TY - JOUR
T1 - How Science Teachers DiALoG Classrooms
T2 - Towards a Practical and Responsive Formative Assessment of Oral Argumentation
AU - Henderson, J. Bryan
AU - Zillmer, Nicole
AU - Holton, April
AU - Weiner, Steven
AU - Greenwald, Eric
AU - Goss, Megan
AU - Lopez, M. Lisette
AU - Morales, Christina
AU - Pearson, P. David
AU - McNeill, Katherine L.
N1 - Funding Information:
We would be remiss without acknowledging the amazing efforts of the many hard-working and dedicated teachers that have shared keen insights with our research team. This research has been made possible through the generous support of the following grants: Supporting Teacher Practice to Facilitate and Assess Oral Scientific Argumentation: Embedding a Real-Time Assessment of Speaking and Listening into an Argumentation-Rich Curriculum (National Science Foundation, #1621496 and #1621441); Constructing and Critiquing Arguments in Middle School Science Classrooms: Supporting Teachers with Multimedia Educative Curriculum Materials (National Science Foundation, #1119584); and Constructing and Critiquing Arguments: Diagnostic Assessment for Information and Action System (Carnegie Corporation of New York, #B-8780).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - We present lessons learned from an ongoing attempt to conceptualize, develop, and refine a way for teachers to gather formative assessment evidence about classroom argumentation as it happens. The system—named DiALoG (Diagnosing Argumentation Levels of Groups)—includes a digital scoring tool that allows teachers to assess oral classroom argumentation across two primary dimensions: one to capture the Intrapersonal, discipline-specific features of scientific arguments, and another to capture the Interpersonal, group regulatory features of argumentation as a dynamic social act. Coupled with the digital assessment are responsive mini-lessons (RMLs), which provide follow-up curriculum for teachers to respond to different levels of classroom argumentation proficiency for each item assessed. We use classroom observations, interviews, and surveys from piloting science teachers in two different states to iteratively refine this multifaceted formative assessment system of oral classroom argumentation. Lessons learned include the realization by pilot teachers that using the DiALoG system fine-tunes their professional vision to notice student practices they had not previously considered, and the accompanying RMLs help fill gaps in their pedagogical content knowledge and repertoire. Furthermore, while the DiALoG system is intended to be a formative assessment, we learned that the mere presence of numerical scores can queue teacher schema for summative assessment. This prompted us to do away with numbers entirely in the latest version of our digital scoring tool. Such lessons learned from teacher experiences with the development of a novel formative assessment system like DiALoG can be instructive to the development of science educational technology more broadly.
AB - We present lessons learned from an ongoing attempt to conceptualize, develop, and refine a way for teachers to gather formative assessment evidence about classroom argumentation as it happens. The system—named DiALoG (Diagnosing Argumentation Levels of Groups)—includes a digital scoring tool that allows teachers to assess oral classroom argumentation across two primary dimensions: one to capture the Intrapersonal, discipline-specific features of scientific arguments, and another to capture the Interpersonal, group regulatory features of argumentation as a dynamic social act. Coupled with the digital assessment are responsive mini-lessons (RMLs), which provide follow-up curriculum for teachers to respond to different levels of classroom argumentation proficiency for each item assessed. We use classroom observations, interviews, and surveys from piloting science teachers in two different states to iteratively refine this multifaceted formative assessment system of oral classroom argumentation. Lessons learned include the realization by pilot teachers that using the DiALoG system fine-tunes their professional vision to notice student practices they had not previously considered, and the accompanying RMLs help fill gaps in their pedagogical content knowledge and repertoire. Furthermore, while the DiALoG system is intended to be a formative assessment, we learned that the mere presence of numerical scores can queue teacher schema for summative assessment. This prompted us to do away with numbers entirely in the latest version of our digital scoring tool. Such lessons learned from teacher experiences with the development of a novel formative assessment system like DiALoG can be instructive to the development of science educational technology more broadly.
KW - Argumentation
KW - Assessment
KW - Critical thinking
KW - Design
KW - Educational technology
KW - Emerging technologies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105891252&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85105891252&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10956-021-09921-4
DO - 10.1007/s10956-021-09921-4
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85105891252
SN - 1059-0145
VL - 30
SP - 803
EP - 815
JO - Journal of Science Education and Technology
JF - Journal of Science Education and Technology
IS - 6
ER -