907016866

This article was downloaded by: [FErnandez, Nancy]
On: 16 February 2010

Access details: Sample Issue Voucher: International Journal of Science EducationAccess Details: [subscription
number 919306643]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283
Embedded Assessment in Project-based Science Courses for the Gifted:

Insights to inform teaching all students
Shirley Miedijensky a; Tali Tal a
a
Technion, Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion City, Haifa, Israel
First published on: 19 December 2008
To cite this Article Miedijensky, Shirley and Tal, Tali(2009) 'Embedded Assessment in Project-based Science Courses for
the Gifted: Insights to inform teaching all students', International Journal of Science Education, 31: 18, 2411 — 2435, First
published on: 19 December 2008 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690802389597
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802389597
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 31, No. 18, 1 December 2009, pp. 2411–2435
RESEARCH REPORT
Embedded Assessment in Project-

based Science Courses for the Gifted:
Insights to inform teaching all students
Shirley Miedijensky* and Tali Tal
Technion, Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion City,
Haifa, Israel
Downloaded By: [FErnandez, Nancy] At: 15:29 16 February 2010
0mshirley@technion.ac.il
00
Mrs.
000002008
ShirleyMiedijensky
International
10.1080/09500690802389597
TSED_A_339126.sgm
0950-0693
Research
Taylor
2008 &
andReport
Francis
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
Journal of Science
(online)
Education
The present study of gifted students’ views of assessment is aimed at understanding how the
employment of Embedded Assessment for Learning (EAfL) framework in science courses for the
gifted affects the students’ views throughout the learning process. The participants were 86
students in three programmes for the gifted who elected project-based science courses. The data
included questionnaires, distributed at the beginning and at the end of the assessment processes in
each science course, and in-depth interviews with 12 students, which were analysed according to
three main themes: general view of assessment; assessment modes; and relationships between
assessment and learning. The students viewed the EAfL framework as an integral part of the
learning process, and perceived it as a means of expressing autonomous learning and a range of
performances; characteristics that correspond with the students’ unique needs. In addition,
students addressed cognitive and social processes they had undergone. This implies that assessment
which is explicitly designed to promote learning in science courses is a powerful tool for teachers as
well as for students, and contributes to meaningful learning.
Introduction
Assessment is when I reflect to myself … or when my friends, my teachers or even my
parents, who accompany me through life, give me feedback. It shows me what I could
not see or think. It’s part of my whole view of learning. Learning means not only knowing,
but knowing how to assess what you know or don’t know, to understand and to figure
out what leads you to know more. We assessed in order to learn but we have learned how
to assess as well. (Yaniv, Interview)
Yaniv is a 12-year-old gifted student who perceives assessment as mirroring his way
of thinking and as a means to enhance his learning, scientific knowledge, and
*Corresponding author. Technion, Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion

city, Haifa, 32000 Israel. Email: mshirley@technion.ac.il
ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/09/182411–25

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802389597
2412 S. Miedijensky and T. Tal
understanding. Assessment is part of his idea of the learning environment, which

makes room for his friends, teachers, and parents as well.
The above example implies that students’ experiences of assessment are situated
within their overall perceptions of the learning environment. As such, students’
conceptions of assessment are of particular importance because of the significant
impact assessment has on the quality of learning (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991;
Maclellan, 2001; Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2003). The launching point for this
study was a literature review showing that research on students’ perceptions of
assessment is relatively limited, and that the majority of the studies on students’
views were carried out in higher education (Struyven et al., 2003).
With respect to gifted education, Van Tassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2006)
argued that programmes for the gifted should include suitable modes of assessment
in order to respond to their unique capabilities. This is particularly significant in
science programmes. Yet, most of these programmes include only summative assess-
ment in which the teacher is the sole assessor, and there are not enough examples for
suitable or diverse assessments in enrichment programmes for the gifted, mainly in
science courses (Tal & Miedijensky, 2005). According to the ideas of Assessment for
Learning (AfL), assessments strongly affect learning. Therefore, exploring learners’
views of assessment is significant to understand whether and how assessment
promotes learning, and to enable teachers to develop assessments and learning
materials that support learning.
The present study explores how the students perceived the model of embedded
assessment in project-based science (PBS) courses that we developed and described
in detail in a previous paper (Tal & Miedijensky, 2005).
Objective
Our goal was to understand how gifted students view assessment in general, and to
investigate their views of the Embedded Assessment for Learning (EAfL) framework
in particular. We hoped to solicit views of what assessment means, how it affects
learning, and which of the assessments used was preferred. This led to the following
questions:
(a) What were the students’ views of assessment and the different modes of
assessment?
(b) How did these views change while implementing EAfL framework?
Theoretical Background
The central idea we discuss in this section is that of AfL, which involves the
students in the assessment process, together with teachers and community
members. Then we address the curriculum and assessment in programmes for the
gifted, referring to the limited literature on assessment targeted to students with
special talents.
Assessment for Learning: The students’ views 2413
AfL, Self, Peers and Tutor Assessment

In the past decades there were worldwide calls and attempts to shift from assessment
of learning, which is based mainly on summative testing, to AfL, which is more
formative and aims at promoting students’ learning. This paradigm shift is rooted in
the mid-1980s, with the increasing awareness of educators in the western world of
changing traditional assessment methods employed in schools (Black, 1995). This
awareness was expressed by the European Association for Learning and Instruction’s
position paper:
Current assessment practices tend to focus on Assessment of learning. Such ‘testing’

generally is summative, and drives the teaching (‘teaching for the test’). It is also
inauthentic, context independent, inflexible and uneconomical. Assessment for learning is
generally formative, integrated into the curriculum, authentic, context embedded and
flexible. (Birenbaum et al., 2006, p. 1)
AfL aims at improving students’ learning when it occurs, and as a consequence it is

situated, formative, integrated into the curriculum, and flexible. AfL takes place on a
continuous basis, providing students and teachers with information about the learning
progression; it is comprehensive and reflective. AfL is a dynamic and interactive process
(Dochy & McDowell, 1997; Shavelson, 2007; Shepard, 2000; Tal & Miedijensky,
2005; Treagust, Jacobowitz, Gallagher, & Parker, 2001).
Segers, Dochy, and Cascallar (2003) claim that, in the twenty-first century,
students need to be able to think critically, analyse, synthesise, and make inferences.
In addition, they stated that ‘helping students to develop these skills requires
changes in the assessment culture and the assessment practice at all education levels,
such as in schools, in higher education and even in the work environment’ (Segers
et al., 2003, p. 1). Such changes are related to the idea of alternative assessment, and
particularly to formative assessment (Black, 1995; Black & Wiliam, 1998). When
assessment is naturally embedded within the learning and teaching process, it is
sensitive to differences among students and allows addressing their special needs and
capabilities (Dori, 2003a, 2007; Treagust et al., 2001). Shepard (2000) suggested
that good classroom assessment should:
1. Include challenging tasks to elicit higher-order thinking.

2. Address learning processes as well as learning outcomes.
3. Be an ongoing process, integrated with instruction.
4. Be used formatively in support of student learning.
5. Define expectations visible to students.
6. Make students active in evaluating their work.
7. Be used to evaluate teaching as well as student learning.
AfL should include a variety of assessments that can express the various aspects of
learning such as analysis of case studies, group portfolios, self-assessment, and peer
assessment, and it can involve community members as well (Tal, Dori, & Lazarowitz,
2000; Tal & Miedijensky, 2005).
Students’ involvement in assessing their learning usually takes the form of self-
assessment or peer assessment. Self-assessment enhances the learners’ responsibility,
and allows them to be active, and to evaluate the level or quality of their own perfor-
mances (Shepard, 2000; Topping, 2003). Self-assessment means more than students
just grading their own work; rather, it engages them in determining what good work
in a given situation is (Boud, 1995). The students assess their performances according
to criteria suggested through discussions with the teacher. These criteria usually refer
to the content and the skills taught and practiced in class. Self-assessment encourages
the student to be active and reflect on the learning process and its product (Topping,
2003). It involves reflecting on past action and achievements, evaluating present
performance, and planning future goals. It enhances the learner’s responsibility and
improves the connection between the learner and his/her tutor (Shepard, 2000).
Peer assessment is grounded in the philosophy of active learning and in the socio-
cultural theory (Gipps, 1999), as it involves the construction of knowledge through
discourse. It refers to the opinions of colleagues regarding the work of an individual

according to criteria formulated ahead of time by the participants in negotiation with
a teacher. Self-assessments and peer assessments are frequently accompanied by
teacher assessment, which is often considered more credible (Maclellan, 2001). The
teacher is expected to engage students in feedback discussions, and to provide the
opportunity to negotiate assessment criteria.
Assessment and Curriculum in Programmes for the Gifted

Enrichment programmes expose gifted students to various areas of knowledge, and
enable comprehensive independent learning of subjects chosen by the student
(Renzulli, 1987; Van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). Therefore, assessing the
learning of gifted students must include multiple measures. In accordance with the
previous ideas, it is clear that assessment of students in programmes for the gifted
should be an integral part of the curriculum design, rather than a set of separated
tasks. Moreover, it should be a prelude to action planning for any new cycle of
curriculum implementation (Van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). As gifted
learners frequently present outcomes that are incompatible with the use of a single
assessment feature, then, by employing non-traditional assessment modes, teachers
could build effective documentation for the diverse practice and progress of the
learners. In this way, the unique capabilities of the gifted can be responded (Reis &
Renzulli, 1991; Van Tassel-Baska, 2002). Although the literature provides various
ideas on what assessment for the gifted should be, we found limited empirical
studies on the employment of assessment designed for gifted students, and almost
no reference to the gifted students’ voice regarding such assessments.
The Study
The department of the gifted and talented at the Israel Ministry of Education offers
a range of educational programmes for excellent students throughout the country.
All the second or third graders in the country are tested in order to identify students
with special talents who will be referred to various programmes. First, the students’
reading comprehension and mathematics are tested in the schools. Then the upper
15% take psychometric tests in special testing centres. Students who are among the
top 1–1.5% of their age group level are referred either to a regional gifted class where
they learn with other gifted students or to pull-out programmes. In these
programmes the students leave their regular school for one day per week to attend an
enrichment programme. The two options are based on availability of regional
resources and not on the students’ abilities. The programmes expose the students to
various areas of knowledge, including science and mathematics, and enable compre-
hensive independent learning of subjects chosen by the student. The students get to
elect their courses from a given list that includes science, fine arts, and social studies.
The programme does not include any formal testing, and commonly, at the end of
the year, the teachers provide the students with a general and descriptive summary
of their participation.
Participants
In this study we focused on 86 junior high school students (age 12–15 years) who
took part in six one-year courses within three regional pull-out programmes (centres)
for the gifted (see Table 1) that bring together students from various schools and
communities for one day per week. The female and male students participated in
cross-age groups in PBS courses that will be described in the following section.
The Courses
Based on the recommendation that talented and gifted students should be engaged
in ‘good research’ that will enable the development of their scientific thinking and
creativity (Berman, Goldberg, & Koichu, 2005), this study focused on PBS courses.
Table 1. Courses, students, and teachers
Course n Goal
Genetics 10 Expose students to molecular genetics and biotechnology, and

to moral and social issues related to molecular biology.
Advanced physics 13 Expose students to advanced issues in physics and engineering.
Journalist writing 12 Promote awareness to the media as a main factor that impacts
our life and society. To illustrate how the media deals with
issues that are anchored in other knowledge areas, such as
science, society, and art.
Robotics 17 Learn about robotics, build and use robotics in computerised
learning environments.
Brain research 16 Expose the students to the mysteries of the brain and sleep
research. Meet and learn from professionals in the field.
A journey to the universe 18 Learn selected ideas and phenomena in physics and astronomy.
In PBS, students are encouraged to come up with questions, design observations

and experiments, communicate their ideas, use learning technologies to find and
communicate solutions, and create artefacts that demonstrate their understanding
and serve as the starting point for discussion, feedback, and revision (Dori, 2003b;
Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, Bass, & Fredricks, 1998; Singer, Marx, Krajcik, & Clay
Chambers, 2000).
In these PBS courses, much of the work of the teacher is done with individuals or
small groups of students. As the teachers act more informally, and use indirect forms
of feedback in order to maintain students’ self-confidence, they are called tutors. In
each course the students were provided with all the necessary resources: laboratory
equipment, computers, reading materials, experts who volunteered to help, and
continuous support of the tutor. The projects were carried out by individuals, pairs,
or groups of three students according to the students’ preference. This was in accord
with the principle that encourages the students to choose their preferred type of
work.
The EAfL Framework

We strongly believe that relying on a single mode of assessment is problematic (Tal,
Dori, & Lazarowitz, 2000; Tal, 2005; Tal & Miedijensky, 2005) and we agree that
the curriculum for the gifted will not improve until meaningful classroom assessment
is incorporated as an integral part of this curriculum development process (Van
Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). The EAfL framework we employed (Tal &
Miedijensky, 2005) was informed by the constructivist approach to learning; teach-
ing and assessment that reflect a contextual–qualitative paradigm; and ideas about
what a learning environment and curriculum for the gifted should include. The
framework addresses the calls for integration of assessment and instruction, and
focuses on assessing the learning process as well as its products (Dori, 2003a). The
assessment included several components, which were embedded throughout the
learning stages and referred to individuals as well as to small groups of students and
involved a few agents in the assessment process (self, peer, and tutor). The model
was flexible; it allowed the tutor and the students to decide whether or not to include
parents and experts in the assessment of the final projects.
The assessment was embedded within three stages of each course, each stage
lasting 9–12 weeks. (1) Exposure, in which the students studied the scientific content
and were exposed to inquiry activities, and met researchers and experts in the field.
At that stage the students responded to a questionnaire that included a set of pre-
defined questions that required the students to (a) indicate the degree of participa-
tion in the learning activities, (b) detail new subjects that have been learned, (c)
explain the contribution of the various learning activities and the experts’ lectures to
their learning, and (d) indicate their difficulties and the questions they asked during
this stage. At the end of the exposure, the students employed self-assessment, and
set assessment criteria for the following stages. (2) Inquiry, during which the students
developed driving questions, carried out their investigation, and built models and
other representations. Towards the completion of this stage, self-assessments, peer

assessments, and tutor assessments were carried out. (3) Summary, in which the
students wrapped up their projects and presented them to the entire group, experts,
and/or peer teachers of the gifted and parents. It included students’ summative self-
assessment and peer assessment as well as tutor assessment of the final projects. At
the inquiry stage and by the end of the summary stage, the students were requested
to write about their progress, to address possible improvements or additions they
have made, describe their difficulties, and the way(s) they were tackled. Overall, the
questionnaires that were distributed at the three stages were similar.
Peer assessment was conducted in writing and as a group discussion. The tutor
gave written assessment in addition to meetings, in which the issues were examined
with the students, and further suggestions were made and discussed.
The framework of the embedded assessment across the courses is presented in
Figure 1 and the forms of assessments and examples are presented in Table 2.
Figure 1. The Assessment and Learning Framework
Scientific contents Formulating the

driving inquiry
Exposure Inquiry activities question
Self assessment
Meet experts & researches Defining
assessment
criteria
Adding/revising
Revise the driving inquiry Self assessment criteria
question
Peer discussions
Inquiry Investigation Peer assessment
Tutor meetings
Create products, models
and artefacts Tutor assessment Revising the
projects
Self assessment
Peer discourse
Conclude the investigation
Peer assessment Tutor meetings
Summary Present projects, models, Options to raise

experiments, artefacts, etc. Tutor assessment new and further
inquiry questions
Meet with experts &
Experts' & Parents' Analysing the
Parents
assessment projects
Stages Course activities Assessment modes and actions

Figure 1. The Assessment and Learning Framework
Table 2. Assessment forms, purposes, and examples
Stage Form of assessment and type of questionnaire Purpose Examples
Exposure Pre-inquiry questionnaire, open-ended Helping the students to What do you know about the subject? What questions
generate ideas for can be asked about it?
inquiry projects
Self-assessment, open-ended Self-assessment of the ‘In the exposure stage I learned how to …’. Did you
learning process acquire thinking strategies and/or research tools in the
exposure stage? If so, (a) describe them, (b) explain if
they helped you and how.
Inquiry Self-assessment, Likert and open-ended Formative assessment of ‘There is an appropriate use of diverse resources in the
the project and the project’—Mark your agreement level (do not agree at
learning process all—1; do not agree; not sure; agree; fully agree—5)
and provide an explanation for the choice you made.
Did you experience any difficulties? If so, what were
they? How did you overcome them or how do you
intend to deal with them?
Peer assessment (oral peer discussions and ‘There is a focused leading inquiry idea in the
written), Likert and open questions project’—Mark your agreement level (no agreement at
all—1; no agreement; not sure; agree; full agreement—
5) and provide an explanation for the choice you made.
Tutor assessment, Likert and open questions ‘There is an appropriate use of diverse media and/or
accessories in the project’—Mark your agreement level
(from 1 to 5) and provide an explanation for the choice
you made.
Summary Self-assessment, Likert and open-ended Summative assessment ‘The use of research tools is suitable and correct’—
of the project Mark your agreement level (from 1 to 5) and provide
an explanation for the choice you made.
Peer assessment (discussions and written
assessment), Likert and open-ended
Tutor assessment, Likert and open-ended Did your project enhance your creativity? Explain.
experts’ and parents’ assessment (discussions
and written assessment), Likert and open-ended
Data Collection
While the majority of the studies on students’ perceptions are quantitative and are
based on Likert-type questionnaires (Struyven et al., 2003), in this study we
employed an interpretative methodology using open-ended response question-
naires and semi-structured interviews in order to gain a deeper understanding of
how students view assessment. Additionally, we believe that a qualitative study
allows better expression and interpretation of these articulated individuals’ verbal
skills.
Questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed at the beginning and at the end
of each course. The questions addressed the students’ perception of assessment and
their understanding and preferences of different assessment modes. Examples of
questions are presented in Appendix A.
Semi-structured interviews. In order to deeply explore the students’ perceptions of

assessment and the impact of the AfL they experienced, we interviewed two students
at the end of each course (altogether 12 students). As all of the students were gifted
by definition, the interviewees were selected by their tutors based on our request for
outgoing talkative informants who are not necessarily the brightest individuals in
class. The interviews, which lasted 20–30 min, were audiotaped and transcribed
verbatim. The interview protocol (see Appendix B) included questions that
addressed the students’ perception of assessment and different modes of assessment
and the impacts of the AfL on their learning.
Data Analysis
The students’ responses were content analysed according to three main themes:
general view of assessment, ideas about assessment modes, and relationships
between assessment and learning. These themes were then classified by categories
based on inductive analysis as illustrated in Table 3.
In order to establish an acceptable degree of inter-judgmental reliability with
regard to the classification of the questionnaire responses, two trained researchers
classified each statement in two stages. The first 50 responses were coded together
by two researchers in order to understand and agree upon the themes and categories.
At the second stage, 40 statements were independently coded by each researcher
and the inter-rater reliability was 0.8. Incidents of disagreements were discussed
until fully agreed upon by the two researchers.
The interviews enabled deep exploration of the students’ views. Forty statements
obtained by the interview were first classified into the above categories by two
researchers who agreed upon the classification. The statements were then analysed
independently by the two researchers (inter-rater reliability = 0.9). Again, incidents
of disagreements were discussed until fully agreed upon by the two researchers.
Table 3. Themes, categories, and explanations
Theme Category Type of responses

General view of assessment Purposes and meaning of assessment Addressing the nature of assessment, its goal, meanings, and
what assessment enables.
Time for assessment Addressing the time when assessment should take place.
Preferences to who assesses Addressing the students’ preferences with regard to who assesses
their work and learning process.
Views of assessment modes Meaning of assessment modes Addressing the essence of the different assessment modes (self,
peer, tutor, experts, and parents) or insights about their
characteristics and contribution.
Relevance of assessment modes Addressing the pertinency of the assessment modes.
Awareness to relationships between Assessment directs learning Addressing one-way impact: progress in learning as a
assessment and learning consequence of assessment.
Mutual impact Addressing bidirectional influences of learning and assessment.
No relationships Addressing no relationship/link between assessment and learning.
Findings
General View of Assessment
The pre/post questionnaire analysis indicates changes in students’ perception of the
idea of assessment that occurred during the course period and as a consequence of
experiencing the AfL framework. Table 4 presents the changes in the various aspects.
Significant differences between the pre/post questionnaires were found with
regard to the three main categories and most of the subcategories. An example of
shifting from viewing assessment as criticism to viewing assessment as a constructive
and detailed feedback is provided in the following quote from a student’s pre and
post questionnaires.
Assessment means criticizing students’ performances. (Dan, pre questionnaire)
I think that assessment is actually a way to explain what you think about your learning.
Not criticize, but give a constructive feedback that helps. (Dan, post questionnaire)
The clear changes in students’ views of assessment were evident in the interviews as
well as seen in the following quotes.
Purposes and meaning of assessment. Ben, who described how his idea of assessment
has developed, shifted away from the traditional framework of assessment.
For me, assessment was always a grade, an achievement. That’s the way we were taught
in school and at home, you know. This is usually the role of the teacher, and we were
taught that as well. With the entire process that we had in this course, I understood that
assessment for me is first and foremost something that enables me to have a type of
freedom rather than predetermined. It’s not a grade and that’s it. (Ben)
He realised as well that assessment is not the sole function of the teacher, and that
the students are partners in the entire process; they must assume responsibility
which, in retrospect, allows them a type of autonomy.
Also rising from the interviews was the idea of assessment as a cyclic process that
allows the examination of further learning.
Today, I interpret assessment in a number of ways. For example, assessment is an
expression of your learning and learning is an outcome of your assessment. In other
words, everything is circular, but perhaps it’s more precise to say it goes forward and
then backwards. I examine, change, and proceed, a type of feedback that flows all the
time, whether it comes from me or from my friends or the teacher. (Natalie)
At this stage, Natalie sees assessment as dynamic and embedded in learning. She
conceives it as an integral, inseparable part of learning that enables self-reflection
and feedback from peers and the teacher. Moreover, she views assessment as cyclic
and continuous.
Time for assessment. When asked in the questionnaires about the preferred time for
assessment, similar numbers of students preferred assessment during the course or
Table 4. Students’ views of assessment
Pre questionnaire Post questionnaire

Category (n = 84) (%) (n = 86) (%) χ2
Purposes and meaning of assessment

(Assessment as) Criticism 68 38 14.8, p = .0001
(Assessment as) The teacher’s role 15 11 Not significant

(Assessment as) Tests and scores 11 8 Not significant
Allows autonomy and a range of performances 6 28 14.4, p = .0001
(as) Iterative process 0 15 13.7, p = .0002
Time for assessment
End of the course 45 26 7.1, p = .007
During the course 43 36 Not significant
During and at the end of the course 12 38 15.7, p < .0001
Preferences of who assesses
Experts and/or other teachers (as well) 19 31 Not significant
The course teacher (only) 40 7 26.4, p < .0001
Parents (as well) 4 15 6.5, p = .02
The students and their teacher (only) 37 47 Not significant
at its end, while only a few preferred being assessed throughout the project. An
example of change in this dimension is provided in Ophir’s interview.
Ophir: I remember this question (from the questionnaires) …

Researcher: Do you remember what you wrote?
Ophir: Yes, then, I wanted assessment to be only at the end of the year I thought
that was the way it should be …
Researcher: What do you think now?
Ophir: I prefer assessment to take place all the time … It’s important for me to get
feedback on my work and on what I do in class, and improve while learn-
ing. An assessment that summarizes everything I’m doing all year around
is just as important for me.
At that stage Ophir viewed assessment as a dual process: a summary, but one that is
founded on the continuous embedded assessment.
Preferences as to who assesses. At the end of the course, more students stated that
experts or other teachers of the gifted could take part in reviewing their work as well.
Tal explains why experts should participate in the assessment:
Researcher: Do you think that experts should participate in doing assessment?

Tal: Yes, today I’m sure of that.
Researcher: Why? Can you explain?
Tal: Talking with Ron [a mechanical engineer working in robotics] helped me a
great deal. He really opened new horizons of thinking for me. I’m already
thinking of how I can develop a barrier for trains that will be easier to
operate and could be used for pedestrians, vehicles, and trains … Yes, he
helped me, as well as Eli [the course instructor].
At the beginning of the course only a few students were willing to accept parents as
assessors, but at the end students were more positive about it—as expressed by
Omer, who realised that involving her parents has contributed to her science project,
and she enjoyed their contribution.
We’re a bit shy with our parents. We want to be independent, so I thought that it would
be nice for parents to be there when we present our projects and that’s all – sort of like a
show. But there’s a big difference when they are active participants. We really talked
about my project and we also went over my friends’ projects together and evaluated
them. I learned from this at the end of the course as well. It was a good experience.
Now, I opened up and involve my parents in projects that I’m working on. I understood
that I can learn from the people closest to me … (Omer)
Assessment Modes
In this section we illustrate the shifts in students’ views with regard to characteristics
of the different modes of assessment. Table 5 presents the characteristics that
emerged from the questionnaire data with regard to specific features of self-
assessment, peer assessment, tutor assessment, and expert assessment.
Table 5. Students’ perception assessment modes
Pre questionnaire Post questionnaire

Mode Meaning (n = 84) (%) (n = 86) (%)
Self (As) A reflection process* 48 63

Peer (Allows) Constructive feedback *** 36 83
Tutor Promotes students’ learning** 38 60
Expert Helps evaluating knowledge** 36 56
Note: *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p. ≤ .001.
The significant shift toward a more complex view of the different dimensions of
assessment is supported by the interview data as well. Excerpts from students’
interviews that address the characteristics of the various assessment modes are
presented in Table 6, and Figure 2 shows the changes in students’ perception with
respect to the relevance of the various assessments, based on the questionnaire
data.
All of the differences between the pre and the post questionnaire were significant
Figure 2. Relevance of the assessment modes
(parents, χ2 = 4.3, p < .05; peer, χ2 = 16.5, p < .0001; experts, χ2 = 5.3, p < .05;
self, χ2 = 71.5, p < .00001). As the tutor in these courses is working very closely with
the students, it is clear why there was such an agreement with regard to the relevance
of the his/her assessment.
The changes in the importance students attributed to multiple assessment modes
are echoed in Sapir’s interview:
100
90
80
Students (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Relevant (Pre) Relevant (Post)
Parents assessment Expert assessment

Peer assessment Self assessment
Tutor assessment
Figure 2. Relevance of the assessment modes

Table 6. Students’ perception of the characteristics of the various assessment modes
Quote Characteristics
‘Self-assessment is what a person thinks about himself: a person assesses himself …. This Reflective dimension—self-assessment
is reflecting my learning process through which I discover advantages and disadvantages
in my work’ (Maayan).
‘At first I thought that I needed to give my friends grades on their projects - you know, Constructive and formative—peer assessment
like teachers usually give. After several peer meetings, I understood that this is actually a
process of giving constructive feedback that helped my friends make changes in the
projects …’ (Jonathan).
‘… the tutor must be able to give an overview. He should look at the details separately as Look at the whole picture and the details—tutor
well as a whole. He should address each one’s learning process. It is like you look on assessment
Nahalal [a name of a village] from the air. It looks as one circle, but it actually consisted
of individuals, houses, farms and roads. Likewise, we the students, the individuals, the
road is our learning and everything we are going through. As a consequence … the whole
is bigger than its parts …’ (Yaniv).
‘I always see an expert as someone knowledgeable and I therefore thought that he was Supportive non-judgmental—expert assessment
supposed to give me a grade … Throughout the process I realized that I could actually
approach the expert as a person who helps me by examining my knowledge rather than
as a person who is examining me’ (Tal).
I think that experiencing self-assessment, peer assessment, and the help of the experts’
assessment was appropriate to my learning process and to the project itself. It contrib-
uted a great deal to my understanding of the learning material and improving my
work.
Sapir was somewhat apologetic with regard to parent assessment:

I’m not sure about it yet. It didn’t do any particular harm, but it didn’t specifically help
me as well. Therefore, I think that all in all it’s nice, but not necessarily relevant. There
are students for whom it’s more suitable. It fitted me the least. At home I’m also usually
on my own.
Overall, the students acknowledged the relevance and the specific contributions of
the various assessments, attributing less importance to the parents and the experts’
involvement in the assessment.
Students’ Awareness of Relationships between Assessment and Learning

Based on the questionnaire data, we found that the students believed assessment
impacts and directs learning (41% pre; 58% post), there is mutual influence between
assessment and learning (25% pre; 29% post), or there is no connection between
learning and assessment (34% pre; 13% post). The differences were significant
(χ2(2) = 11.471, p < .01).
Viewing assessment and learning as hierarchical (assessment affects learning) or as
affecting each other (mutual) was evident in the interviews as well.
Assessment gave me direction for building my project … and it enabled making
changes. For example, I changed the questionnaire that I developed for the students,
and performed an additional experiment in the end … (Natalie; hierarchical)
There is a bi-directional connection between assessment and learning. I mean that
assessment changed my learning, and what I learned affected my way of assessment.
The things I learned helped me address suitable questions that I have asked in the peer
assessment meetings and even when I performed my self assessment. In this way there is
mutual impact and each influences the other. (Ben; mutual)
Ben views assessment as a tool for promoting learning, but views learning as affecting
his ability to perform higher quality assessment during the advanced stages of his
work.
The decrease in the number of students who found no connection between
assessment and learning implies that they figured out that learning and assessment
are strongly related.
Recognition of relationships between assessment modes (i.e. self, peer, tutor,
experts, and parents) and learning emerged in the analysis of the interviews, and
referred mainly to the impacts of the different assessments on learning. The inter-
views enabled us to examine these perceptions more closely, finding that the
students’ responses addressed cognitive, social, and affective aspects. Table 7
presents the percentages of interviewees who addressed each mode and examples of
students’ responses that addressed the various impacts and modes.
Table 7. Influences of the assessment modes on learning
Assessment mode (%)
Impacts on Students (%)

learning (n = 12) Self Peer Tutor Experts Parents Quote
Fosters asking 100 58 92 75 50 na ‘If I think about it, peer assessment didn’t really make me
questions ask more questions, but made me ask more accurate
questions. It was as if it was tailored for me and helped me
progress. It helped me more in understanding what didn’t
work out in my experiment’ (Natalie).
Develops thinking 92 67 50 83 33 na ‘Peer assessment really made me think critically and not
skills judgmentally about my own project as well as on others’.
Every question could lead to another and that was the way we
constructed a discussion among ourselves’ (Tal).
Examines and 100 58 67 100 17 na ‘My tutor’s assessment enabled me to examine in depth the
improves learning topic of my project, particularly the influence of force on the
movement of the wagon. The feedback that I received from
him really gave me directions for my project. I really
understood the subject of forces and from that moment
onward I made real changes and progress in the building
process’ (David).
Enables self- 92 92 75 25 na na ‘I always evaluate myself, but actually I could only do this in
reflection the course and do it again afterwards. I really developed my
reflection. I really reflect processes to myself that I
couldn’t do before out loud or at all’ (Maayan).
Enables different 100 na 100 50 58 12 ‘When we performed peer assessment on my project, I was
interpretations asked questions that helped me to learn, to examine
additional things, and items that I hadn’t paid attention
to. It definitely gave me different explanations or
interpretations about what I had done in my project up
to that point. It enabled me to examine it from several
angles’ (Omer).
Table 7. (Continued)
Assessment mode (%)
Impacts on Students (%)

learning (n = 12) Self Peer Tutor Experts Parents Quote
Enables social 67 na 67 na na na ‘I enjoyed the peer assessment meetings very much! I met
connections Noam through these meetings who hadn’t spoken to me
since we began studying at the center. I was exposed to
ways of thinking that were different than mine …’ (Dan).
Increases self- 75 42 67 58 42 25 ‘The meetings (peer assessment) increased my self-
confidence and confidence. During the second meeting I already felt that I
motivation could speak more and interest others’ (Ophir).
na = not applicable.
Although the interviewed students acknowledged that the various assessment

modes influenced their learning with regard to cognitive, social, and affective aspects,
the cognitive aspects were more evident with respect to most of the assessment
modes.
Figure 3 is a representation that allows looking at the different features of assess-
ment, by assessment mode. It shows that peer assessment had the greatest impact on
students’ learning in all aspects, and that parent assessment had the least impact on
learning. In the feature level, it seems that most of the features were highly
addressed, with only fair impact on self-reflection and very little impact on social
relationships.
Most of the interviewees pointed to reflection not only as an aspect of self-
Figure 3. Influences of the assessment modes on learning
assessment, but as to a result of peer assessment. Natalie described how each peer-
assessment meeting motivated her to do repeat self-assessment.
I think that there is a connection between peer assessment and self assessment, which
strongly influenced me. I’d find myself doing self assessment after peer meetings that
were focused on my work, and sometimes after those that focused on others.
Affective responses with regard to self-assessment and tutor assessment were

found as well. It is evident that self-assessment increased students’ confidence in
their ability to assess themselves and their learning in general, and their science
learning in particular. In her interview, Ophir’s responses revealed what she
thought about tutor assessment and the connections she found between tutor and
self-assessment:
… tutor assessment reinforced my feelings regarding the way I had progressed in my
project. I was capable of better evaluation of myself after a discussion with my tutor. It
gave me a real good feeling of improvement.
modes
Assessment
questions
Fosters
thinking skills
Develops
learning
improves
Directs and
Self-reflection
interpretations
Different
connections
Social
and motivation
Self-confidence
Self
Peer
Tutor
Experts
Parents
Figure 3. Influences of the assessment modes on learning

The students noted that the feedback they received from their tutor increased their
self-confidence and their ability to recognise gains as well as limitations in their
work.
Discussion
The present study investigated how gifted students who participate in PBS courses
perceived the EAfL we developed. Our findings indicate positive impacts of EAfL
on the students’ views of assessment and reinforce the importance of understand-
ing these views in order to improve the features and effects of assessment. This is
in line with the argument that students’ views of assessment seem to have a signifi-
cant influence on their learning (Maclellan, 2001; Sambell, McDowell, & Brown,
1997; Topping, 2003). The differences between the students’ views at the
beginning and at the end of the course indicate that they had changed their initial
traditional perceptions of assessment as summative, quantitative, and done by the

teacher. At the end, the students perceived the assessment as an integral part of
their science project and their overall learning process, which corresponded with
their unique needs. They viewed the assessment in the courses as a social process
that involves students, teachers, and even parents and community members. Since
the courses took time, and the meetings occurred only once a week, one could
claim that other factors such as the regular school or even time and maturation
should be considered to contribute to this shift. We cannot entirely denounce this
concern; however, our data indicate nothing of this sort of assessment was
employed in the regular schools; and indicate the students strongly associated their
views to the assessment components, and provided relevant examples that support
our claim.
Eventually, the students viewed assessment as a means of expressing autonomous
learning and a range of performances. They advocated the different assessment
modes they had experienced, and regarded self-assessment and peer assessment as
means to promote learning through their science projects, enhance motivation, and
improve their social relationship. This is in accord with Segers and Dochy (2001),
who found that students viewed self-assessment and peer assessment as stimulating
learning and acknowledging their broad cognitive and social impacts.
According to the idea of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978),
learning is more meaningful, while a more experienced and mature individual
supports and mediates meaningful learning of youngsters. However, in our study, we
found that the students appreciated the parents’ and the experts’ involvement in
assessment less than the other forms of assessment they experienced.
We assume that the occasional interaction with these adults allowed only some
extent of interaction compared with the more intensive interaction within the
students’ groups and with the course’s tutors. Nevertheless, we believe that inviting
community members to take part in the process allows the students to discuss science
issues and challenges, and, as a consequence, it enables them to intellectually interact
with individuals beyond the school (Tal, Dori, & Lazarowitz, 2000; Tal, 2004).
At the beginning of the course, the tutor assessment was perceived as focused
on grades. At the end, students believed it promoted their learning, and perceived
it as an interactive constructive process. In line with Gilbert (2006), we suggest
that the students built a type of ‘cognitive apprenticeship’ with the tutors who
were experts in interpreting the setting. The teachers asked guiding questions and
enabled the students to reflect upon their work. In addition, they suggested possi-
ble solutions, or began the inquiry process and enabled the students continue in
cooperation with others. These are examples for cognitive apprenticeship (Gilbert,
2006). Furthermore, under the lens of the socio-cultural theory of learning
(Lemke, 2001; Shepard, 2000), tutor assessment can be regarded as working
within the zone of proximal development. Thus, tutor assessment provides oppor-
tunities to discuss, disagree with, reflect on, and develop scientific claims, and it
can foster the development of knowledge by individual students (Anderson,
Zuiker, Taasoobshirazi, & Hickey, 2007). As such, it allows exploration within the
zone of proximal development created for a given child, at a given moment, by

ongoing interaction with the tutor as well as peers (Allal & Pelgrims Ducrey,
2000).
The students recognised AfL as an integral part of their science project and their
overall learning process, which directs and improves learning and contributes to
their scientific knowledge. This is in accord with Birenbaum et al. (2006) who
described AfL as formative, embedded into curriculum, and enabling flexibility
and changes, and with other scholars who found that students who experienced
different modes of assessment viewed learning and assessment as fully integrated
constituents (Drew, 2001; Maclellan, 2001; Sambell et al., 1997; Thomson &
Falchikov, 1998).
The students referred to the impacts of the assessment modes on learning, as
well as to the relationships between the various types of assessment. The main
impact was the encouragement to ask questions. All of the assessment modes
contributed to the students’ self-confidence and motivation, with peer assessment
having the highest impact on their learning, in the cognitive as well as in the social
and affective domains. The peer assessment meetings enabled the gifted students to
discuss their science project and to work collaboratively. This collaboration has
distinct advantages related to learning for gifted students, such as enculturation
into the discipline and increasing motivation (Diezmann & Watters, 2001). In
addition, students indicated that peer assessment meetings increased their self-
reflection. This is in line with Topping (2003), who claimed that feedback (correc-
tive, confirmatory, or suggestive), such as that given by peers, could increase
reflection and promote self-awareness. Individuals facilitate each other’s learning
through shared dialogue and negotiation when they co-construct meaning of events
and ideas (Anderson et al., 2007; Vygotsky, 1978).
Our findings imply that assessment explicitly designed to promote learning can be
powerful for teachers as well as for students. Teachers of the gifted can employ the
whole embedded assessment for learning framework or use several components in
courses that involve science as well as in other courses.
In congruence with Reis and Renzulli (1991) and Van Tassel Baska and Stam-
baugh (2006), we believe that embedded assessment, such as the one we employed
in this study, should be an integral part of any curriculum design and development.
This is true in particular with regard to programmes for gifted students that address
these students’ need for challenging higher order thinking curricula. The study adds
to the understanding of the contribution of various assessment approaches and, in
particular, to understanding of the unique discourse that develops while ‘culture of
assessment’ develops (Tal & Kedmi, 2006). By following the groups of students
through extended inquiry projects, developing the assessments together with them,
and discussing their characteristics, limitations, and advantages, we showed how
assessment supported the students’ learning. This study would help in developing
learning environments that incorporate authentic assessment in project-based
programmes in science (and other fields) in general, and in pull-out programmes for
the gifted in particular. Finally, the findings of this study have strengthened our
belief that the students’ voice is important to further improve the assessment and its
impact on learning.
References
Allal, L., & Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment of–or in–the zone of proximal development.
Learning and Instruction, 10, 137–152.
Anderson, K. T., Zuiker, S. J., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Hickey, D. T. (2007). Classroom discourse
as a tool to enhance formative assessment and practice in science. International Journal of
Science Education, 29, 1721–1744.
Berman, A., Goldberg, F., & Koichu, B. (2005). Good research conducted by talented high school
students: The case of sci-tech. Gifted Education International, 20, 220–228.
Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Dori, Y., Ridgway, J., et al. (2006).
Position paper: A learning integrated assessment system. Educational Research Review, 1,
61–67.
Black, P. (1995). Assessment and feedback in science education. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
21, 257–279.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5,
7–74.
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on
challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 7–31.
Dochy, F., & McDowell, L. (1997). Introduction assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 23, 279–298.
Dori, Y. J. (2003a). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded
assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the matriculation 2000 Project. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40, 34–52.
Dori, Y. J. (2003b). A framework for project-based assessment in science education. In M. Segers,
F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and
standards (pp. 89–118), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Dori, Y. J. (2007). Educational reform at MIT: Advancing and evaluating technology-based
projects on- and off-campus. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 279–281.
Drew, S. (2001). Students’ perceptions of what helps them learn and develop in higher education.
Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 309–331.
Entwistle, N. J., & Entwistle, A. (1991). Constructing forms of understanding for degree exam-
inations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205–227.
Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ‘context’ in chemical education. International Journal of
Science Education, 28, 957–976.
Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355–392.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, C. P., Marx, W. R., Bass, M. K., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in
project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of
the Learning Science, 7, 313–350.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.
Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and students.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307–318.
Reis, M. S., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted
and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 128–134.
Renzulli, J. (1987). The positive side of pull-out programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
10, 245–253.
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). ‘But it is fair?’ An exploratory study of students
perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23,

349–371.
Segers, M., & Dochy, F. (2001). New assessment forms in problem-based learning: The value-
added of the students’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 327–343.
Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment engineering: Changing
perspectives on teaching and learning and the role of new modes of assessment. In M. Segers,
F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and
standards (pp. 1–12), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Shavelson, R. J. (2007). A brief history of student learning assessment: How we got where we are and a
proposal for where to go next. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Shepard, A. L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–14.
Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry
projects: curriculum materials, for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35,
165–178.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Students’ perceptions about new modes of assess-
ment in higher education: a review. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing
new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 171–223), Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Tal, R. T. (2004). Community-based environmental education—a case study of teacher–parent
collaboration. Environmental Education Research, 10, 523–543.
Tal, R. T. (2005). Implementing multiple assessment modes in an interdisciplinary environmen-
tal education course. Environmental Education Research, 11, 575–601.
Tal, R. T., Dori, Y. J., & Lazarowitz, R. (2000). A project-based alternative assessment system.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 171–191.
Tal, R. T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’
performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 615–644.
Tal, R. T., & Miedijensky, S. (2005). A model of alternative embedded assessment in a pull-out
enrichment program for the gifted. Gifted Education International, 20, 166–186.
Thomson, K., & Falchikov, N. (1998). ‘Full on until the sun comes out’: The effects of assess-
ment on student approaches to studying. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23,
379–390.
Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and
utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: In
search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Treagust, D. F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallagher, J. L., & Parker, J. (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.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2002). Assessment of gifted learning in the language arts. The Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 67–72.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for the gifted learners (3rd
ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Appendix 1. Examples of questionnaire items
1. Please define according to your perception, what “assessment” means to you?

2. Do you think assessment should take place during or at the end of the course?
Why?
3. Who do you think should be the participants (the teacher course, students,
experts, other teachers of the gifted, parents) in the assessment process? Why?
4. Explain in your own words, what is “self-assessment”, do you think it should
take place in the course? Why?
5. Please explain in your own words, what is “peer-assessment”, do you think it
should take place in the course? Why?
6. Based on what criteria do you want your learning and project to be assessed in
the course? Why?
Appendix 2. Student interview protocol
What is “assessment”? What does it mean to you?

Do you think there is a need for “assessment” in the programmes for the gifted? Why?
When do you think “assessment” should take place? Why?
How do you want to be assessed? Why?
What kind of assessment do you prefer in the programmes for the gifted? Why?
What does self-assessment mean to you? Why?
What does peer-assessment mean to you? Why?
What does tutor assessment mean to you? Why?
What does expert assessment mean to you? Why?
Do you think parents should be part of the assessment process? Why?
Is there any connection between learning process and assessment? Why?

907016866

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

907016866

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [FErnandez, Nancy]

On: 16 February 2010

International Journal of Science Education

Embedded Assessment in Project-based Science Courses for the Gifted:

First published on: 19 December 2008

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Embedded Assessment in Project-

*Corresponding author. Technion, Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/09/182411–25

understanding. Assessment is part of his idea of the learning environment, which

AfL, Self, Peers and Tutor Assessment

Current assessment practices tend to focus on Assessment of learning. Such ‘testing’

AfL aims at improving students’ learning when it occurs, and as a consequence it is

1. Include challenging tasks to elicit higher-order thinking.

discourse. It refers to the opinions of colleagues regarding the work of an individual

Assessment and Curriculum in Programmes for the Gifted

Table 1. Courses, students, and teachers

Genetics 10 Expose students to molecular genetics and biotechnology, and

In PBS, students are encouraged to come up with questions, design observations

The EAfL Framework

other representations. Towards the completion of this stage, self-assessments, peer

Figure 1. The Assessment and Learning Framework

Scientific contents Formulating the

Summary Present projects, models, Options to raise

Stages Course activities Assessment modes and actions

Table 2. Assessment forms, purposes, and examples

Stage Form of assessment and type of questionnaire Purpose Examples

Semi-structured interviews. In order to deeply explore the students’ perceptions of

Table 3. Themes, categories, and explanations

Theme Category Type of responses

Table 4. Students’ views of assessment

Pre questionnaire Post questionnaire

Purposes and meaning of assessment

(Assessment as) The teacher’s role 15 11 Not significant

Ophir: I remember this question (from the questionnaires) …

Researcher: Do you think that experts should participate in doing assessment?

Table 5. Students’ perception assessment modes

Pre questionnaire Post questionnaire

Self (As) A reflection process* 48 63

Note: *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p. ≤ .001.

Parents assessment Expert assessment

Figure 2. Relevance of the assessment modes

Table 6. Students’ perception of the characteristics of the various assessment modes

Sapir was somewhat apologetic with regard to parent assessment:

Students’ Awareness of Relationships between Assessment and Learning

Table 7. Influences of the assessment modes on learning

Assessment mode (%)

Impacts on Students (%)

Assessment mode (%)

Impacts on Students (%)

motivation could speak more and interest others’ (Ophir).

Although the interviewed students acknowledged that the various assessment

Affective responses with regard to self-assessment and tutor assessment were

Figure 3. Influences of the assessment modes on learning

traditional perceptions of assessment as summative, quantitative, and done by the

zone of proximal development created for a given child, at a given moment, by

perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23,

Appendix 1. Examples of questionnaire items

1. Please define according to your perception, what “assessment” means to you?

Appendix 2. Student interview protocol

What is “assessment”? What does it mean to you?

You might also like

Note: p ≤ .05, p ≤ .01, p. ≤ .001.