 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 9, Issue 1, Article 2 (Jun., 2008) |
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 9, Issue 1, Article 2 (Jun., 2008) |
The pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards assessment based on the attitude maps are given in Table I. Table I also shows their attitudes according to the survey results. Comparison of two results presents the criterion validity. There are slight differences in two participants’ (P-1 and P-10) attitudes across the attitude maps and survey. There might be a chance that these two participants tended to be more constructivist during the interviews.
In order to provide examples from different attitude categories, three participants’ attitude maps are given and discussed here in detail. The attitude maps of the second participant, the fourth participant and the sixth participant have been selected as examples to demonstrate how close categories can be distinguished with the help of the attitude maps. The attitude map of Pre-Service Teacher-2 (P-2) is presented in Figure 1. P-2 expressed that the purpose of assessment was to determine whether students mastered the objectives she set for them. Additionally, there was no sign of what she took into consideration while setting the performance objectives. According to her, lecture, lab experiments, and small research projects were enough and there was no need to use other teaching methods. The arrow from the instruction dimension to the assessment methods dimension represents her thought that assessment methods should be compatible with teaching methods. Therefore, her preferred assessment methods were exams (compatible with lecture) and performance assessments (compatible with lab experiments and projects). She said that:
Exams have sanction on students and force them to study. Besides, I can ask many topics in one exam. Although I am against the university entrance examination (UEE), I ask multiple-choice questions because students are asked this kind of questions in the UEE …..I do not think that I will implement portfolio assessment in my classrooms because I do not see any benefits of portfolios. Moreover, portfolios are heavy burden for students (P-2).
University entrance examination (UEE) is a national requirement for high school graduates in order to start university education in Turkey. It is a standardized examination administered at the same time in different parts of the country and includes multiple-choice questions. For this reason, she assumed that she had to ask multiple-choice questions on exams she prepared. Moreover, she believed that the pre-service teacher education was based on constructivist epistemology, but it was hard to reflect this epistemology in the real classrooms because there was no change, despite a few reformes, in the educational system. Consequently, as shown in her attitude map, she might not use performance assessments if she encounters any obstacles. In addition to current conditions in the educational system and UEE, P-2 thought that her subject matter knowledge (SMK) might also be an obstacle and affect her choice of assessment methods.
Table I : The participants’ attitudes towards assessment with regard to their attitude maps and survey results
Participants Attitudes towards Assessment
Attitude Maps Survey
P-1 Transitional Close to traditional P-2 Close to traditional Close to traditional P-3 Close to constructivist Close to constructivist P-4 Transitional Transitional P-5 Close to constructivist Close to constructivist P-6 Close to constructivist Close to constructivist P-7 Transitional Transitional P-8 Constructivist Constructivist P-9 Transitional Transitional P-10 Close to constructivist Transitional
UEE: University Entrance Examination, SMK: Subject Matter Knowledge, √ : Yes, X : No, ~ : Maybe
Figure 1: Attitude map of P-2
The arrow from the assessment methods dimension to the evaluation criteria dimension reveals that she made connections between her assessment methods and evaluation. She stated that:
To me, students’ progression and growth between their beginning and final levels are important. In my evaluation, I also consider if students have interest and ask questions. ......It seems that performance assessments are appropriate for formative evaluation because I can assess process and student growth. Comprehensive exams, on the other hand, are good for summative evaluation (P-2).
P-2’s attitude map illustrates some themes that are in line with constructivist epistemology. That is, she made connections between the assessment methods dimension and the instruction dimension as well as between the assessment methods dimension and the evaluation criteria dimension. However, regarding only two arrows between four dimensions, her definition of assessment that was aligned with traditional epistemology, her preference for using a few assessment methods, her beliefs about reflection of constructivist beliefs to real school settings, and the non-existing relationships between the determination of assessment dimension and other dimensions; P-2’s attitude towards assessment was considered as close to traditional.
Figure 2 displays P-4’s attitude map. Her definition of assessment was measurement of student capacity about the subject. From her point of view, the purpose of assessment was to determine what students know before the instruction and what they have learned after the instruction. She believed that she would make valid decisions about students’ capacity if she could increase students’ participation in the class activities as well as ask questions that make them think. The arrow from the determination of assessment dimension to the assessment methods dimension shows that her assessment methods were consistent with her purpose of assessment. In other words, she aimed to assess students very often, she intended to use concept maps after teaching every subject, and she intended to give research assignments on weekly basis. P4 was aware of the limitations of exams; hence, as presented in her attitude map, she considered using other assessment methods, too.
UEE: University Entrance Examination, SMK: Subject Matter Knowledge, √ : Yes, X : No, ~ : Maybe
Figure 2:Attitude map of P-4
She expressed that:
In my opinion, exams are not very effective methods because there is time pressure. The methods that assess process are more effective. This kind of assessment methods can also reflect students’ attitude and effort.......I give research assignments that either handle students’ misconceptions or are related to daily life events. These assignments may become interesting for students and make them observe their environment (P-4).
The arrow from the assessment methods dimension to the evaluation criteria dimension demonstrates how she connected her assessment methods with her evaluation criteria. In other words, she wanted to use assessment methods enabling to reveal students’ attitudes and efforts because they were among her evaluation criteria. In addition, she gave credit to students’ typical performance; therefore, informal questioning was among her assessment methods.
The arrow was drawn from the assessment methods dimension to the instruction dimension because she could make connection between assessment methods and student learning. This relationship was named as “learning α assessment” and illustrated by the arrow. She explained that:
Students study according to my assessment methods. If I assess my students three times in one semester by designing exams, they will only study just before the exam date and forget immediately after that. Nevertheless, if they study in a continuous process, their learning will be durable. Students think that physics is difficult so that they don’t like physics. Thus, if examination is my only assessment method, students will tend to study half of the content, which will be enough to pass the class. On the other hand, if I assign students something that requires them to do research, their learning will be more durable since they endeavor to do the assignment and present the result proudly (P-4).
Even though there were some constructivist themes in P4’s attitude, she did not make any connection between her teaching and her assessment. There is no dialectical relationship between the instruction dimension and the assessment dimension. The direction of the arrow between these two dimensions is from the assessment methods dimension to the instruction dimension revealing that she did not consider her teaching when making her decision about which assessment methods to administer. Furthermore, there is no dialectical relationship between the instruction dimension and the determination of assessment dimension, meaning that she could not integrate assessment and instruction. She neither considered students’ prior knowledge before setting performance objectives nor planned her teaching based on the assessment results. The arrow from the obstacles pointing to the assessment methods dimension reveals that she might change her assessment plans according to inadequate school facilities or crowded classrooms. For these reasons, P4’s attitude towards assessment was coded as transitional.
Figure 3 presents P-6’s attitude map. Her assessment definition included measurement of her success in teaching as well as determination of how much students could learn. The arrow from the determination of assessment dimension to the instruction dimension demonstrates that she planned her teaching according to students’ prior knowledge. The arrow was drawn from the determination of assessment dimension to the assessment methods dimension because she thought that informal observations could elicit students’ different skills and she was in favor of using informal assessments. This arrow also reveals that she took students’ preferences about assessment methods into account. The two arrows between the instruction dimension and the assessment methods dimension show that there is a dialectical relationship between them. That is, she believed that students’ way of study depended on how teachers assessed them, and so assessment methods affected their learning. Her belief is represented with the arrow named “learning α assessment” from the assessment method dimension to the instruction dimension. Additionally, her teaching methods were consistent with her assessment methods as shown with the arrow from the instruction dimension to the assessment methods dimension. She wanted to apply various assessment methods except for portfolio assessment. She expressed her opinion about assessment methods as follows:
Only one method cannot assess students’ performance. I utilize performance assessment since it is also a teaching tool. Moreover, performance assessments are fun and get students’ attention. I prefer exams as well. I cannot assess higher-order thinking with multiple-choice questions; for this reason, I do not use them often. I do not prefer portfolio assessment as students may get bored. I rather prefer something that students can do in the class (P-6).
UEE: University Entrance Examination, SMK: Subject Matter Knowledge, √ : Yes, X : No, ~ : Maybe
Figure 3: Attitude map of P-6
The arrow from the assessment methods dimension to the evaluation criteria dimension was drawn as she considered implementing both informal assessment and performance assessment to evaluate students’ participation and effort. As mentioned above, there are many constructivist themes in the attitude map of P-6. Nonetheless, she set performance objectives based on the content of curriculum rather than her teaching and students’ levels; hence, there is no arrow from the instruction dimension to the determination of assessment dimension. Moreover, there is no arrow from the determination of assessment dimension to the evaluation criteria dimension because she tended to assess student growth but she did not take it into account as an evaluation criterion. Therefore, there was not any relationship between determination of assessment dimension and the evaluation criteria dimension. Due to absence of two arrows, P-6’s attitude map was categorized as close to constructivist.
Copyright (C) 2008 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 9, Issue 1, Article 2 (Jun., 2008). All Rights Reserved.
