04/05)

Although this group of participants conceived of assessing theprocess dimension, most of their conceptions of scientific inquirywere limited to the awareness and procedural abilities for completinglaboratories, which were lower-level processes skills (Klopfer, 1971).

3.2.1.4. Assessing higher-level inquiry processes. Higher-levelinquiry refers to recognizing the problem, analyzing possiblefactors, and seeking to solve the problem. The written responsesrevealed that 4% of the participants conceived that higher-levelinquiry thinking processes should be assessed:

Assessing whether or not students have competencies of raisinga question, abilities to synthesize information and solve theproblem. Instead of acquiring information from textbooks, we

Page 5: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

J.-R. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529526

need to use assessment to cultivate pupils’ curiosity and spec-ulation about the world. (CA091239, written response, 04/03)

Although the participants valued the learner’s questions andcuriosity that provide the heart of science (Dillon, 1982), theresponse apparently portrayed the simplicity of doing inquiry(Windschitl, 2004).

3.2.1.5. Assessing attitudes. Attitudes refer to students’ engage-ment, honesty, and responsibility for their learning tasks in science.About one tenth (11%) of the participants conceived that the degreeof involvement in learning tasks should be assessed. Involvement isone feature of attitude domain that has a profound influence onlearning behaviour in science as the following response revealed:

We should assess students’ learning involvement, such asattainment, of completing an experiment. Responsibility is theessence of effective learning. (CB91108, written response, 04/05)

They recognized that teachers should assess the degree ofinvolvement in learning science including carrying out one’s owninvestigations, asking questions they encountered, and discussingscientific problems with peers and teachers in science classroomsor during field trips.

3.2.2. Participants’ conceptions about the methods of assessmentWhen the preservice teachers were requested to describe the

best method to assess science learning, about half (45.9%) of theparticipants held a measurement mode about assessment, andmore than half (61%) of the participants held a performance mode.On the other hand, informal assessment mode was less frequentlyexpressed by these science methods students (18.4%). They valuedtests as a technical function for reinforcement of learning:

Under the current educational system, I will use a test as theform of assessment because it is the fastest and most efficientmethod to make students study. (CD092135, interview, 04/08)

This statement focusing on ‘learning for test’ indicates that thesescience methods students’ conceptions of assessment is consistentwith a traditional behaviourist perspective, in which learning is theaccumulation of stimulus-response associations, and assessmentserves as external motivation and is based on positive reinforce-ment of many small steps (Gagne, 1965; Skinner, 1954).

A majority of the participants believed the performance modecould and should be used to assess all dimensions of sciencelearning – content, process, and attitude. However, these sciencemethods students only noticed the forms of assessment withoutattention to the technical and procedural considerations about howto complete such an assessment. For instance, the participantswith a view of assessing higher-level inquiry described the forms ofassessment without detailing what skills or criteria would beconsidered as evidence of higher-level inquiry, such as:

checking students’ written reports and observing students’performance in the laboratory and students’ learning portfolio.(CM091145, written responses, 04/03)

Similarly, the participants who held a view of assessing attitudetoward science with performance tasks did not clarify how toimplement performance assessment, as indicated by Shepardsonand Britsch (2001). This appears to indicate that these participantsappreciated performance assessment but lacked pedagogical-content knowledge about performance assessment in science.

In brief, the participants held a range of conceptions aboutthe dimensions and methods of assessment; yet, their conceptionsof assessment lacked depth of pedagogical-content knowledge,compared to the recommendations of reform curricula (NRC, 2001).

This might be the consequence of a lack of syntactic knowledge ofscience. Without an understanding of how science evolves, preserviceteachers would have difficulty identifying performance tasks to assess.

3.3. Research question 2. how do science methods studentsview learning science in elementary schools?

The quantitative summary of the categorized conceptions oflearning revealed that all participants’ views about the content oflearning science were similar to their views about the dimensionsof assessment ranging from content knowledge to thinkingprocesses. Responses indicated that most participants viewedscience learning as an empiricist endeavour, with 27.6% ascribinga traditional learning-by-listening-and-reading perspective and83% ascribing a learning-by-doing perspective. A small minority ofthese preservice teachers viewed science learning as a construc-tivist endeavour, with 3.4% ascribing an interactive/communicationperspective and 3% ascribing a thinking perspective. To reducerepetition, we only discuss their views about the ways of learningscience under four categories; the first two are related to empiricisttendency and the last two are related to constructivist teaching.

3.3.1. Learning science through listening-and-readingThis category of learning science refers to learning through

carefully listening to teachers, reading textbooks, science books ormagazines, and watching videos regarding the natural world. Aboutone quarter (27.6%) of the science methods students responded thatgood ways of learning science were:

listening carefully in the classroom room . reading books withfull attention. (CD091124, written responses, 04/03)A science teacher should encourage students to read more booksabout nature and think more, so they will have a wider viewabout nature and apply science principles to resolve problems intheir daily lives. (CK091135, written response, 04/06)A science teacher must tell the principles or concepts to studentsand present the content knowledge with concise language. Thisis the easiest and fastest way to learn science. (CK092110, inter-view, 04/10)

These statements reveal that some participants’ view of learningwas inclined toward a traditional behaviourist perspective aboutlearning, in which knowledge is recognized as an acquired body ofunambiguous right answers and learning occurs by accumulatingatomized bits of knowledge (Gagne, 1965; Skinner, 1954).

3.3.2. Learning science through watching and doingThis category of learning science refers to learning through

sensory experiences. A majority (83%) of the science methodsstudents believed that elementary school students should learnscience through either watching the natural phenomena or throughhands-on experiences. The following excerpts (key terms in bold-face type) explain their conceptions of learning science:

They could do experiments, such as watching how the lengthof a shadow changes as the sun moves, classifying rocks, andobserving insects. They should learn science through hand-onexperience, or field trip so that experiences will motivate theirinterest in leaning science and they will memorize it longer.(CF091101, interview, 03/05)

These observable behaviours reveal that the science methodsstudents acknowledged the importance of individual actions andsensory experiences in learning science. They seem to believe thatstudents will automatically understand the scientific knowledgethrough doing science. The following response provides a more real-istic view of teacher-structured science learning in elementary schools:

Page 6: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

43.5%

50.3%

16%

2.4%

2.4%

4%

Approaches of Learning

Empiricist TendencyLearning science through (1) listening and reading

(27.6%) and (2) doing (83%)

Constructivist TendencyLearning science through (1) interactions and

communications (3.4%) and (2) thinking processes(3%)

Methods of Assessment

Performance Mode

Measurement Mode

Informal Mode

Fig. 1. The possible relationships between science methods students’ conceptions oflearning and assessment.

J.-R. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529 527

At the beginning of the learning activity, teacher introducestheories of natural phenomena through combining explanationsand visual illustrations, such as drawings or models. Then, theteacher provides students the opportunity for sensory experi-ences, such as touch and watch. Finally, the students may linktheir experiences with the previous knowledge introduced bythe teacher. (CM091139, interview response, 04/07)

These statements also reflect the empiricist views of science(Nussbaum, 1989), in which it is assumed that knowledge isacquired primarily by evidence of the senses.

3.3.3. Learning science through interactions and communicationsThis category of learning science refers to learning through

interactions between teachers and students and through multipleways of communications. The responses from the interviews andquestionnaires reveal that only a small proportion (3.4%) of sciencemethods students reflects the social constructivist view. This groupof participants seemed to define the role of a teacher as an initiatorof learning activities. For example:

A good question initiated by a science teacher may improvestudents’ thinking abilities. (CK20045, written response, 04/06)

This teacher-generated problem was followed by a series ofinteractive learning activities aiming to develop and extendknowledge, as one participant stated:

Aiming to resolve a problem requested by the teacher, studentsmay develop knowledge through working with peers, seekinginformation, analyzing data, making inferences and writingreports with drawings, graphs, diagrams, and texts. (CK093529,written response, 04/05)

This statement implies the value of a series of structured learningtasks, including group work to construct knowledge, not memorizeknowledge. However, without further describing how a teachercreates a supportive learning environment to help learners developunderstandings through group work, these participants seems tolack the pedagogical-content knowledge about the theory of socialconstructivist learning, in which learners construct understandingthrough social negotiation of meaning and reflecting on theirthinking and findings within a social context (Vygotsky, 1978).

3.3.4. Learning science through thinking processesThinking process refers to skills used in scientific problem

solving, including skills required to ask questions about nature andto understand the experiences with nature related to those ques-tions. This view of science learning involves observable behaviours,such as watching and doing experiments, and the skills of thinkingprocesses, in which learners make their own interpretations, waysof organizing information, and approaches to problems rather thanmerely acquiring preexisting knowledge structures. The studentsuse these thinking processes to internalize what is supported andpracticed in science. Only a very few participants reflected this viewof learning science, as in the following response:

Learning how to think logically is important in that it enablesstudents to approach the world problems around them. Studentsneed to be curious about their world, using past experiences orlogic to anticipate an outcome, analyzing components, makingjudgments and integrating with some related ideas intoa representation of what something in nature may be like.(CK091227, written responses, 04/06)

In general, this population of preservice teachers was inclined tohold a traditional behaviourist view of learning in which learning isbased on building of associations in response to a particular stimulus,such as listening, seeing, and doing experiments (Skinner, 1954).

3.4. Research question 3. how are the science methods students’conceptions about assessing science learning coherentor incoherent with their views of learning science?

As shown in Fig. 1, a major proportion of the participants witha relatively empiricist view of learning tended to draw attentionto either students’ science test scores or focused on assessing theproducts from students’ learning tasks. In contrast, only a smallproportion of participants with a constructivist tendency expressedpreference for alternative assessments (performance assessmentand informal assessment).

When comparing these relationships against Shepard’s (2000)framework of learning and assessment, we found that about half ofthe participants with a relative empiricist view of learning wereinclined to assess students’ science test scores, which is moreconsistent with traditional principles of scientific measurement. Alsonoticeable was that a fair proportion of participants reflected a tradi-tional empirical view of learning but held a more constructivistview about the methods of assessment (performance approach andinformal approach). This incoherence between assessment andlearning might explain why this group of participants only noticed theforms of assessment without further elaborating the dimensions andthe corresponding criteria and technical/procedural considerations forassessing students’ learning outcomes. On the contrary, few respon-dents with constructivist tendencies actually considered assessmentin their view of learning. Only a small proportion of responses withconstructivist tendency and an associated view of assessment wereinclined to focus on assessing the process and product of learningtasks (performance approach and informal approach). But thecoherence between their conceptions of assessment and learning waslikely to be weak as they could not elicit which domains were to beassessed and the criteria for judging students’ learning performances.

In summary, a large proportion of participants held incoherentviews or no associated view of assessment and learning. Over halfof the participants with empiricist tendency for learning heldconstructivist views of assessment, and only a small proportion ofthe participants with a constructivist view of learning science helda performance view of assessment.

4. Discussion

In this study, we try to answer the following question: What doscience methods students know about assessment, science learning,and the relationships between their conceptions of learning scienceand assessment at the elementary school level? These preserviceteachers were midway through their teacher education program,and their conceptions of science learning and assessment revealedsurface awareness and lacked rational association between these

Page 7: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

J.-R. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529528

critical ideas in science education. The misalignment should beexpected and provides instructional opportunities to challengetraditional ideas about learning with constructivist conceptionsabout assessment and to challenge traditional ideas about assess-ment with constructivist conceptions about learning. Research onscience teacher preparation suggests that, during the process ofengaging these discrepant views of learning and assessment, greaterpedagogical-content knowledge, procedural expertise, and class-room strategies should be developed through ongoing, structured,and supported reflection (Luehmann, 2007).

4.1. Significance of the findings

Constructivist approaches to science teachereducation suggest thatpreservice and inservice teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical-contentknowledge should be accessed, engaged, and challenged and that newideas should be constructed and integrated intothe knowledge system.Therefore, it is important to find preservice teachers’ initial concep-tions of assessment, as well as the extent of coherence between theirconceptions of assessment and views of learning science, in order todesign programs for effective teacher preparation. The results of thisstudy revealed that, although the participants’ conceptions about thedimensions of assessment are classified into three domains (contentknowledge, processes of inquiry, attitude), almost all of their peda-gogical thinking was limited to assessing factual understanding ofscience and not for developing higher-order thinking and process skillsas recommended by science education reforms (AAAS, 1993; NRC,1996). The three dimensions of assessment identified did not matchthe recommendations of current reforms (Enger & Yager, 2001). Theseresults, combined with their empirical view of learning, support Har-greaves’s (2005) findings for elementary teachers in the UnitedKingdom, in which most teachers held the measurement/objectivemodel of assessment/learning. Shepard (2000) has warned that thistraditional view of assessment might trap initial teachers intoa teaching style committed to memorization of facts and focusing onwhat is in the textbook and test.

Another interesting finding was that, although the participants’view about the dimensions of assessment (content, processes,attitudes) was consistent with their thinking about the domain oflearning, their thinking about the methods of assessment was notas well aligned with their view about learning. The preserviceteachers’ conceptions of assessment and learning were possiblythe consequence of adaptation to the traditional school culture inTaiwan that may affect their future instructional approaches (Bell,Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003; Hammrich, 1997; Lederman,1992). Hence, there is a need to reconstruct their conceptions aboutassessing and learning to be coherent with the vision of the currentreforms in science education curriculum and instruction.

A key to successful implementation of any change is clear,coherent, and common understanding about the purpose, therequirements, and the process of the change for all individualsinvolved (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991). It is clear for these preserviceteachers that they lacked common conceptions about the dimen-sions, methods, and procedures of assessment. Clearly, thesepreservice teachers need to continue their professional develop-ment regarding how children learn science, how science literacyshould be assessed, and how classroom practices can facilitatescience literacy – including both conceptual understanding andfundamental literacy (NRC, 2000, 2007; Yore et al., 2007).

4.2. Suggestions

It is important for preservice teachers to be knowledgeable aboutthe conceptualization of scientific literacy to inform their decision--making relative to learning, instruction, and assessment of science

learning for a specific topic. This does not mean they would quietlyabandon their prior conceptions and replace them with a relativelycurrent view of assessment through listening to and reading about therelated issues. Gummer and Shepardson (2001) suggested thatchanging conceptions and practices of assessment is not the acquisi-tion of new, prepackaged assessment. Instead, change involvesreflecting on the coherence between assessment, curriculum, andlearning. Research has demonstrated that reflection helps sciencemethods students struggle with and reconstruct their conceptionsthrough discursive practices with each other in the social communityand adopt specific kinds of viewing, thinking, and communicating ina variety of specific settings (Abell & Bryan, 1997; Authors, 2008).

However, reflective skills are not inborn. In order to raise sciencemethods students’ reflective skills on assessment practices, instruc-tors of science methods course have the responsibility to providea scaffolding framework. For example, based on a personal constructperspective, Adams and Krockover (1999) used an observation rubricas a scaffolding framework to stimulate secondary preserviceteachers reflecting on their preservice program experiences andsubsequently reconstructing their concepts of teaching. There isa need to develop an observational rubric that categorizes the extentof coherence between assessment and learning to stimulate teachers’reconstruction of conceptions of assessment being aligned withconstructivist learning theories. Furthermore, through the perspec-tives of professional identity development and situated cognition,researchers suggest that science methods students – as do reform-minded science teachers – need to try out and reflect on newapproaches in the context of classroom experience (Crawford, 2007;Luehmann, 2007; Shepard, 2000). Thus, the model of school/university collaboration needs to be established in planning,teaching, and assessing a science lesson as an initial step of a journeyfor becoming an effective assessor of science learning. These studentswill have these opportunities as they proceed into year 4 of theacademic program and their six-month school-based clinical expe-rience. Finally, we suggest to policy makers, teacher educators, andresearchers in Taiwan that, if the reform of curriculum is to cultivatefuture citizens with scientific literacy, they need to explore the issuesof operational definition and assessment of science learning inclassrooms so that they may better equip preservice and inserviceteachers to address problems when they arise and guide the licensingof those individuals who work directly with our children.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the National Science Council for funding thisresearch (NSC 93-2511-S-153-007). We would like to acknowledgeand express appreciation to Professor Larry Yore (University ofVictoria) and his wife, Shari Yore, for their mentoring assistance inrelation to this article. We also give sincere thanks to constructivesuggestions by this article’s reviewers.

Appendix A

Written Questions for Investigating the Participants’ Concep-tions about Learning Science and Assessment of Learning Science.

1. In your view, what should be assessed in elementary scienceclassrooms? Why do you think so?

2. How can science be best assessed in elementary classrooms?What are the reasons that back your statement?

3. In your view, what is the most important knowledge studentsshould learn in elementary science classrooms? Why do youthink so?

4. How can science be best learned by students in elementaryschools? What are the reasons that back your statement?

Page 8: Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science

J.-R. Wang et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 522–529 529

Appendix B

Major Interview Questions for Investigating the Participants’Conceptions about Learning Science and Assessment of LearningScience.

1. What experiences have you had related to learning sciencebefore you are enrolled in the Bachelor Teacher Program? Whatcomments do you like to express about your experiences oflearning science?

2. If you are going to teach a unit entitled ‘‘rainbow’’, what shouldyour student learn in this unit of teaching? What do you knowabout the features of science learning?

3. How did you learn the above knowledge about learning science?4. Using the above learning example with the unit of rainbow,

what should be assessed to improve students’ learning aboutscience?

5. What do you know about the features of assessment of learningscience?

6. How did you learn the above knowledge about assessment oflearning science?

References

Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methodscourse using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3),153–166.

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1999). Stimulating constructivist teaching styles throughuse of an observation rubric. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 955–971.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). What is scientificliteracy? Education Digest, 55(4), 43–45.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks forscience literacy. Washington, DC: Authors.

Atkin, J. M., & Coffey, J. E. (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom.Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Authors. (2008). Examining reflective thinking: a study of changes in methodsstudents’ conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. InternationalJournal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 459–479.

Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1998). The cognitive complexity of science performanceassessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37–45.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact ofa science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings ofthe nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 40(5), 487–509.

Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards throughclassroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

Bowden, J. (1996). Phenomenographic research – some methodological issues. InG. Dall’Alba, & B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Towardsa methodology (pp. 49–66). Goteborg, Sweden: Studies in Educational Sciences 109.

Bradbeer, J., Healey, M., & Kneale, P. (2004). Undergraduate geographers’ under-standings of geography, learning and teaching: a phenomenographic study.Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28(1), 17–34.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case forconstructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: implications for policyand professional development. Assessment in Education, 11(3), 301–318.

Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumbleof practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative, and mixedmethods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior,16(2), 97–111.

Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin, & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everydayassessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Enger, S. K., & Yager, R. E. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science:A standards-based K-12 handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Rinehart & Winston.Gummer, E. S., & Shepardson, D. P. (2001). Facilitating change in classroom

assessment practice: issues for professional development. In D. P. Shepardson(Ed.), Assessment in science: A guide to professional development and classroompractice (pp. 53–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwers.

Hammrich, P. L. (1997). Confronting teacher candidates’ conceptions of the natureof science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 141–151.

Hancock, E. S., & Gallard, A. J. (2004). Preservice science teachers’ beliefs aboutteaching and learning: the influence of K-12 field experiences. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 15(4), 281–291.

Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box.Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 213–224.

Hubbard, P., & Abell, S. (2005). Setting sail or missing the boat: comparing thebeliefs of preservice elementary teachers with and without an inquiry-basedphysics course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(1), 5–25.

Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings, &G. F. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of studentlearning (pp. 559–642). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science:a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher prepa-ration. Science Education, 91(5), 822–839.

Maclellan, E. (2004). Initial knowledge states about assessment: novice teachers’conceptualisations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 523–535.

Mathison, S. (1993). From practice to theory to practice: the roles of theory inresearch on standardized testing. In D. J. Flinders, & G. E. Mills (Eds.), Theory andconcepts in qualitative research: Perspectives from the field (pp. 55–82). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expandedsourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Wash-ington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience andschooldexpanded edition. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning.In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Commission on behavioral andsocial sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national scienceeducation standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teachingscience in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten throughEighth Grade. In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Boardon science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: philosophical perspectives.In D. E. Herget (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science in science teaching(pp. 278–291). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning upa messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Porlan, R., & del Pozo, R. M. (2004). The conceptions of in-service and prospectiveprimary school teachers about the teaching and learning of science. Journal ofScience Teacher Education, 15(1), 39–62.

Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking haveto say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Scherer, M. (2007/2008). Introduction to special issue: an answer for the long term.Educational Leadership, 65(4), 7.

Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (5th ed.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. EducationalResearcher, 29(7), 4–14.

Shepard, L. A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. InV. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (4th ed). (pp. 1066–1101). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). Tools for assessing and teaching science inelementary and middle school. In D. P. Shepardson (Ed.), Assessment in science:A guide to professional development and classroom practice (pp. 119–147). Dor-drecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. HarvardEducational Review, 24(2), 86–97.

Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 44(3), 396–423.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment for learning. PhiDelta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.

Tsai, C.-C. (2007). Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: the coherence withinstruction and students’ views. Science Education, 91(2), 222–243.

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

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Asso-ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of inquiry: how preservice teachers reproducethe discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.

Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematicaland scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educa-tion, 5(4), 559–589.