Informal Formative Assessment in Argumentation-Based Science Education: A Micro-Analytic Investigation of Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices

IF 2.2 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Metin Sardag, Gultekin Cakmakci
{"title":"Informal Formative Assessment in Argumentation-Based Science Education: A Micro-Analytic Investigation of Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices","authors":"Metin Sardag,&nbsp;Gultekin Cakmakci","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09668-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>In this study, we identify the pedagogical practices the science teachers use for successfully conducting their argumentation-based science lessons and examine the process of managing informal formative assessments. For this qualitative study, we collected data via video and audio devices from classroom implementations after conducting two professional development courses on assessment practices in inquiry settings and argumentation in science classrooms. We analysed the data from the conversation analysis (CA) perspective to conduct a data-driven study. Our results show that there are multiple pedagogical practices that teachers use to achieve lesson purposes and shape lessons. These are primarily the revealing of different claims and warrants or counterarguments about the same phenomenon or situation, prompting the class to discuss different arguments, including more than one student in interaction. Regarding the nature of answers produced by students, the teachers also make implicit or explicit positive and negative assessments, avoid explicit assessments, and give content feedback as pedagogical practices and use them for managing the informal formative assessment process. The results show that the teachers perform some pedagogical practices via the information gained by the informal formative assessment process. These pedagogical practices provide them with new road maps to achieve the lesson goal by increasing classroom interactions.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 2","pages":"173 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09668-x.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-025-09668-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, we identify the pedagogical practices the science teachers use for successfully conducting their argumentation-based science lessons and examine the process of managing informal formative assessments. For this qualitative study, we collected data via video and audio devices from classroom implementations after conducting two professional development courses on assessment practices in inquiry settings and argumentation in science classrooms. We analysed the data from the conversation analysis (CA) perspective to conduct a data-driven study. Our results show that there are multiple pedagogical practices that teachers use to achieve lesson purposes and shape lessons. These are primarily the revealing of different claims and warrants or counterarguments about the same phenomenon or situation, prompting the class to discuss different arguments, including more than one student in interaction. Regarding the nature of answers produced by students, the teachers also make implicit or explicit positive and negative assessments, avoid explicit assessments, and give content feedback as pedagogical practices and use them for managing the informal formative assessment process. The results show that the teachers perform some pedagogical practices via the information gained by the informal formative assessment process. These pedagogical practices provide them with new road maps to achieve the lesson goal by increasing classroom interactions.

基于论证的科学教育中的非正式形成性评价:教师教学实践的微观分析调查
在本研究中,我们确定了科学教师用于成功开展基于论证的科学课程的教学实践,并检查了管理非正式形成性评估的过程。在这项定性研究中,我们通过视频和音频设备收集了课堂实施的数据,这些数据是在进行了两门专业发展课程后收集的,这两门课程分别是探究设置中的评估实践和科学课堂中的论证。我们从对话分析(CA)的角度分析数据,以进行数据驱动的研究。我们的研究结果表明,教师使用多种教学实践来实现课程目的和塑造课程。这些主要是揭示关于同一现象或情况的不同主张和理由或反论点,促使班级讨论不同的论点,包括多名学生的互动。对于学生产生的答案的性质,教师也会进行内隐或外显的积极和消极评价,避免明确的评价,并将内容反馈作为教学实践,并将其用于管理非正式形成性评价过程。结果表明,教师通过非正式形成性评价过程中获得的信息进行了一些教学实践。这些教学实践为他们提供了新的路线图,通过增加课堂互动来实现课程目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Argumentation
Argumentation Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1.     Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2.     Pose a clear and relevant research question 3.     Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4.     Be sound in methodology and analysis 5.     Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6.     Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书