Professional Development of

Science Teachers in Formative Assessment:

A Qualitative Meta-analysis of the Research
Literature

Thesis Defense by
Javed Iqbal M.S.(Teacher Education)
Road Map
• Background
• Problem statement
• What is formative assessment
• Benefits of formative assessment
• Rationale
• Significance
• Research Question
• Methodology
• Criteria for selection of articles
• Article search process
• Analysis methods
• Discussion
• Implications
• Limitations
 Problem Statement:

• Dearth of professional development opportunities on formative

assessment for science teachers in the context of Pakistan.
• Formative assessment practices are not implemented on regular
basis
• Formative assessment is poorly understood and exercised in science
classroom.
• There is limited research on formative assessment in science
education.

(AAAS 2003 ;Bryce, Wilmes & Bellino, 2016; Black, 2011; Deniel & Gumer, 2001;Gearhart et al.,
2006; Gibbs & Simpson, 2005; Iqbal, 1999; NRC, 2007).
 Ongoing Process

Stimulate
students’
learning Assisting
students in
learning
What is formative
Assessment? Collect data
Adjust about students
instructional learning
practices

Providing
feedback

(AAAS, 1999; Deniel & Gumer, 2000; Falk, 2011 Lyon, 2013; NRC, 2007; NSTA, 2016; Stiggins,
2002).
 Benefits of Formative Assessment

• Benefits of formative assessments for students:

• Track their learning progression.
• Self regulated learning.
• Enrich their conceptual understanding.
• Benefits for teachers:
• Informs about the impact of their instructions on student learning.
• Modify their instructions according to students performance.
• Meet the learning targets.
Rationale

• My experience of working;
• as a science teacher
• Teacher educator
• Courses 550 MEDU & 550 SCED
• Different studies, such as Towndrow, Tan, Yung, & Cohen (2008); Buck
and Trauth-Nare (2009), Araceli Ruiz-Primo and Furtak (2006) and
Caulfield-Sloan and Ruzicka (2015) Aschbacher and Alonzo (2006) and
Cowie and Bell (1999).
• Lack of meta-analysis
 Significance

• Giving new insights and perspectives

Existing Body
of Knowledge
• Add knowledge

• Enhance understanding
Science
Teacher and
Educators
• Develop practices

UTK (Science
• Taking inform decisions
Education )

• Professional growth
My Self
Research Questions
1. What do research findings in the extant literature say about the
impact of formative assessment oriented PD sessions in science
education on students’ learning outcomes?

2. What are issues highlighted by the extant research literature

regarding conducting professional development session on
formative assessment?

3. Which common themes can be derived from the research on

the professional development of science teachers in the field of
formative assessment?
 Methodology

Interpretive Analysis Secondary research

Construction of new knowledge Research studies as unit of
analysis

Qualitative Meta-
Analysis

Integrated comprehensive view

Systematic literature review
•Systematic Synthesis
Assimilation of findings

(Gewurtz et al.,2008;Zimmer, 2006; Gini & Pozzoli 2013)

 Criteria for Selection of Articles
Criteria Discerption

Timeframe Last two decades

Domain Science Education

Level K-12

Assessment Formative Assessment

Approach

Standard of Peer Reviewed

Journals
Article Search

First Search Google Sch,

60 articles
1233 EBESCO & ERIC

16 articles Abstract were

Finalized Reviewed
 Analysis Methods

Relevant text was

Analysis and
Each article was transferred to
findings were re-
thoroughly read another word
read
document

Themes were
Themes were
categorized Data was
extracted from the
according to structurally coded
codes
research question
Analysis: Impact of Formative Assessment
Based Sessions

• Teachers’ Instructional practices

• Teachers show thorough understanding of formative assessment.
• Express positive attitude.
• Enhances assessment skills.
• Students academic achievements
• Increase in students’ academic performance.
• Students share their views each other.
• Improve their responses.

(Araceli Ruiz-Primo & Furtak 2006; Buck et al., 2010 Forbes, Sabel, & Biggers, 2015; Lyon, 2013).
Analysis: Issues in Assessment based PD
Sessions
• Teachers lack understanding in formative assessment.

• It is not common in classroom.

• It is not properly executed in the classroom .

• Students reluctance in showing their current level of understanding.

(Buck, Trauth-Nare, & Kaftan, 2010; Klieger & Bar-Yossef,2010; Sabel, Forbes, & Flynn, 2016 ).
Analysis: Issues in Assessment based PD
Sessions
• Gaps in Pre service trainings on assessment.

• Pre-service teachers lack with sound understanding of formative

assessment.

• They had difficulty evaluating evidence of students’ thinking due to

their weak content knowledge.

• Discrepancy between classroom assessment and summative exam.

(Buck & Trauth-Nare, 2009; Sabel, Forbes, & Zangori 2015 )

 Analysis: Common Themes

• Role of PCK and content knowledge

• Teacher with strong PCK implement formative assessment
confidently
• Give effective feedback
• Teachers with higher levels content knowledge were able to more
effectively evaluate students’ ideas
• The teachers with higher scores on the content exam discussed both
content and student understanding of the concept to a greater
extent
(Falk, 2011; Jones and Moreland 2005 )
 Analysis: Common Themes
• Role of Questioning and Feedback
• Teacher whose students had the highest performance on our tests
was the teacher who held the most discussions

• Generate discussion in the classroom.

• Feedback guides instructions.

• Help students in identify their strengths their weaknesses in their

learning.
(Gearhart et al,2006; Ruzi-Primo and Furtak 2006)
 Conclusion

• It is used for the assessment for learning

• Provide scaffolding

• Focus students needs

• Science teachers capacity building through PD sessions

• Reflective practitioner
Discussion: Framework
 Discussion:
Principles of Formative Assessment
• Improving SLOs through ongoing support and feedback
• Focus on how students rather on how teachers deliver
• Whole class approach vs individual approach
• Relevancy with classroom realities, students level of competency and
teachers background .

• (AAAS, 1990; Cowie & Bell, 1999; Falk, 2011; Greenstein, 2010; Lyon, 2013; Sheperdson, 2001;
Stiggins, 2002; Weeden & Lambert, 2006).
 Discussion: Sustainability

Initiation

Reflection Implementation

Institutionalization

• (Marris, 1975).
Implications: Practice

• District management
Capacity Building • Teacher training institutes
• School management

• Mentoring
School Based • Learning communities
Support

• External and internal appraisal

Follow up • Classroom observation
Implication: Research

To examine the impact of formative

Quasi assessment
Experimental

Quantitative To explore perceptions and beliefs of

Survey science teachers

Action To improve classroom assessment

Research practice
Implications: Policy

Science teachers’ voice should be included in large scale

assessment reforms

School based assessment policy and teachers appraisal

Establishment of assessment cell

Formative assessment needs to be included in teacher education

curriculum
 Limitations

• Generalizability.

• Majority of studies from the context of the USA

• Novice researcher.

• My experience and subjectivity.

Thank You Very
Much
 References
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Project 2061: Science for all
Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Araceli Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry:
Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3), 237–263.
• Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten
years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007
• Black, P. (2011). Second international Handbook of Science Education (Springer international handbooks
of education). Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag New York.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5, 7–74.
• Bryce, N., Wilmes, S. E. D., & Bellino, M. (2016b). Inquiry identity and science teacher professional
development. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 235–251. doi:10.1007/s11422-015-9725-1
• Buck, G. A., Trauth-Nare, A., & Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment discernable to pre-service
teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 402–421. doi:10.1002/tea.20344
• Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101–116.
• Caulfield-Sloan, M. B., & Ruzicka, M. F. (2015). The effect of teachers’ staff development in the use of
higher-order questioning strategies on third grade students' rubric science assessment
performance. Planning and Changing, 36(3), 157–174.
 References
• Falk, A. (2011). Teachers learning from professional development in elementary science: Reciprocal
relations between formative assessment and pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(2),
Forbes, C. T., Sabel, J. L., & Biggers, M. (2015). Elementary teachers’ use of formative assessment to
support students” learning about interactions between the Hydrosphere and Geosphere. Journal of
Geoscience Education, 63(3), 210–221. doi:10.5408/14-063.1
• Gearhart, M., Nagashima, S., P fotenhauer, J., Clark, S., Schwab, C., Vendlinski, T., … Bernbaum, D. J.
(2006). Developing expertise with classroom assessment in K–12 science: Learning to interpret student
work. Interim findings from a 2-Year study. Educational Assessment, 11(3-4), 237–263.
doi:10.1080/10627197.2006.9652990
• Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2005) ‘Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’
Learning’, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), pp. 135–188.
• Greenstein, L. (2010). What teachers really need to know about formative assessment. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
• Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2005). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in assessment for
learning practices: a case-study of a whole-school approach. Curriculum Journal,16(2),
• Klieger, A., & Bar-Yossef, N. (2010). Professional Development of Science Teachers As A Reflection Of
Large-Scale Assessment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,9(4), 771-791.
• Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
 References
• Lyon, E. G. (2013). Learning to assess science in linguistically diverse classrooms: Tracking growth in
secondary science Preservice teachers’ assessment expertise. Science Education, 97(3), 442–467.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
• Marris, P. (1975). Loss and Change. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.
• National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and national science education standards. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
• National Research Council. (2007). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
• Shepardson, D. P. & Gummer, E.S. (2001). A Framework for Thinking About and Planning Classroom
Assessment in Science. In D. P. Shepardson (Ed.), Assessment in Science (Ist ed.) (pp. 83–92). U.S.A:
Kluwer Academic Publisher.
• Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment Crisis: The Absence of Assessment for Learning. Phi Delta
Kappan,83(10), 758-765.
• Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching
practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.