International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2015, Vol. 11(3) 50-63

An Action Research on Employing Constructivist Multi-Assessment Strategy in Teacher Education

Kerim Gündoğdu

pp. 50 - 63   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2015.004

Published online: October 15, 2015  |   Number of Views: 2  |  Number of Download: 24


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of utilizing the multi-assessment strategy through a constructivist learning atmosphere with regard to perceptions of the pre-service teachers. The participants were 98 third year (junior) pre-service teachers attending to classroom management course in a public university in Turkey. Action research methodology and mixed method were utilized to collect data in this study. The results showed that classroom management field was acknowledged very positively by the most of the pre-service teachers. The authentic activities utilized during the authentic instructions were positively recognized, although they admitted that all process was tiring and took long time. Although open ended questions yielded both positive and negative aspects, utilizing multi-assessment strategy was indicated mostly by the participants as highly effective. Findings indicated that employing constructivist assessment in teacher education may yield positive impacts especially when doing it learning by doing.

Keywords: multiple assessment, constructivism, teacher training, pre-service teachers


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Gundogdu, K. (2015). An Action Research on Employing Constructivist Multi-Assessment Strategy in Teacher Education . International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 50-63.

Harvard
Gundogdu, K. (2015). An Action Research on Employing Constructivist Multi-Assessment Strategy in Teacher Education . International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), pp. 50-63.

Chicago 16th edition
Gundogdu, Kerim (2015). "An Action Research on Employing Constructivist Multi-Assessment Strategy in Teacher Education ". International Journal of Progressive Education 11 (3):50-63.

References
  1. Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. Retrieved 17 November 2009 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/theory.htm [Google Scholar]
  2. Akar, H. (2004). Impact of constructivist learning process on preservice teacher education students’ performance, retention, and attitudes (Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University. Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akar, H., Erden, F. T., Tor, D. & Şahin, İ. T. (2010). Study on teachers’ classroom management approaches and experiences. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 792-806. Retrived 02 April 2010 from [Online]: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr [Google Scholar]
  4. Akgün, Ö. et. al. (2005). İlköğretim programlarının öğretmen yeterlilikleri açısından değerlendirilmesi (Evaluation of the elementary curricula regarding the competencies). Paper presented at the Evaluation of the New Curricula Symposium. Erciyes Üniversity & Tekışık Foundation. 14-16 November 2005, Kayseri, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, R. S. & Puckett, J. B. (2003). Assessing students’ problem-solving assignment: In D. S.  Knowlton, & D. Sharp (Eds.), Problem-based learning for the information age. (pp. 81-89). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aschbacher, P. R. (1994). Helping educators to develop and use alternative assessments: Barriers and facilitators. Educational Policy, 8, 202-223. [Google Scholar]
  7. Aytunga, O. (2008). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin gelişim dosyası, başarı testi ve tutum puanları arasındaki ilişki. Dumlupınar University Social Sciences Journal, 21, 45-60. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bailey, B. (1997). Portfolio assessment: Teacher perceptions of the usefulness in early childhood settings. Retrieved 22 December 2009 from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 9721196) [Google Scholar]
  9. Bahar, M., Nartgün, Z., Durmuş, S. & Bıçak, B. (2006). Geleneksel-alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme: Öğretmen el kitabı (Traditional-alternative measurement and evaluation: Teacher handbook). Ankara: PegemA Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bekiroğlu  (2008).  Utilization  of  attitude  maps  in  evaluating  teachers'  attitudes  towards      assessment. Retrieved 10 December 2009 from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v9_issue1/feral/feral5.htm#a [Google Scholar]
  11. Birembaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F. Dori, Y., Ridway, J. Wiesemes, R. & Nickmans, G. (2006). A learning integrated assessment system. Educational Research Review, 1, 61-67. [Google Scholar]
  12. Black, P. & William, D. (2003). In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623-637. [Google Scholar]
  13. Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, CA: ASCD. [Google Scholar]
  15. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar]
  16. Coll, C., Rochera, M. J., Mayordomo, R. M. & Naranjo, M. (2007). Continuous assessment and support for learning: an experience in educational innovation with ICT support in higher education. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(3), 783-804. [Google Scholar]
  17. Çakan, M. (2004). Öğretmenlerin ölçme-değerlendirme uygulamaları ve yeterlik düzeyleri: ilk ve ortaöğretim (Comparison of elementary and secondary school teachers in terms of their assessment practices and perceptions toward their qualification levels).Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences), 37(2), 99-114. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dhindsa, H., Omar, K. & Waldrip, B. (2007). Upper secondary Bruneian science students’ perceptions of assessment. International Journal of Education, 29(10), 1261-1280. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dochy, F. & Moerkerke, G. (1997). The present, the past and the future of achievement testing and performance assessment. International Journal of Educational Research , 27, 415-432. [Google Scholar]
  20. Doğan, A. & Kaya, O. N. (2009). Poster sessions as an authentic assessment approach in an open-ended university general chemistry laboratory. Retrieved December, 1,  2009,  from www.sciencedirect.com. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ediger, M. (2000). Assessment of student achievement and the curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447202) [Google Scholar]
  22. Effie, M. (2004). How convincing is alternative assessment for use in higher education? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29(3), 311-321. [Google Scholar]
  23. Elharrar, Y. (2006). Teacher assessment practices and perceptions: The use of alternative assessments within the Quebec educational reform. Retrieved 12 December 2009 from http://www.proquest.com [Google Scholar]
  24. Elkhader, V. (2008). A comparison of student and teacher perceptions of assessment in science classrooms  in South Dakota (Doctoral dissertation) UMI No:3333956. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ersoy, F. (2006). Opinions of teacher candidates as to the portfolio assessment. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 85-95. Retrieved on 17 December 2009 [online] http://ilkogretim- online.org.tr/vol5say1/v5s1m7.PDF [Google Scholar]
  26. Eryaman, M. Y. (2007). From reflective practice to practical wisdom: Toward a post-foundational teacher education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 3(1), 87-107. [Google Scholar]
  27. Eryaman, M. Y. & Genc, S. Z. (2010). Learning theories. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gagnon, G. W. & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design Thousands Oak, CA: Corwin Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gilligan, M. E. (2007). Traditional versus alternative assessments: Which type do high school teachers perceive as most effective in the assessment of higher order thinking skills? Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3324163) [Google Scholar]
  30. Gündoğdu, K. (2010). The effect of constructivist instruction on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward  human rights education. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(1), 333-352. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L. & Schmidt, M. (2002). Perspectives on alternative assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 69-95. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jadallah, E. (2000). Constructivist learning experiences for social studies education. The Social Studies. 91(5), 221-225. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology 34(4), 34-37. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kesal, F. & Aksu, M. (2005). Constructivist learning environment ın Elt methodology II courses. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal), 28, 118- 126. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kinnucan-Welsch, K. & Jenlink, P. M. (1998). Challenging assumptions about teaching and learning: three case studies in constructivist pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(4), 413-427. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kyriacou, C.(1993). Effective teaching in schools. Herts: T.J Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. LaBonty, J. and Everts-Danielson, K. (1992). Alternative assessment and feedback techniques in methods courses. The Clearing House, 65(3), 186-190. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lawrence, M., & Pallrand, G. J. (2000). A case study of the effectiveness of teacher experience in the use of explanation-based assessment in high school physics. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 36- 47. [Google Scholar]
  39. Marlowe, A. B. & Page, L. M. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. CA: Corwin Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage. [Google Scholar]
  41. Menéndez, R. (Director). (1988). Stand and deliver [Movie]. United States: American Playhouse. [Google Scholar]
  42. Meyer, D. K., & Tusin, L. F. (1999). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of portfolios: Process versus   product. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 131-139. [Google Scholar]
  43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mintah, J. K., (2003). Authentic assessment in physical education: prevalence of use and perceived impact  on students’ self-concept, motivation and skill achievement. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 7 (3), 161-174, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ocak, G. (2006). Ürün seçki dosyalar hakkında öğrenci görüşleri (student views on portfolios). National Education Journal, 35(170), 217-228. [Google Scholar]
  46. Özden, Y. (2003). Öğrenme ve öğretme (6th ed.) (Learning and teaching). Ankara: PegemA. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sağlam, A., Arslan, N. & Avcı, Ü. (2008). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının alternatif ölçme değerlendirme yöntemlerini algılama düzeyleri. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim fakültesi Dergisi (Dicle University.Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education Journal, 11, 115-128. [Google Scholar]
  48. Semerci, Ç. (2001). Oluşturmacılık kuramına gore ölçme ve değerlendirme (measurement and evaluation according to constructivist theory). Journal of Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 1(2), 429-440. [Google Scholar]
  49. Smith, J. N. (Director). (1995). Dangerous minds [Movie]. United States: Hollywood Pictures. [Google Scholar]
  50. Stein, S. I., Isaacs, G. & Andrews, T. (2004). Incorporating authentic learning experiences within a  university course. Studies in Higher Education. 29(2), 239-258. [Google Scholar]
  51. Stringer, E. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sylvia, C. W. (1999). Authentic assessment knowledge and practice of selected second year Massachusetts high school teachers (Doctoral dissertation). [UMI No: 9941909] [Google Scholar]
  53. Şaşan, H. (2002). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme (constructivist learning). Yaşadıkça Eğitim Dergisi (Yaşadıkça Eğitim Journal), 74, 49-52. [Google Scholar]
  54. Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 605-614. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in university. International Journal of Educational Research. 31(5), 357- 442. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiggins, G. (1997). Designing authentic assessments. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 18-25. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wilson, L. (April, 1994). A Theoretical framework linking beliefs with assessment practices in school mathematics: Assessment reforms in search of a theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of  the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, L.A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED377215). [Google Scholar]
  58. Yaşar, Ş. et. al. (2005). Yeni ilköğretim programlarının uygulanmasına ilişkin sınıf öğretmenlerinin hazırbulunuşluk düzeylerinin ve eğitim gereksinimlerinin belirlenmesi (Investigation of readiness levels and training needs of classroom teachers with regard to new curricula). Paper presented at the Evaluation of the New Curricula Symposium. Erciyes Üniversity & Tekışık Foundation. 14-16 November 2005, Kayseri, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yıldırım, A. (2004). Student assessment in high school social studies courses in Turkey: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions. International Review of Education, 50(2), 157-175. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (5th ed.) (Qualitative research methods in social sciences). Ankara: Seçkin Pub. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ysseldyke, J. & Olsen, K. (1999). Putting alternative assessments into practice: What to measure and possible sources of data. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 175-286. [Google Scholar]