Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Fen Bilimleri Öğretiminde Çevrimiçi Ortamlarda Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Bileşenlerinin Kullanılmasına Yönelik Bir Eylem Araştırması

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2, 372 - 388, 25.04.2025

Burcu Torun , Murat Pektaş

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1683488

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı: Bu araştırmada, öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirme bileşenlerini kullanma durumlarının ortaya konulması ve bu bileşenlerde ortaya çıkan problemlerin giderilmesi sürecinin analiz edilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Materyal ve Yöntem: Bu araştırma, öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamalarını geliştirmeyi amaçlamakta olup, işbirlikçi eylem araştırması yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma süreci, işbirlikçi eylem araştırması yaklaşımını destekleyen Stringer (2007) modeline dayalı olarak tasarlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, öğretmenlerle haftalık eylem döngüleri planlanmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama araçları olarak video kaydı (ders gözlemi), öğretmen görüşmeleri, araştırmacının saha notları, ders planları, öğretmenlerle yapılan planlama ve yansıtma toplantıları ile geçerlik komitesi toplantıları kullanılmıştır. Veri analizinde betimsel analiz ve sürekli karşılaştırmalı analiz yöntemlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Görüşme ve gözlem verileri ile ders planları, her eylem döngüsü sonunda araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen “biçimlendirici değerlendirme sınıf içi gözlem formu” doğrultusunda analiz edilmiştir. Böylelikle, her bir öğretmenin dersinde biçimlendirici değerlendirme bileşenlerini kullanma durumu belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır.

Bulgular: Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirme bileşenlerindeki gelişimleri incelendiğinde, iki öğretmenin tüm bileşenlerde uzmanlık düzeyine ulaştığı, bir öğretmenin ise akran değerlendirme bileşeni hariç diğer bileşenlerde uzmanlık düzeyine ulaştığı tespit edilmiştir.

Önemli Vurgular: Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirme bileşenlerini kullanımlarını etkileyen genel faktörler; öğretimsel inanç ve tutumları, iş birliği ve yeterli destek düzeyleri, zaman yönetimi, deneyim, merkezi sınavların etkisi, öğretim anlayışları ve çevrim içi öğrenme ortamlarını kullanma durumları olarak belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Biçimlendirici değerlendirme İşbirlikçi eylem araştırması Hizmet içi öğretmen eğitimi Fen eğitimi Fen bilimleri öğretmeni

Kaynakça

  • Anker-Hansen, J., & Andrée, M. (2019). Using and rejecting peer feedback in the science classroom: A study of students’ negotiations on how to use peer feedback when designing experiments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(3), 346-365.
  • Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Brüksel.
  • Bell, B. (2000). Formative assessment and science education: Modelling and theorising. R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne içinde, Improving science education: The contribution of research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policy and Practice. 5(1), 7-73.
  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assesment for Learning-putting it into practice. Maidenhead, U.K.: Open university Press.
  • Bonwell, C. C. (1991). Active Learning : Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 03 22, 2016 tarihinde http://www.ydae.purdue.edu/lct/hbcu/documents/active_learning_creating_excitement_in_the_classroom.pdf adresinden alındı
  • Brooks, G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Virginia: ASCD Alexandria.
  • Buck, G. A., & Trauth-Nare, A. E. (2009). Preparing teachers to make the formative assessment process integral to science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 475-494.
  • Bulut, G. (2010). İlköğretim (6-7-8. Sınıf) fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerini kullanma alışkanlıkları:Hatay ili örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Fırat Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Elazığ.
  • Chatterton, P., Fuller, D., & Routledge, P. (2007). Relating Action to Activism: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections. S. L. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Dü) içinde, In Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place (s. 216-222). London: Routledge.
  • Choi, K., Nam, J. H., & Lee, H. (2001). The effects of formative assessment with detailed feedback on students' science learning achievement and attitudes regarding formative assessment. Science Educational İnternational, 12(2), 28-34.
  • Dell, M., & Dell, S. (2016). Formative assessment in the classroom: findings from three districts. Michael & Susan Dell Foundation.
  • Demirel, Ö. (2000). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. Ankara: Pegema Yayınevi.
  • DeNome, E. (2015). The ımpact on student achievement following professional development on the principles of formative assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. William Howard Taft University, United States.
  • Earle, S. (2014). Formative and summative assessment of science in english primary schools: evidence from the primary science quality mark. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 216-228.
  • Elden, A. (2019). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamaları. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Başkent Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Foley, S. (2013). Student views of peer assessment at the International School of Lausanne. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 201-213.
  • Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson , R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year ıntervention study. Instructional Science, 44(3), 267-291.
  • Gashi-Shatri, Z. F., & Zabeli, N. (2018). Perceptions of students and teachers about the forms and student self-assessment activities in the classroom during the formative assessment. Journal of social studies education research, 9(2), s. 28-46.
  • Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 153-170.
  • Gilson, R. (2009). Professional development in assessment for learning. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Arizona State University,Tempe, ABD.
  • Gioka, O. (2009). Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 411.
  • Gotwals, A. W., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, ıdentifying, ınterpreting, and responding to students’ ıdeas: Teacher candidates’ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 365-388.
  • Gotwals, A. W., Philhower, J., Cisterna, D., & Bennett, S. (2015). Using video to examine formative assessment practices as measures of expertise for mathematics and science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 405-423.
  • Gömleksiz, M. N., & Ayhan, K. Ç. (2011). Bilgisayar kullanımı öğretiminde akran değerlendirme. Education Sciences, 7(1), s. 148-154.
  • Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer-and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers' implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101-111.
  • Harrison, C. (2013). Collaborative action research as a tool for generating formative feedback on teachers’ classroom assessment practice: the KREST project. Teachers and Teaching, 19(2), 202-213.
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), s. 81-112.
  • Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). Formative assessment and teachers' sensitivity to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 629-654.
  • İnaltun, H. (2019). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenleri için Geliştirilen Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Hizmet İçi Eğitim Modülünün Etkinliğinin İncelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Ingram, A., Tipton, M., & Oprandi, S. (2010). Common elements in faculty development for online learning. Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning. Orlando, FL.
  • Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2005). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in assessment for learning practices: A case-study of a whole-school approach. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 193-206.
  • Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active learning in higher education, 14(1), 63-76.
  • Kearsley, G., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). Preparing K-12 teachers to teach online. Educational Technology, 44(1), 49-52.
  • Keeley, P. (2015). Constructing Cl-Ev-R Explanations to Formative Assessment Probes. Science & Children, 53(3), 26-28.
  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2008). Participatory action research: communicative action and the public sphere. N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Dü) içinde, Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (s. 271-330). Tousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2020). The development of secondary students’ feedback literacy: Peer assessment as an intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(6), 407-417.
  • Kubat, U. (2018). Soru varsa, öğrenme de vardır. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(68), s. 1585-1598.
  • MEB. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 ve 8.Sınıflar). Ankara.
  • Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Advancing Formative Assesment in Every Classroom: a Guide for İnstructional Leaders. Alexandria, United States of America, Virginia: ASCD.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005a). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. OECD publishing.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005b). Study on Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and the Expansion of Teacher Repertoires. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada: Canadian Report.
  • Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the “get ıt or don’t” conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247-255.
  • Önder, E. (2022). Covıd-19 salgınında öğretmenlerin uzak eğitime ilişkin deneyimleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 51(233), s. 399-418.
  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the Online Learner. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.
  • Perkins, D. N. (1999). The Many Faces of Constructivısm. Educational Leadership, 57(2), 354-371.
  • Popa, D., Repanovici, A., Lupu, D., Norel, M., & Coman, C. (2020). Using mixed methods to understand teaching and learning in Covid 19 times. Sustainability, 12(20), 8726.
  • Rehn, N., Maor, D., & McConney, A. (2018). The specific skills required of teachers who deliver K–12 distance education courses by synchronous videoconference: Implications for training and professional development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(4), 417-429.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ ınformal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific ınquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84.
  • Seiley, N. (1999). The Art of Constructivist Teaching in The Primary Sschool. London: David Fulton Publishers.
  • Strijbos, J., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291-303.
  • Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action Research (Third Edition b.). London: Sage Publication.
  • Sudakova, N. E., Savina, T. N., Masalimova, A. R., Mikhaylovsky, M. N., Karandeeva, L. G., & Zhdanov, S. P. (2022). Online Formative Assessment in Higher Education: Bibliometric Analysis. 12(3), s. 209.
  • Tasker, T., & Herrenkohl, L. (2016). Using peer feedback to improve students’ scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 35-59.
  • The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited . (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers.
  • Tomanek, D., Talanquer, V., & Novodvorsky, I. (2008). What do science teachers consider when selecting formative assessment tasks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1113-1130.
  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into practice, 48(1), 20-27.
  • Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), s. 615-631.
  • Veugen, M. J., Gulikers, J. M., & Brok, P. (2022). Secondary school teachers' use of online formative assessment during COVID‐19 lockdown: Experiences and lessons learned. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), s. 1465-1481.
  • Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. F. K. Lester (Dü.) içinde, Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (s. 1053-1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with ınstruction: What will ıt take to make ıt work? C. A. Dwyer içinde, The future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning (s. 53-82). Mahvah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Yang, X., Teng, Y., Gu, Z., & Zhang, D. (2021). Self and peer assessment in K-12 Chinese language classrooms: Teachers’perceptions and implantation. Research in Language and Education: An International Journal [RILE], 1(1), 69-84.
  • Yin, X., & Buck, G. A. (2015). There is another choice: an exploration of integrating formative assessment in a Chinese high school chemistry classroom through collaborative action research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 719-752.
  • Zhang, J. (2018). The Impact of Formative Assessment on Young English Learners’ Motivation and Achievement in China. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Sheffield Üniversitesi, İngiltere.
  • Zou, M., Kong, D., & Lee, I. (2021). Teacher engagement with online formative assessment in efl writing during COVID-19 pandemic: the case of China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 130(6), s. 487-498

An Action Research on the Utilization of Formative Assessment Components in Online Environments in Science Education

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2, 372 - 388, 25.04.2025

Burcu Torun , Murat Pektaş

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1683488

Öz

Purpose: This research aimed to identify the utilization status of formative assessment components by teachers and analyze the process of addressing the problems encountered in these components.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The research was designed considering Stringer's (2007) model supporting the collaborative action research process. Weekly action cycles were planned with teachers during the research. Data collection tools for the study included video recordings (classroom observations), teacher interviews, researcher field notes, lesson plans, planning and reflection meetings with teachers, and meetings with the validation committee. Data analysis in this research was conducted using descriptive analysis and constant comparative analysis. Interview and observation data, along with lesson plans, were analyzed by the researcher after each action cycle, based on the 'formative assessment classroom observation form' created, to determine the extent to which each teacher used formative assessment components in their lessons. Data were also shared with the validation committee to complete evaluations related to formative assessment components for each teacher. Upon examining the development of teachers' formative assessment components, it was observed that two teachers reached expert levels in all components, while one teacher reached an expert level in all components except for peer assessment.
Findings: Factors generally influencing the use of formative assessment components by teachers, based on the findings of this study, included teachers' instructional beliefs and attitudes, collaboration and adequate support, time, experience, and standardized tests, as well as teachers' educational philosophies and their utilization of online learning environments. The findings of the study were discussed in relation to the literature, and various recommendations were provided to practitioners to contribute to the use of formative assessment in classroom practices and to researchers aiming to improve teachers' formative assessment practices.
Highlights: Factors generally affecting the use of formative assessment components by teachers can be stated as teachers' pedagogical beliefs and attitudes, collaboration and adequate support, time, experience, and centralized exams, teachers' educational understanding, and their use of online learning environments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Formative assessment Collaborative action research In-service teacher training Science education Science teacher

Kaynakça

  • Anker-Hansen, J., & Andrée, M. (2019). Using and rejecting peer feedback in the science classroom: A study of students’ negotiations on how to use peer feedback when designing experiments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(3), 346-365.
  • Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Brüksel.
  • Bell, B. (2000). Formative assessment and science education: Modelling and theorising. R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne içinde, Improving science education: The contribution of research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policy and Practice. 5(1), 7-73.
  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assesment for Learning-putting it into practice. Maidenhead, U.K.: Open university Press.
  • Bonwell, C. C. (1991). Active Learning : Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 03 22, 2016 tarihinde http://www.ydae.purdue.edu/lct/hbcu/documents/active_learning_creating_excitement_in_the_classroom.pdf adresinden alındı
  • Brooks, G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Virginia: ASCD Alexandria.
  • Buck, G. A., & Trauth-Nare, A. E. (2009). Preparing teachers to make the formative assessment process integral to science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 475-494.
  • Bulut, G. (2010). İlköğretim (6-7-8. Sınıf) fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerini kullanma alışkanlıkları:Hatay ili örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Fırat Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Elazığ.
  • Chatterton, P., Fuller, D., & Routledge, P. (2007). Relating Action to Activism: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections. S. L. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Dü) içinde, In Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place (s. 216-222). London: Routledge.
  • Choi, K., Nam, J. H., & Lee, H. (2001). The effects of formative assessment with detailed feedback on students' science learning achievement and attitudes regarding formative assessment. Science Educational İnternational, 12(2), 28-34.
  • Dell, M., & Dell, S. (2016). Formative assessment in the classroom: findings from three districts. Michael & Susan Dell Foundation.
  • Demirel, Ö. (2000). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. Ankara: Pegema Yayınevi.
  • DeNome, E. (2015). The ımpact on student achievement following professional development on the principles of formative assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. William Howard Taft University, United States.
  • Earle, S. (2014). Formative and summative assessment of science in english primary schools: evidence from the primary science quality mark. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 216-228.
  • Elden, A. (2019). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamaları. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Başkent Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Foley, S. (2013). Student views of peer assessment at the International School of Lausanne. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 201-213.
  • Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson , R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year ıntervention study. Instructional Science, 44(3), 267-291.
  • Gashi-Shatri, Z. F., & Zabeli, N. (2018). Perceptions of students and teachers about the forms and student self-assessment activities in the classroom during the formative assessment. Journal of social studies education research, 9(2), s. 28-46.
  • Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 153-170.
  • Gilson, R. (2009). Professional development in assessment for learning. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Arizona State University,Tempe, ABD.
  • Gioka, O. (2009). Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 411.
  • Gotwals, A. W., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, ıdentifying, ınterpreting, and responding to students’ ıdeas: Teacher candidates’ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 365-388.
  • Gotwals, A. W., Philhower, J., Cisterna, D., & Bennett, S. (2015). Using video to examine formative assessment practices as measures of expertise for mathematics and science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 405-423.
  • Gömleksiz, M. N., & Ayhan, K. Ç. (2011). Bilgisayar kullanımı öğretiminde akran değerlendirme. Education Sciences, 7(1), s. 148-154.
  • Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer-and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers' implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101-111.
  • Harrison, C. (2013). Collaborative action research as a tool for generating formative feedback on teachers’ classroom assessment practice: the KREST project. Teachers and Teaching, 19(2), 202-213.
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), s. 81-112.
  • Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). Formative assessment and teachers' sensitivity to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 629-654.
  • İnaltun, H. (2019). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenleri için Geliştirilen Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Hizmet İçi Eğitim Modülünün Etkinliğinin İncelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Ingram, A., Tipton, M., & Oprandi, S. (2010). Common elements in faculty development for online learning. Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning. Orlando, FL.
  • Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2005). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in assessment for learning practices: A case-study of a whole-school approach. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 193-206.
  • Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active learning in higher education, 14(1), 63-76.
  • Kearsley, G., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). Preparing K-12 teachers to teach online. Educational Technology, 44(1), 49-52.
  • Keeley, P. (2015). Constructing Cl-Ev-R Explanations to Formative Assessment Probes. Science & Children, 53(3), 26-28.
  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2008). Participatory action research: communicative action and the public sphere. N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Dü) içinde, Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (s. 271-330). Tousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2020). The development of secondary students’ feedback literacy: Peer assessment as an intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(6), 407-417.
  • Kubat, U. (2018). Soru varsa, öğrenme de vardır. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(68), s. 1585-1598.
  • MEB. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 ve 8.Sınıflar). Ankara.
  • Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Advancing Formative Assesment in Every Classroom: a Guide for İnstructional Leaders. Alexandria, United States of America, Virginia: ASCD.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005a). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. OECD publishing.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005b). Study on Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and the Expansion of Teacher Repertoires. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada: Canadian Report.
  • Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the “get ıt or don’t” conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247-255.
  • Önder, E. (2022). Covıd-19 salgınında öğretmenlerin uzak eğitime ilişkin deneyimleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 51(233), s. 399-418.
  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the Online Learner. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.
  • Perkins, D. N. (1999). The Many Faces of Constructivısm. Educational Leadership, 57(2), 354-371.
  • Popa, D., Repanovici, A., Lupu, D., Norel, M., & Coman, C. (2020). Using mixed methods to understand teaching and learning in Covid 19 times. Sustainability, 12(20), 8726.
  • Rehn, N., Maor, D., & McConney, A. (2018). The specific skills required of teachers who deliver K–12 distance education courses by synchronous videoconference: Implications for training and professional development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(4), 417-429.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ ınformal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific ınquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84.
  • Seiley, N. (1999). The Art of Constructivist Teaching in The Primary Sschool. London: David Fulton Publishers.
  • Strijbos, J., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291-303.
  • Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action Research (Third Edition b.). London: Sage Publication.
  • Sudakova, N. E., Savina, T. N., Masalimova, A. R., Mikhaylovsky, M. N., Karandeeva, L. G., & Zhdanov, S. P. (2022). Online Formative Assessment in Higher Education: Bibliometric Analysis. 12(3), s. 209.
  • Tasker, T., & Herrenkohl, L. (2016). Using peer feedback to improve students’ scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 35-59.
  • The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited . (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers.
  • Tomanek, D., Talanquer, V., & Novodvorsky, I. (2008). What do science teachers consider when selecting formative assessment tasks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1113-1130.
  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into practice, 48(1), 20-27.
  • Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), s. 615-631.
  • Veugen, M. J., Gulikers, J. M., & Brok, P. (2022). Secondary school teachers' use of online formative assessment during COVID‐19 lockdown: Experiences and lessons learned. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), s. 1465-1481.
  • Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. F. K. Lester (Dü.) içinde, Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (s. 1053-1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with ınstruction: What will ıt take to make ıt work? C. A. Dwyer içinde, The future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning (s. 53-82). Mahvah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Yang, X., Teng, Y., Gu, Z., & Zhang, D. (2021). Self and peer assessment in K-12 Chinese language classrooms: Teachers’perceptions and implantation. Research in Language and Education: An International Journal [RILE], 1(1), 69-84.
  • Yin, X., & Buck, G. A. (2015). There is another choice: an exploration of integrating formative assessment in a Chinese high school chemistry classroom through collaborative action research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 719-752.
  • Zhang, J. (2018). The Impact of Formative Assessment on Young English Learners’ Motivation and Achievement in China. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Sheffield Üniversitesi, İngiltere.
  • Zou, M., Kong, D., & Lee, I. (2021). Teacher engagement with online formative assessment in efl writing during COVID-19 pandemic: the case of China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 130(6), s. 487-498
Toplam 66 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Burcu Torun 0000-0002-7295-5565

Murat Pektaş 0000-0002-7205-6279

Yayımlanma Tarihi 25 Nisan 2025
Gönderilme Tarihi 25 Eylül 2024
Kabul Tarihi 20 Nisan 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Torun, B., & Pektaş, M. (2025). An Action Research on the Utilization of Formative Assessment Components in Online Environments in Science Education. Kastamonu Education Journal, 33(2), 372-388. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1683488
 Kapak Resmi İndir

10037