Commonly, pullout programs, which are the most common means of fostering gifted students in Israel, include only generic summative assessment of the students. The main goal of this study was to develop a model of alternative embedded assessment and to examine its influence on the learning process. A group of middle school students who participated in the ‘Brain Research’ program was engaged in project-based learning and implemented self, peer and expert-assessment in various stages of the project. The findings indicate that the students' perception of assessment expresses the cognitive as well as the affective aspects, which constitutes the assessment model, and that the embedded assessment encouraged the application of critical thinking, reflective thinking and inquiry skills and enhanced learning within a social context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronB. J. (1987). Evaluating thinking skills. In: BaronB. J.SternbergJ. R.Teaching Thinking skills: theory and practice. W. H. Freeman and Company. 219–247.
2.
BellB.CowieB. (2001). The Characteristics of Formative Assessment in Science Education. Science Education, 85, 536–553.
3.
BirenbaumM. (1997). Alternatives in assessment. Tel-aviv University: Ramot.
4.
BirenbaumM. (2003). New insight into learning and teaching and their implication for assessment. In SegersM.DochyF.CascallarE. (Eds.). Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards. Klumer Academic Publishers, 13–36.
5.
BlackR. (1995). Assessment and feedback in Science education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 257–279.
6.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 7–74.
7.
CoxJ.DanielN.BostonB. O. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin, TX: University Press.
8.
CurryJ.SamaraJ. (1993). Curriculum Guide For The Education of Gifted High School Students. Austin: Texas Association for the gifted and talented.
9.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.
10.
DiezmannM. C.WattersJ. J. (2000). An enrichment philosophy and strategy for empowering young gifted children to become autonomous learners in science. Gifted and Talented International, 15, 6–18.
11.
DochyR.McdowellL. (1997). Introduction Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 279–298.
12.
DoriY. J.HerskovitzO. (1999). Question-Posing Capability as an Altrnative Evaluation Method: Analysis of an Environmental Case Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.
13.
DoriY. J. (2003). From Nationwide Standardized Testing to School-Based Alternative Embedded Assessment in Isreal: Students' Performance in the Matriculation 2000 Project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 34–52.
14.
DoriY. J.TalR. T. (2000). Formal and Informal Collaborative Projects: Engaging in Industry with Environmental Awareness. Science Education, 84, 95–113.
15.
DoriY J.TalR. T.TsaushuM. (2003). Teaching Biotechnology through case studies — can we improve higher order thinking skills of non-science majors?. Science Education, 87, 767–793.
16.
EnnisR. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. In BaronB.J.SternbergR. J. (Eds.). Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice. NY: W.H. Freeman and Company, p. 9–26.
17.
HarpazY. (1999). Twoards teaching and learning in a thinking community. Mind education(in hebrew), 18, 6–32.
18.
HoganK.FisherkellerJ. (1999). Dialogue as Data: Assessing Students' Scientific Reasoning with Interactive Protocols. In: MintzesJ. J.WanderseeH. J.NovakD. J.Assessing Science Understanding — A Human Constructive View. 95–127Academic Press.
19.
HoganK.NastasiK. B.PressleyM. (2000). Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.
20.
KanielS. (2002). ‘High Thinking Processes’ (HTP): Elements of curricula and teaching able learners. Gifted Education International, 16, 225–240.
21.
KrajcikJ.S.CzerniakC.BergerC. (1999). Teaching Children Science: A Project-Based Approach, McGraw-HillBoston, MA.
22.
KrajcikJ.S.CzerniakC.BergerC. (2002). Teaching Science In Elementary And Middle School Classrooms: A Project-Based Approach, Second Edition. McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.
23.
KrajcikJ.S.BlumenfeldP.MarxR.SolowayE. (2000). Instructional, curricular and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In: MinstrellJ.van ZeeE. (eds.). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. 283–315.
24.
KrajcikJ.BlumenfeldP.MarxR.FredericksJ.SolowayE. (1998). Middle school students initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. The journal of learning sciences, 7, 313–350.
25.
GlaserB.StraussA. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
26.
MinstrellJ. (2000). Implications for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary In:MinstrellJ.Van zeeH. E. (Eds.). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. AAAS, 471–496.
27.
NevoD. (1995). School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvement. Oxford: Elsevier/ Pergamon.
28.
PattonM.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
ReisM. S.RenzulliJ. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted child quarterly, 35, 128–134.
30.
RenzulliJ. S. (1987). The positive side of pull-out programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 245–253.
31.
ResnickL. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington D.C.: National Acdemy Press.
32.
SchwabJ. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In: ShulmanL. S.TamirP.(1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In: TraversR.M.W. (Ed). Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Rand McNally & Company, 1098–1148.
33.
ShulmanL.S.TamirP. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In: TraversR.M.W. (Ed). Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Rand McNally & Company, 1098–1148.
34.
StakeR. (1994). Case studies. In DenzinN.K.LincolnY. S.(eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. 236–247.
35.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1994). Grounded theory methodology — An Overview. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY.S. (eds.). Handbook of qualitative research, 273–285.
36.
TaberS. K.(2000.). Case studies and generalizability: grounded theory and research in science education. International journal of science education, 22, 469–487.
37.
TalR. T. (2004). Community-based environmental education — A case study of teacher-parent collaboration. Environmental education research. 10, (4), 523–543.
38.
TalR. T.DoriY. J.LazarowitzR. (2000). A Project-Based Alternative Assessment System. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26,171–191.
39.
TalR.T.HochbergN. (2003a). Assessing high order thinking of students participating in a web-based malaria project. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29 (2), 69–89.
40.
TalR.T.HochbergN. (2003b). Reasoning, problem-solving and reflections: Participating in WISE project in Israel, Science Education International, 14, 3–19.
41.
TamirP. (1996). Science assessment. In: BirenbaumM.DochyF. J. R. C., Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes, and prior knowledge. Boston: Klewer Academic.
42.
TannenbaumA. J. (1983). Gifted Children. New York: Macmillan.
43.
The Department of Gifted Students.(1999). Data of programs for fostering the gifted. Ministry of education, Jerusalem[in Hebrew].
44.
ToppingK. (2003). Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability, Validity and Utility. In SegersM.DochyF.CascallarE. (Eds.). Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards. Klumer Academic Publishers, 55–87.
45.
TreagustD. F.JacobowitzR.GallagherJ. L.ParkerJ. (2001). Using Assessment as a Guide in Teaching for Understanding: A Case Study of Middle School Science Class Learning about Sound. Science Education, 85, 137–157.
46.
WallaceB. (2000). Teaching the very able child. London: David Fulton Publishers.
47.
WallaceB.AdamsH.B. (1993). TASC: Thinking actively in a social context. Oxford: AB Academic Publishers.
48.
WallaceB.Bentley (2001). Teaching thinking skills across the curriculum: A practical approach for the middle years. London: Fulton.
49.
WallaceB.PierceJ. (1992a). The changing nature of giftedness: An examination of various strategies for provision. Gifted Education International, 8, 64–71.
50.
WallaceB.PierceJ. (1992b). The changing nature of giftedness: An examination of various strategies for provision. Gifted Education International, 8, 4–9.
51.
WigginsG. P. (1993). Assessing student performance, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
52.
WigginsG. P. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53.
WorthenB. R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 444–457.
54.
ZeidlerL. D.OsborneJ.ErduranS.SimonS.MonkM. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In ZeidlerL. D.(Ed.). The Role of Moral Reasoing on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education. Kluwer Netherlands, 97–116.
55.
ZoharA. (2000). Inquiry Learning as Higher Order Thinking: Overcoming Cognitive Obstacles. In: MinstrellJ.zeeH. E. (Eds.). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. AAAS, 405–424.
56.
ZoharA. (2004). Higher Order Thinking in Science Classrooms: Students' Learning and Teachers' Professional Development. Kluwer academic
57.
ZoharA.NametF. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
