Because most informal classroom assessment is based on the observation of students by teachers, the purpose of the present study is to construct a view of this assessment that is consistent with the practitioners’ perspective. To find out how teachers frame observation, we analyzed stories of 25 Dutch teachers about teaching diverse learners and focused on what they said about the observation of students. Most attempts to improve observation have recommended the separation of subject and object in an effort to eliminate teachers’ personal frameworks. The present study, however, shows that observation is embedded in the action of teaching. Thus, the realities of the classroom do not allow teachers to separate themselves from what they are observing. An alternative view of objectivity is presented. This transactional view shows that the quality of teachers’ personal frameworks is important and should not be eliminated: The supposition of being neutral and detached hampers the teaching of diverse learners. To prevent self-fulfilling prophecies from influencing student achievement in a negative way, pedagogical craftsmanship is essential. Starting from this view, the reliability and the validity of observation for classroom assessment are reframed in a nonstatistical way. According to this view, social practice plays an important role in deciding whether observation deserves a quality warrant. Apart from an alternative view of concepts such as objectivity, a practice of objectivity requires new ways of constructing theories and mentoring teachers to sharpen their perceptive faculty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AirasianP. W. (1991). Perspectives on measurement instruction. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(1), 13–16.
2.
AirasianP. W. (1994). Classroom assessment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
AlbertsR. (1987). Professionalisering van docenten op het vlak van evaluatie [Professional development of teachers concerning evaluation]. In BergenT., GiesbersJ., & MorschC. (Eds.), Professionalisering van onderwijsgevenden [Professional development of teachers]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
4.
AlbertsR. (1991). Professionalisering van de evaluatiepraktijk [Professional development of evaluation practice]. Tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders, 12(3), 44–48.
5.
BloomB. S., HastingsJ. T., & MadausG. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning.New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
BrophyJ. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 631–661.
7.
BrophyJ. E. (1985). Teacher-student interaction. In DusekJ. B., HallV. C., & MeyerW.J. (Eds.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 303–328). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BrophyJ. E., & GoodT. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 631–661.
9.
BrownS., & McIntyreD. (1993). Making sense of teaching.Philadelphia: Open University Press.
10.
CarterK. (1995). Teaching stories and local understandings. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 326–330.
11.
CizekG.J. (1999). Learning, achievement and assessment: Constructs at a crossroad. In PhyeG. D. (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment, learning, adjustment and achievement (pp. 1–32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
ClandininD. J., & ConellyF. M. (1987). Teachers’ personal knowledge: What counts as personal in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 487–500.
13.
ClarkC, & YingerJ. (1978). Research on teacher thinking (Research series No. 12) East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
14.
ClarkC. M., & PetersonP. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: MacMillan.
15.
Cochran-SmithM., & LytleS. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.
16.
ConnellyF. M. (1978). How shall we publish case studies of curriculum development?Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 78–82.
17.
ConnellyF. M., & ClandininD.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14.
18.
De CorteE., GeerligsC. T., LagerweijN. A. J., PetersJ. J., & VandenbergheR. (1981). Beknopte didaxiologie. Vijfde volledig herziene druk [Concise theory of teaching methods] (5th ed.). Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
19.
DoyleW. (1997). Heard any really good stories lately? A critique of the critics of narrative in educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(1), 93–99.
20.
DusekJ. B., HallV. C., & MeyerW. J. (1985). Teacher expectancies.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
EisnerE. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(1), 9–15.
22.
ElbazF. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge.London: Croom Helm.
23.
ElbazF. (1997). Narrative research: political issues and implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(1), 75–83.
24.
ElbowP. (1986). Embracing contraries: Explorations in teaching and learning.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
Feiman-NemserS., & FlodenR. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505–526). New York: MacMillan.
26.
FenstermacherG. D. (1994). The knower and known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research on Teaching, 20, 3–56.
27.
Florio-RuaneS. (1991). Conversations and narrative in collaborative research. In WitherellC., & NoddingsN. (Eds.), Stories lives tell. Narrative and dialogue in education.New York: Teachers College.
28.
GageN. L. (1966, September). Discussion of the symposium on teachers’ expectations as an unintended determinant of pupils’ intellectual reputation and competence. Paper presented on the program of Divisions 15 and 8 of the American Psychological Association, New York.
29.
GageN. L. (1971). Preface. In ElashoffJ. D., & SnowR. E. (Eds.), Pygmalion reconsidered (pp. 4–5). Worthington, OH: Jones.
30.
GoodT. L., & BrophyJ. F. (1978). Looking in classrooms (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
31.
GubaE. G., & LincolnY. S. (1989). Personal communication.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
HallV. C., & MerkelS. P. (1985). Teacher expectancy effects and educational psychology. In DusekJ. B., HallV. C., & MeyerW. J. (Eds.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 67–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
HargreavesA., & FullanM. G. (1992). Understanding teacher development.New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
HausserK. (1980). Die Einteilung von Schülern; Theorie und Praxis schulischer Differenzierung [Categorizing pupils: Theory and practice of educational differentiation]. Weinheim und Basel, Germany: Belz.
35.
HoganP. (1988). A community of teacher researchers: A story of empowerment and voice (unpublished manuscript). University of Calgary.
36.
JungbluthP. (1984). Verborgen differentiatie. Leerlingbeeld en onderwijsaanbod op de basisschool [Hidden differentiation: Teachers’ perspectives on pupils curriculum]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: ITS.
37.
MarburgerC. L. (1963). Considerations for educational planning. In PassowA. H. (Ed.), Education in depressed areas (pp. 298–321). New York: Teachers College of Columbia University, Bureau of Publications.
38.
McDonaldJ. P. (1988). The emergence of the teacher's voice: Implications for the new reform. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 471–486.
39.
McDonaldJ. P. (1992). Teaching: Making sense of an uncertain craft.New York: Teachers College.
40.
MertonR. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure.New York: Free Press.
41.
MeyerW. J. (1985). Summary, integration and prospective. In DusekJ. B., HallV. C., & MeyerW. J. (Eds.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 353–371). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
MitmanA. L., & SnowR. E. (1985). Logical and methodological problems in teacher expectancy research. In DusekJ. B., HallV. C., & MeyerW. J. (Eds.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 93–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
MossP. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229–258.
44.
MossP. A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability?Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5–12.
45.
NewellR. W. (1986). Objectivity, empiricism and truth.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
46.
NoddingsN. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and research for teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 496–510.
47.
PetersonP. L., MarxR. W., & ClarkC. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417–432.
48.
ProceeH. (1991). Over de grenzen van culturen. Voorbij universalisme en relativisme [Over the borders of cultures. Beyond universalism and relativism]. Meppel, The Netherlands: Boom.
49.
PutnamR. T., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
50.
ReigeluthC. M. (1999). Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theories (vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
RistR. C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectation: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411–451.
52.
RosenthalR., & JacobsonL. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupil intellectual development.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
53.
RosenthalR., & JacobsonL. (1968). Teacher expectation for the disadvantaged. Scientific American, 218, 19–23.
54.
Salmon-CoxL. (1980, April). Teachers and tests: What's really happening? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
55.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action.New York: Basic Books.
56.
ScrivenM. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In StakeR. E. (Ed.), Curriculum Evaluation (American Educational Monograph Series on Evaluation, no.1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
57.
ShavelsonR. J., & SternP. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498.
58.
ShulmanL. S. (1980). Test design: a view from practice. In BakerE. L., & QuellmalzE. S. (Eds.), Educational testing and evaluation (pp. 63–73). Los Angeles: Sage.
59.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505–526). New York: MacMillan.
60.
SizerT. R. (1992). Horace's school. Redesigning the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
61.
SmalingA. (1990). Objectiviteit en rolneming [Objectivity and Role-taking]. In MasoI., & SmalingA. (Eds.), Objectiviteit in kwalitatief onderzoek [Objectivity in qualitative research].Amsterdam/ Meppel (the Netherlands): Boom.
62.
SnowR. E. (1969). Unfinished Pygmalion (review of Pygmalion in the classroom). Contemporary Psychology, 14, 197–200.
63.
StigginsR. J. (1991). Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 7–12.
64.
StigginsR. J., & BridgefordN. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271–286.
65.
StigginsR. J., ConklinN. F., & BridgefordN. J. (1986). Classroom assessment: A key to effective education. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 5(2), 5–17.
66.
TerwelJ. (1993). Het bevorderen van authentiek leren [Promoting authentic learning]. In van OersB., & WardekkerW. (Eds), De leerling als deelnemer aan de cultuur [The student as participant of the culture]. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
67.
ThorndikeR. L. (1968). Review of Pygmalion in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 708–711.
68.
VerloopN. (1992). Praktijkkennis van docenten: een blinde vlek van de onderwijskunde [Practical knowledge of teachers: A blind spot of educational theory]. Pedagogische Studien, 69, 410–423.
69.
VerloopN., & Van der SchootF. (1995). Didactische evaluatie [Evaluation as an aspect of teaching strategy]. In LowyckJ., & VerloopN. (Eds.), Onderwijskunde. Een kennisbasis voor professionals [Educational theory. A knowledge base for professionals].Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
70.
VerloopN, & ZwartsM. A. (1987). Evalueren [Evaluation]. In SpanP., NelissenJ. M. C., PijningH. F., & DietvorstC. (Eds.), Onderwijzen en leren [Teaching and learning] (pp. 223–248). Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters Noordhoff.
71.
WajnrubR. (1992). Classroom observation tasks.Cambridge: University Press.
72.
WardekkerW. L. (1989). Praktijktheorieën van leraren [Practical theories of teachers]. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift (Speciale editie vierde landelijke pedagogendag, 27 mei 1989). Amersfoort, The Netherlands: Acco.
73.
WardekkerW. L. (2000). Criteria for the quality of inquiry. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(4), 259–272.
74.
WineburgS. S. (1987, December). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educational Researcher, (6), 28–37.
75.
YingerR. J. (1977). A study of teacher planning: description and theory development using ethnographic and information processing methods (Research series No. 18) East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
76.
ZahorikJ. A. (1975). Teachers planning models. Educational Leadership, 33(2), 134–139.
77.
ZeichnerK. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4–15.
78.
ZeichnerK., & TabachnickB. R. (1981). Are the effects of teacher education washed out by school experience?Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7–11.
