This study makes a contribution to the field of pre-service and in-service teacher education by focusing on formative assessment practices. A case study of a beginning teacher in an urban high school, conducted over a period of five years that included one pre-service year and the first four years of teaching, describes how the teacher came to understand and amend her assessment practices through guided questioning of student work. The case study is part of a larger university research project designed to understand the process of learning to teach. The outcomes confirm the value of using a guided inquiry interview protocol to help beginning teachers become reflective practitioners. The protocol specifically poses questions to engage teachers in discussions about the development of assessments, the impact of mandates, expectations for pupil learning, and future modifications. In essence, the case study provides a detailed description of how one beginning teacher's beliefs and practices changed over five years to reflect more refined thinking, despite limited professional support from school administrators and colleagues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AthanasesS. Z., & AchinsteinB. (2003). Focusing new teachers on individual and low performing students: The centrality of formative assessment in the mentor's repertoire of practice.Teacher College Record, 105(8), 1486–1520.
2.
AtkinJ. M., BlackP., & CoffeyJ. (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Standards.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
3.
AyresL., KavanaughK., & KnaflK. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis.Qualitative Health Research, 13, 871–883.
4.
BerryB. (2006). Why we do not support new teachers.Democracy & Education, 16(3), 33–38.
5.
BlackP., & WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning.Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–72.
6.
BoyerL. (2005). Supporting the induction of special educators: Program descriptions of university-school district partnerships.Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 44–51.
7.
BroadfootP., & BlackP. (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of Assessment in Education.Assessment in Education,11(1), 7–27.
8.
BrookhartS. M., MossC. M., & LongB. A. (2010). Teacher inquiry into formative assessment practices in remedial reading classrooms.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 41–58.
9.
CharmazK. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CoffeyA., & AtkinsonP. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CowieB., & BellB. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education.Assessment in Education, 6(1), 101–116.
12.
Darling-HammondL., & BransfordJ. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. Report of the Committee on Teacher Education of the National Academy of Education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
13.
DekkerT., & FeijsE. (2005). Scaling up strategies for change: Change in formative assessment practices.Assessment in Education, 12(3), 237–254.
14.
D'SouzaL. (2008). Assessing what counts: Learning to teach for pupil learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
15.
EisenhartM. (2001). Changing conceptions of culture and ethnographic methodology: Recent thematic shifts in their implications for research on teaching. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 209–225). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
16.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.
17.
Feiman-NemserS. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching.Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
18.
FluckigerJ., VigilY., PascoR., & DanielsonK. (2010). Formative feedback: Involving students as partners in assessment to enhance learning.College Teaching, 58, 136–140.
19.
GeeJ. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
20.
GeeJ. P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based perspective on assessment.Assessment in Education, 10(1), 27–46.
21.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures.New York, NY: Basic Books.
22.
GeorgeA. L., & BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Chicago, IL: Aldine.
24.
GleesonA. M., MitchellK., BarozR., & Cochran-SmithM. (2008). Teacher education for social justice: What's student learning got to do with it? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
25.
GreenwaldR., HedgesL. V., & LaineR. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement.Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361–396.
26.
HiebertJ., MorrisA., BerkD., & JansenA. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teachingJournal of Teacher Education,58(1), 47–61.
27.
HillC. E., ThompsonB. J., & WilliamsE. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research.The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572.
28.
IngersollR., & StrongM. (2011). A critical review of the research: The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers.Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233.
29.
LeeC., & WiliamD. (2003). Studying changes in the practice of two teachers developing assessment for learning.Teacher Development, 9(2), 265–283.
30.
LinnR., BondL., CarrP., Darling-HammondL., HarrisD., HessF., & ShulmanL. (2011). Student learning, student achievement: How do teachers measure up?Student Learning, Student Achievement Task Force: A National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Report. Retrieved from www.nbpts.org.
31.
McDermottR., & VarenneH. (1995). Culture as disability.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26(3), 324–348.
32.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
NewmannF. M. & Associates (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
PeterM. G., & Du MezJ. (1997). Creating caring systems of support: Collaborative networking and teacher induction programs.The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 63(2), 18–21.
35.
SandersW., & HornS. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.
36.
SchonD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.New York, NY: Basic Books.
37.
ShepardL. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1066–1101). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
38.
ShepardL. H., HammernessK., Darling-HammondL., RustF., SnowdenJ., GordonE., GutierrezC., & PachecoA. (2005). Assessment. In Darling-HammondL. B., BransfordJ., LePageP., HammernessK., & DuffyH. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 275–326). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39.
ShulmanL. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
40.
StakeR. (2006). Multiple case study analysis.New York, NY: Guilford.
41.
TeddlieC., & TashakkoriA. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
TuckerM. (2011). Teacher quality: What's wrong with U.S. strategy?Educational Leadership, 69(4), 42–46.
