How Can Crosscutting Concepts Organize Formative Assessments across Science Classrooms? Results of a Video Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Ambitious Teaching Reforms and Science Classroom Assessment
2.2. Learning Progressions to Support Development of Understanding across Grade Bands
- What routines do teachers use as they enact formative assessment tasks to support students in modeling energy in systems across high school science courses?
- What variations do we see in the ways teachers enact the tasks to surface and work with students’ ideas?
- How did students’ ideas expressed in the task enactments demonstrate their understanding of energy as represented in the learning progressions?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Design for Professional Learning: The Formative Assessment Design Cycle
- Prior to formative assessment:
- Have the ecosphere around—students start to ask what it is
- Day of formative assessment:
- Introduce the ecosphere formally—we haven’t added anything or taken anything out, they are still moving around. We’re going to explore what’s happening.
- Have a brief full class discussion of what is a model? Compare to other models students have worked with in the course or other science classes.
- Students work alone to (1) create an initial model (2) write an initial explanation and (3) write what they’re wondering
- Then students talk with their table groups to share information they need and as a table make a model on butcher paper. Groups can send someone to go around and come back with what they want to add to their model
- Groups hang their model up and do a walk around
- Full class discussion:
- What did you notice about the different models that were different or similar to yours
- What would you add to your model now?
- What questions do you still have?
- Students work with their tables to answer questions at the end
3.2. Sources of Data
3.3. Analytic Approach
4. Results
What routines do teachers use as they enact formative assessment tasks to support students in modeling energy in systems across high school science courses?
What variations do we see in the ways teachers enact the tasks to surface and work with students’ ideas?
How did students’ ideas expressed in the task enactments demonstrate their understanding of energy as represented in the learning progressions?
5. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Typed Out Student Work for Figure 3, Skateboarder Task
1470 Joules (9.8)(50 kg)(3 m) | KE = 735 J GPE = 735 J = 735 J KE = GPE | 1470 = (50) = 58.8 = = 7.6 | Assuming there is no friction the max height is 3 m. This is because the total energy of the skater will stay the same. This allows skaters to … the ramp without losing energy. | The skater will be able to reach his … because friction converts skaters’ kinetic energy to thermal energy causing the skater to slow down and eventually stop at the bottom of the ramp. |
Appendix B. Typed Out Student Work for Kinetic Cup Task, Figure 4
Appendix C. Typed Out Student Work for Figure 5: Shrimp Ecosphere Task
- What I’m wondering:
- Can the tank thing/fishbowl open?
- Explain your model in terms of flow of energy and cycling of matter (carbon):
- The sunlight comes through the glass, the water/H2O is inside of the tank. Carbon cycles through this model by.
Appendix D. Extension Learning Progressions Developed for Each Content Area
Level | A Learning Progression for Modeling Energy Flows (Buell et al., 2019) [30] | Extension Progression for HS-PS3-2: Skateboarder Task | Extension Progression for HS-PS3-4: Kinetic Cup Task | Extension Progression for HS-LS2-5: Shrimp Ecosphere Task |
5 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
References
- National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Nordine, L.; Lee, O. Crosscutting Concepts: Strengthening Science and Engineering Learning; National Science Teachers’ Association Press: Arlington, VA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Furtak, E.M.; Badrinarayan, A.; Penuel, W.R.; Duwe, S.; Patrick-Stuart, R. Assessment of Crosscutting Concepts: Creating Opportunities for Sensemaking. In Crosscutting Concepts Strengthening Science and Engineering Learning; Nordine, L., Lee, O., Eds.; National Science Teachers’ Association Press: Arlington, VA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Schweingruber, H.; Quinn, H.; Pruitt, S.; Keller, T.E. Development of The Framework and Next Generation Science Standards: History and Reflections; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/D66AD07B7886BA0259D11FB90DF9A469D72BAFFD98A2?noSaveAs=1 (accessed on 15 May 2024).
- Putnam, R.T.; Borko, H. What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say About Research on Teacher Learning? Educ. Res. 2000, 29, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Ambitious Pedagogy by Novice Teachers: Who Benefits From Tool-Supported Collaborative Inquiry into Practice and Why? Teach. Coll. Rec. 2011, 113, 1311–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, J.B.; Lee, V.E.; Newmann, F.M. Achievement in Chicago Elementary Schools; Consortium on Chicago School Research: Chicago, IL, USA, 2001; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Ambitious Science Teaching; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Science and Engineering for Grades 6–12: Investigation and Design at the Center; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Tekkumru-Kisa, M.; Kisa, Z.; Hiester, H. Intellectual work required of students in science classrooms: Students’ opportunities to learn science. Res. Sci. Educ. 2021, 51, 1107–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, P.; Mortimer, E.F.; Aguiar Or, G. The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Sci. Educ. 2006, 90, 605–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shepard, L.; Penuel, W.; Pellegrino, J. Using Learning and Motivation Theories to Coherently Link Formative Assessment, Grading Practices, and Large-Scale Assessment. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2018, 37, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, H.; Thompson, J.; Windschitl, M. Creating Opportunities for Students to Show What They Know: The Role of Scaffolding in Assessment Tasks. Sci. Educ. 2014, 98, 674–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 1998, 5, 7–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of Chief State School Officers. Revising the Definition of Formative Assessment. 2018. Available online: https://ccsso.org/resource-library/revising-definition-formative-assessment (accessed on 15 May 2024).
- Bennett, R.E. Formative assessment: A critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 2011, 18, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.; Windschitl, M.; Stroupe, D.; Thompson, J. Designing, launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for students that advance scientific thinking. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2016, 53, 1316–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dini, V.; Sevian, H.; Caushi, K.; Orduña Picón, R. Characterizing the formative assessment enactment of experienced science teachers. Sci. Educ. 2020, 104, 290–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tekkumru-Kisa, M.; Stein, M.K. Learning to See Teaching in New Ways: A Foundation for Maintaining Cognitive Demand. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2015, 52, 105–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otero, V.; Nathan, M.J. Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Views of Their Students’ Prior Knowledge of Science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 45, 497–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klinger, D.A.; McDivitt, P.R.; Howard, B.B.; Munoz, M.A.; Rogers, W.T.; Wylie, E.C. The Classroom Assessment Standards for PreK-12 Teachers; Kindle Direct Press: Seattle, WA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Corcoran, T.; Mosher, F.A.; Rogat, A. Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform; Consortium for Policy Research in Education: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Alonzo, A.C.; Gotwals, A.W. Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, C.J.; Krajcik, J.S.; Pellegrino, J.W.; DeBarger, A.H. Designing Knowledge-In-Use Assessments to Promote Deeper Learning. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2019, 38, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duschl, R.; Maeng, S.; Sezen, A. Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2011, 47, 123–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buell, J.Y.; Briggs, D.C.; Burkhardt, A.; Chattergoon, R.; Fine CG, M.; Furtak, E.M.; Henson, K.; Mahr, B.; Tayne, K. A Learning Progression for Modeling Energy Flows in Systems; Center for Assessment, Design, Research and Evaluation (CADRE): Boulder, CO, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.colorado.edu/cadre/sites/default/files/attached-files/report_-_a_learning_progression_for_modeling_energy_flows_in_systems.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2024).
- Furtak, E.M.; Heredia, S.C.; Morrison, D. Formative Assessment in Science Education: Mapping a Shifting Terrain. In Handbook of Formative Assessment in the Disciplines; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 97–125. [Google Scholar]
- Furtak, E.M.; Kiemer, K.; Circi, R.K.; Swanson, R.; de León, V.; Morrison, D.; Heredia, S.C. Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: Findings from a four-year intervention study. Instr. Sci. 2016, 44, 267–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, J.; Windschitl, M.; Braaten, M. Developing a Theory of Ambitious Early-Career Teacher Practice. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2013, 50, 574–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandoval, W. Conjecture Mapping: An Approach to Systematic Educational Design Research. J. Learn. Sci. 2014, 23, 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penuel, W.R.; Fishman, B.J.; Haugan Cheng, B.; Sabelli, N. Organizing Research and Development at the Intersection of Learning, Implementation, and Design. Educ. Res. 2011, 40, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furtak, E.M.; Heredia, S.C. Exploring the influence of learning progressions in two teacher communities. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2014, 51, 982–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tekkumru-Kisa, M.; Stein, M.K.; Schunn, C. A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2015, 52, 659–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buell, J.Y. Designing for Relational Science Practices. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Lemke, J.L. Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values; Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Duschl, R.A.; Gitomer, D.H. Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educ. Assess. 1997, 4, 37–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Primo, M.A.; Furtak, E.M. Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educ. Assess. 2006, 11, 237–263. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Ruiz-Primo, M.A.; Furtak, E.M. Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44, 57–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berland, L.K.; Reiser, B.J. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 26–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren, B.; Ballenger, C.; Ogonowski, M.; Rosebery, A.S.; Hudicourt-Barnes, J. Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 529–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonzo, A.C.; Ke, L. Taking stock: Existing resources for assessing a new vision of science learning. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 2016, 14, 119–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wertheim, J.; Osborne, J.; Quinn, H.; Pecheone, R.; Schultz, S.; Holthuis, N.; Martin, P. An Analysis of Existing Science Assessments and the Implications for Developing Assessment Tasks for the NGSS. 2016. Available online: https://scienceeducation.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj25191/files/media/file/snap_landscape_analysis_of_assessments_for_ngss_1.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2024).
- Willis, J.; Adie, L.; Klenowski, V. Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. Aust. Educ. Res. 2013, 40, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mislevy, R.J. Sociocognitive Foundations of Educational Measurement; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Seidel, T.; Prenzel, M.; Kobarg, M. How to Run a Video Study: Technical Report of the IPN Video Study; Waxmann: München, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
A Learning Progression for Modeling Energy Flows | |
---|---|
5 |
|
4 |
|
3 |
|
2 |
|
1 |
|
FADC Phase | Routines | Tools |
---|---|---|
Explore Student Thinking |
|
|
Design/Adapt Tasks |
|
|
Practice Enacting Tasks |
|
|
Enact Tasks |
|
|
Reflect |
|
|
Discipline | Task Name | Performance Expectation | Description | Unit Placement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Physics | Skateboarder | HS PS3-2 | Students create a model to explain how a skateboarder moves up and down on a halfpipe. | End of unit on energy |
Chemistry | Kinetic Kup | HS PS3-4 | Students create and test models to explain how modifications to a disposable coffee cup will result in changes in thermal dissipation. | Following laboratory exploring thermal qualities of different insulated cups |
Biology | Shrimp Ecosphere | HS LS2-5 | Students create a model to explain how brine shrimp can survive in a sealed glass ecosphere. | Introduction to carbon and energy cycling unit |
Scheme 9School | Physics (9th Grade) | Chemistry (10th Grade) | Biology (11th Grade) |
---|---|---|---|
Fox Hill High School | Ashley Riley Noel | ||
Mayfield High School | Perry Jamie | ||
Carver High School | Chris Alex | Dominique Frances |
Subject | Task | # of Video Enactments/Teachers | Teacher | Total Length (min:s) | Whole Class Discussions Length (min:s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biology | Shrimp Ecosphere | 3 | Ashley | 52:20 | 04:13 |
Riley | 57:18 | 10:38 | |||
Noel | 55:05 | 15:20 | |||
Chemistry | Kinetic Cup | 2 | Dominique | 57:14 | 6:46 |
Frances | 55:25 | 17:12 | |||
Physics | Skateboarder | 4 | Perry | 43:43 | 7:55 |
Jamie | 42:16 | 0 * | |||
Chris | 55:22 | 8:00 | |||
Alex | 55:12 | 4:52 | |||
Total | 9 | 7:53:55 |
Code | Categories | Examples |
---|---|---|
N/A | Dialogue cannot be assigned to other categories below | Teacher introduces/facilitates task without making statements that can be assigned to other categories |
Authoritative | Teachers and students interact in ways that prioritize/privilege canonical ‘right’ answers; teacher determines what is right/wrong Evaluating student responses (as right or wrong) Posing ‘low cognitive demand’ questions | What organelle does glycolysis take place in? |
Pressing for ideas | Teacher pressing/pushing student thinking in a particular direction with sensemaking; encouraging deeper meaning/promoting students’ thinking by asking student them to elaborate their responses or by thinking Asking for more information about the previous question; provides descriptive or helpful feedback about quality of student idea | Following up with a why/how question, disagreeing with student’s response, asking “what does that mean?” “The fact that you said, like, ‘pass on those genes’ made that a really good answer.” |
Dialogic | Student shares an idea AND in dialogue with/centering student ideas and experiences/encouraging student sensemaking Student idea is at the center; student ideas become part of the facilitation or interaction | “Give me an example” “Why is that important?” “Why do we need blood being pumped?”; student: “It keeps you alive”; “Why does it keep you alive?” |
Students share ideas (but not taken up) | Student/s share an idea within the idea unit BUT the idea is not taken up into discourse | At a higher elevation, players will run out of oxygen |
Teacher | Idea Units | Authoritative% | Student Shares Idea % (Idea Not Taken Up) | Pressing % | Dialogic % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physics: Skateboarder Task | |||||
Perry | 5 | 100% | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Jamie | 7 | 86% | 0% | 29% | 43% |
Chris | 19 | 100% | 0% | 5% | 0% |
Alex | 10 | 90% | 0% | 40% | 30% |
Chemistry: Kinetic Cup Task | |||||
Dominique | 17 | 65% | 6% | 6% | 47% |
Frances | 20 | 65% | 0% | 5% | 55% |
Biology: Shrimp Ecosphere Task | |||||
Ashley | 12 | 75% | 17% | 0% | 0% |
Riley | 26 | 69% | 35% | 4% | 31% |
Noel | 27 | 74% | 15% | 22% | 30% |
Teacher | Idea Units | Units Given an LP Code | Level 1 n (%) | Level 2 n (%) | Level 3 n (%) | Level 4 n (%) | Level 5 n (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physics: Skater Task | |||||||
Perry | 5 | 4 | 0 (0%) | 1 (20%) | 2 (40%) | 1 (20%) | 0 (0%) |
Jamie | 7 | 3 | 0 (0%) | 2 (29%) | 1 (14%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
Chris | 19 | 8 | 6 (32%) | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) |
Alex | 10 | 7 | 5 (50%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
Chemistry: Kinetic Cup Task | |||||||
Dominique | 17 | 14 | 1 (6%) | 1 (6%) | 5 (29%) | 7 (41%) | 0 (0%) |
Frances | 20 | 15 | 6 (30%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (45%) | 0 (0%) |
Biology: Shrimp Ecosphere Task | |||||||
Ashley | 12 | 7 | 4 (33%) | 3 (25%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0 (0%) |
Riley | 26 | 21 | 15 (58%) | 5 (19%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
Noel | 27 | 20 | 6 (22%) | 2 (7%) | 9 (33%) | 1 (4%) | 2 (7%) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Deverel-Rico, C.; Furtak, E.M.; Student, S.R.; Burkhardt, A. How Can Crosscutting Concepts Organize Formative Assessments across Science Classrooms? Results of a Video Study. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101060
Deverel-Rico C, Furtak EM, Student SR, Burkhardt A. How Can Crosscutting Concepts Organize Formative Assessments across Science Classrooms? Results of a Video Study. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(10):1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101060
Chicago/Turabian StyleDeverel-Rico, Clarissa, Erin Marie Furtak, Sanford R. Student, and Amy Burkhardt. 2024. "How Can Crosscutting Concepts Organize Formative Assessments across Science Classrooms? Results of a Video Study" Education Sciences 14, no. 10: 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101060
APA StyleDeverel-Rico, C., Furtak, E. M., Student, S. R., & Burkhardt, A. (2024). How Can Crosscutting Concepts Organize Formative Assessments across Science Classrooms? Results of a Video Study. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101060