Week_02_Assessment-Centered

=Readings and Facilitators:=

=Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems (Hammack/Guinn)=

===**"The capacity of short-term memory (working memory) constitutes one of the most severe constraints on human problem solving" (p. 1340). Do you agree or disagree with this statement? How often do you, whether as an educator, parent, or as an individual in society, encounter those who seem to have limited memory issues? Is correcting this problem as simple as brain exercises to "chunk" information? How do you help your kids with short-term memory issues? - Guinn**=== Retention of information is definitely one of the biggest issues teachers face in the classroom. It is important to use a variety of teaching methods and representations to help students retain pertinent information. Games, songs, and mneumonic devices are all beneficial ways to help students remember information. Even if a student has short-term memory abilities, "effective learning involves more than memorizing materials in texts and lectures" (p. 1341). The capacity for short-term memory recall is certainly essential for solving problems, but as the author opined, another "critical component" in the skill of solving physics problems is the students "ability to translate verbal statements into the language of mathematics, that is into equations" (p. 1337). Careless readers beware. So, a student must understand and be able to interpret correctly what is being asked, before they can even retrieve from memory, the proper equation to apply.

As the author suggested, one way to help students cultivate their memory, is by creating, incorporating and continuously promoting the "learning by example" and "learning by doing" system. "The learning-by-doing system accomplishes its learning by hindsight" (p.1342). Through nightly homework assignments for example, students may develop the ability to see patterns or similarities to problems, and perhaps catalog or index them into memory. The hope is to improve "student capacity to use pattern-indexed schemata" for it is a major role in developing intuition (p.1342); which in itself is a characteristic of a superior problem solver (p.1335).

In regards to improving memory in a classroom setting I found an article by St Clair-Thompson (2010). In this study the researchers used computer based memory training programs on students in order to determine if working memory could be enhanced. In these programs the students were encouraged to use rehearsal, visual imagery, creating stories and grouping. The researchers used measures to tap into the student’s phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad and central executive components of working memory. The research found increases in the subjects working memory, however it seems that there was no significant changes to standardized test scores. Since so much of our current education system is based on standardized test scores it may not be necessary to implement working memory programs. However, the study did not go into the long-term changes in memory due to the implementation of the programs used. Maybe there are other programs that can help improve memory that has an effect on standardized test scores. Within my own math classroom in order to help my students with their memory I focus on the use of logic. Mathematics follows a typical order of operations, “standard steps” so that even if student comes across new problems they can utilize information they already have to try to solve the problem. I spend a lot of time at the beginning of a course going over this information and again as we come across the steps in new problems. This is a form of “chunking” but also “looping” taking the information and breaking it into understandable pieces for each class and as the classes progress they “relearn” or loop by going over the steps again and again.

**What are the characteristics of assessment-centered learning? How does this article address assessment?**
Assessment-centered learning environments ground teaching and learning in on-going monitoring of student progress towards achieving learning goals and outcomes. Techniques used to monitor student learning rely heavily on formative assessment that is conducted through student self-reflection and teacher provided assessment and feedback. Bransford et al. explained the purpose of formative assessment is to “provide students with opportunities to revise and improve their thinking,” to “help students see their own progress over the course of weeks or months,” and to “help teachers identify problems that need to be remedied” (2000, p. 24). Feedback from formative assessment is used by teachers to drive instruction and by students to understand and take ownership over their own learning.

===**According to Larkin et al. (1980), "Although a sizable body of knowledge is prerequisite to expert skill, that knowledge must be indexed by large numbers of patterns that, on recognition, guide the expert in a fraction of a second to relevant parts of the knowledge store. The knowledge forms complex schemata that can guide a problem's interpretation and solution and that constitute a large part of what we call physical intuition," (p. 1336). As educators, how do we help our students build these patterns and how do we assess this?**===

It seems this is the million dollar question. The government believes you can accomplish both of the tasks of your question by testing. Testing promotes the learning of the patters, and the memorization of the content knowledge all the while giving you a deep understanding of the learners abilities. Now I disagree with that idea, but the legislation that has passed shows that many people do agree with it.

To form a deep understanding I think you need a mixed learning environment that utilized many forms of learning. From active learning, to just-in-time learning. This can be accomplished through a variety of projects and group collaborations done in the classroom, as well as scaffolding. As teachers we can contribute to a deep understanding, and a building of the pattern recognition through the use of scaffolding, or the development of "microworlds" (Goldman, 1999). Teachers can also model and provide examples of how experts chuck individual bits of information based on core concepts and underlying processes.

The differences between novices and experts surface frequently in this week’s readings. What are your understandings of the differences between novices and experts?
One difference between novices and experts is the ability to "chunk" the knowledge they have (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 32). Experts have more knowledge about a certain area, but they are also able to group this knowledge into meaningful sets, novices on the other hand, only store their knowledge as separate facts. This ability to store knowledge into sets leads to another difference between novices and experts. Because experts group their knowledge into meaningful sets, retrieval of this information is easier for the expert (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 44). Bransford et al., also presented research that found “expert knowledge is conditionalized,” meaning that it included an understanding of the context in which it is useful and experts were able to retrieve the knowledge when a trigger or stimulus was recognized (2000, p. 43). Novice knowledge was described as inert, meaning that they may have the knowledge of how to respond or solve a problem, however it was not triggered by the stimulus.

Bransford et al. (2000) states the ability to organize knowledge in this way gives the expert “a greater flexibility in problem solving” (p. 50). Bransford et al. (2000) supported these findings with data from chess experts and novices. The experts were able to remember more of the chess pieces than the novice when they were placed in meaningful configurations. These authors also used examples from the fields of teaching math, and physics to show how the experts organized their knowledge around larger concepts instead of memorized facts, like novices. This argument shows that experts have a greater ability to problem solve and construct knowledge based on their deep understanding of the core ideas in their subject.

There were several other articles that presented similar information to support the argument made in How People Learn (2000). Larki et al.(1980) studied the problem solving abilities of expert and novices in the field of physics. The authors added to this body of knowledge by making specific observations of what experts do when they problem solve and use computer programs that can verify the way an expert or novice thinks. To show that these programs can achieve expert human thinking, the authors gave a program and a person the same problem and a similar outcome was produced by both the program and the person. Goldman, Petrosino, and the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) (1999) made similar claims about the expert’s deep understanding of their domain and ability to problem solve at a higher level. The authors gave additional insight into designing learning environments that are focused on acquiring expert like knowledge and skills for problem solving.

=**How People Learn - Chapter Six: //The Design of Learning Environments// (Graves)**=

===**What do assessment-centered learning environments look like? What attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning must an assessment-centered teacher embrace? What attitudes and beliefs must a teacher foster in their students to achieve an assessment-centered learning environment?**=== According to Coffey (2003) t here are always opportunities for assessment within science education. Assessment is often seen as an event or strategy, something that is done to students, not with students. However, when students are active participates in their assessments, they promote a supportive learning environment within the science classroom. Changing the attitudes of educators and students about assessment in the classroom, can go along way to creating a positive assessment-centered classroom. An assessment centered classroom requires the active participation of all students. Teachers should be using a variety of assessment tools in order to gauge student learning such as open-ended questioning, conversations with content vocabulary and non-graded practice. Opportunities must be given for students to receive feedback, provide revisions and allow for reflection. According to Bransford et al. (2000), “the key principles of assessment are that they should provide opportunities for feedback and revision and that what is assessed must be congruent with one’s learning goals,” (p. 139-140). Teachers in an assessment-centered classroom must acknowledge the importance of continuous formative assessment and its use as a way to improve teaching and learning. Teachers must move away from summative assessments that merely test factual recall and replace them with assessments that gauge students’ understanding and ability to apply knowledge to different situations. Teachers must utilize the information the assessments provide to change their instruction to enhance student learning, and in so doing, they model for their students the importance of using feedback to revise and improve upon previous work. Teachers who embrace assessment-centered learning also recognize the importance of providing students with opportunities to work collaboratively and provide peer review.

An article by Burns, attests to many of Bransford et al, ideas stated above. Like many beginning teachers, Burns focused on classroom management, lesson plan creation and keeping students engaged, while her assessment was really just a matter of keeping track of grades, instead of determining what students were thinking. Only within the past decade has she devised lessons that enable her to uncover what students comprehend and how they think. Not only does she plan the progression of lessons, she also plans learning activities with assessment in mind; like asking questions about student thinking "during class discussions, in individual conversations, and on written assignments" (p. 26) The questions being asked not only probe, but also stimulate student mathematical thinking. Making students elaborate on their reasoning when sharing their answers, gives teachers another avenue for assessing student knowledge. The author suggests teachers should (1) ask students to explain their answers whether or not the answers are correct, (2) use small group-work, (3) ask students to share their solution strategies within and outside their the group, and (4) ask students to restate others' ideas. As for written assignments, Burns asked students to explain in writing their thoughts and strategies used, for this "provides insight into their thinking" (p.28); it may also help nourish their mathematical thinking. Not only is assessment of student thinking and understanding important during the lesson, but after the lesson, reflection about what was learned, who learned it and who did not, is an important "teacher" assessment. This aspect of assessment must take place, for this "continual evaluation of instructional choices is at the heart of improving our teacher practices" (p. 26), which is essential if we aim to educate all.

Formative assessment, according to Bell and Cowie (2001), can take on several different formats. These types of assessments can be planned or unplanned. Depending on the context of the learning environment and who is participating, formative assessments can be verbal or nonverbal. The goal of formative assessments is to “elicit student ideas and students to voluntarily disclos[e] their ideas by asking questions and discussing their ideas” (Bell and Cowie, 2001 p. 551-2). It is important to note that the validity of formative assessments depends on the student’s discloser of their own understandings. If student are not able to, or not willing to share their understanding, the process of formative assessments would be ineffective. Bell and Cowie(2001) identified ten characteristics of formative assessement and stressed that “assessment can be considered formative only if it results in action by the teacher and students to enhance student learning,” (p. 539). In an assessment-centered environment this definition should be extended to include the enhancement of teacher learning as well by allowing the teacher to develop new teaching strategies to augment student understanding and teacher pedagogical knowledge. Thus, formative assessment can be viewed as any assessment that results in teachers and students reflecting on current understanding to improve teacher and student learning.

Gao (2010) researched the attitudes of the student regarding assessments. As teachers, do we ever reflect on whether or not or students truly understand what is expected of them? Do they feel that the assessments given are fair in that the assessments are diverse so that each student is not offended, but represented? As a teacher, one must take into consideration of our students. In order for the students to master the content, the teacher need to develop better quality assessments. In fact, occassionally, the students should be allowed to give feedback on the development of the assessment. Without collaboration between students and the teacher, an assessment centered environment would be invalid.

===**Explain the interrelationship between knowledge-centered, learner-centered and assessment-centered learning environments. How do the key elements of each learning environment support the other learning environments?**===

Of the three learning environments, knowledge-centered, learner-centered, and assessment-centered, there is not just ONE that is better or out-weighs the others. Each very different learning environment plays a part in creating a well-rounded atmosphere for students to thrive. Bransford et al. (2000) stated that the knowledge-centered learning environment not only encourages understanding, but should also "promote the automaticity of skills necessary to function effectively without being overwhelmed by attentional requirements" (p. 139). Without a knowledge base, a teacher would not be able to move to a learner-centered learning environment where the teacher focuses on diagnosing what knowledge a student already has, what knowledge a student lacks, and ultimately develop curricula for each individual student to then reach the necessary destination. Additionally, without constant formative assessments students would not be able to make adjustments to their knowledge or any misunderstandings along their journey prior to the summative assessments to determine if the student has been successful on his or her path. Teachers should be able to glide smoothly through the three learning environments, interrelating each knowledge-centered, learner-centered, and assessment-centered to assist the students in navigating new information. According to Bransford et. al. (2000) the interrelationships can be very influential on accelerating learning within and outside of the school.

Schuh (2003) gives an example of a successful learner-centered classroom that incorporates knowledge and assessment-centered environments when studying sixth graders. Three classes are pre-assessed using a Learner-Centered-Battery (LCB) test. The three classes are ranked from least to most learner-centered. Schuh (2003) observes students in each class by videotaping and then interviewing particular students during science, English, and history units. Her goal is to track the amount of links students make to their prior knowledge during the class time. She finds that the class that was ranked the most learner-centered has a higher number students expressing links to their prior knowledge aloud to the teacher. The teacher in this classroom encouraged and accepted these student links and often validated and integrated them into her lessons. The instructional environment she created allowed her students to link learning to prior knowledge, just as Bransford et al. (2000) suggests in //How People Learn.// The teacher that had the most successful learner-centered classroom also incorporated student feedback and knowledge into the lesson, similar to the assessment conversations presented in Duschl and Gitomer (1997).

**Explain how community-centered learning environments support assessment-centered learning environments.**
One of the key features of an assessment-centered learning environment, is that it be one that provides ample opportunities for feedback and revision according to Bransford et al. (2000). One of the easiest ways for students to receive feedback is for them to receive it from their peers or themselves. Therefore, if students are working together on a project, and then providing each other with immediate feedback, they are working as a community and utilizing assessment. I can also envision students making presentations to others in the community, for instance, their parents. They could go home and present a project to their parents, community members, or publish online is some form. There are many ways to incorporate assessment in community. However, all of these ways require that educators reevaluate their personal ideas about assessment.

Bransford et al., (2000) presented research that provided evidence suggesting learning is enhanced in community-centered learning environments that establish social norms that encourage open discussion, an opportunity to search for understanding, and that afford students the freedom to make mistakes without negative repercussions. These elements of community-centered learning environments are also critical to assessment-centered learning environments because they provide a safe environment for students to publically share their ideas and debate conflicting information. Publically sharing ideas also makes student learning and understanding visible to the teacher, who can adjust instruction based on student progress.

=Design Principles for Instruction in Content Domains: Lessons from Research on Expertise and Learning by Goldman, Petrosino, and Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt (1999) (Bobo/ Phillips)= = =

Can an alternatively certified teacher be considered an expert without a deep content centered training in the subject matter that they plan to teach, according to the article? Why or why not?(Logan)
In //How People Learn// Bransford et al. (2000) address the issue of experts making good teachers. Bransford et al. (2000) states that "pedagogical content knowledge is not equivalent to knowledge of content domain plus a generic set of teaching strategies" (p.45). There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this statement. One, teaching requires expertise outside of a specific content domain/subject. Teaching is not merely just learning twenty strategies and then just going down the list. Teacher experience also plays a role in determining if a teacher is an expert (Bransford et al. 2000). Both Bransford et al. (2000) and Goldman, Petrosino, and CTGV (1999), have expert teachers view footage of classroom settings. Teachers are then asked to verbalize what they notice about the video. Most expert teachers notice very different, more specific items and were able to make inferences about the information they were seeing, where novices were unable to make as many connections or infer what was going on in the classroom. Obviously content knowledge is important, but so is having a skill set as a teacher, so these seem to be equally weighted in the eyes of the authors.

==As both a student and a teacher I have watched as highly knowledgeable people of their given subject matter have attempted to teach. This has always been met with a mixed result, in my life. So many times someone that would be considered an expert makes a horrid teacher, while someone with a lower understanding of the content but a better understanding of the ideologies of learners and a small understanding of a variety of subjects, have made for fantastic teachers. What makes a better teacher, to be an expert in one domain, or have a novice understanding of many domains? (Logan)==

==As modern students are coming out of high school, the workplace is a very diversified location. Any given person is expect on any given day to jump into a variety of tasks and accomplish them to the goal of the company. In the //Design Priciples for Instruction in Content Domains// article, the authors touched on a notion of domain-specificity, this states there are a magnitude of different types of experts, and that a shallow understanding is often enough(1999). With our schools focusing on assessments to prove understanding, and content awareness, are we teaching our students opposite of what the nation needs them to know? Should students be focusing on content expertise, or on a general understanding of content with a focus on learning abilities?(Logan)==

==**Scaffolding has been utilized to build a better understanding of content material. What types of programs/teaching/learning methods can tie into scaffolding to create a more complex understanding? (logan)**==

==In the article it is stated that "Instruction provides Opportunities for Feedback, Revision, and Reflection"(1999). What has provided the best of these in your own classroom, and allowed you to witness "strong self-monitoring skills" in students(1999)?(logan)==

==Within the text by Goldman, Petrosino, and Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt (1999) how do the descriptions of a novices and experts compare and contrast to Bransford et al (2000) Chapter 2 and Larckin, McDermont, Simon, and Simon (2006)? (Bobo)==

Goldman, Petrosino, and CTGV's study presented similar findings to Bransford et al. (2000) and Larkin et al. (1980), including that experts demonstrate more flexibility and are able to adapt knowledge to solve new problems, use models or representations, cluster information based on big ideas, concepts or processes, and make connections between smaller bits of information. Additionally, all three studies found that detection and resolution of inconsistencies in knowledge is a key element of developing expertise.

How does an understanding of what it means to be an expert improve your understanding of a knowledge-centered classroom? (Bobo)
=How People Learn - Chapter 2: How Experts Differ From Novices (Schatz/Hulings)= ==On page 36, the authors made the following statement: "Research on expertise suggests the importance of providing students with learning experiences that specifically enhance their abilities to recognize meaningful patterns of information."==

Thinking about the previous statement and your classroom, what specific learning experiences can you provide your students that can enhance these abilities?
On page 33 the author claims that an expert can chunk information into manageable pieces and utilize those pieces to scaffold understanding. Within my classroom I utilize a similar method of scaffolding and pattern recognition. To better explain this I will give a bit of a background on my class. I work as a virtual education teacher. This means I take young men who are severally behind in their credits, and enroll them into courses that are taught online. (I do not teach online) I run a lab that all of the boys come into the classroom and stay with me the entirety of the day. I am not a traditional teacher but more of a resource for the students, and a motivational factor. At any given time any one of my boys may be working on any of the over 60 courses that I offer. Because of this I cannot easily become a content expert for every subject that I teach, instead I opted for becoming very knowledgeable of how my students learn, so that I may teach them methods of learning instead of just content knowledge.

I utilize several methods of scaffolding in my classroom to be perpetually moving students understanding to a greater amount. A typical student goes through this process as their stay in my classroom goes on.This is not a formal method and many students do not always hold to every step. 1. Initial entry: Taught about keywords, and how google/search engines work. This gives them a base understanding on how to find questions and answers from the coursework. This is usually a very shallow understanding and students are unable to summarize or distinguish between questions they are being asked or asking. I.e. If you rephrase a question they believe it is a different question. 2. A few weeks in: Begins to have help from other students, learns how to ask questions to the computer and to other students/teachers to get an answer they can use.Learns to diversify the ways they find information. This is when their work becomes much higher functioning. They may start to shorten or ask questions in a variety of ways to find the correct answer. There is still a heavy lack on deeper understanding on why asking a question works better one way or the other. But can start subconsciously having context and access to the knowledge they are gaining. 3. A month: Can begin to help other students. Can notice difference in questions of others, with slight help from teacher.This is there they really start changing. The start to see meaningful patterns in the coursework. They can begin to understand not only what they are asking, but why it works if they ask in certain ways. Their organization usually develops during this time frame. Instead of going to me for an answer, they will try a variety of methods, and then ask me. 4. A few months: Becomes an Aid in the classroom is expected to actively help students through the previous steps. Can distinguish between good and poor questions, and can see deeper meaning even if the question is asked poorly.This is where I expect the student to not need me at all. They can formulate deep understanding questions. They can research on their own using methods they have developed. The utilize the websites that they believe is best for research, and more importantly can begin to help other students.

To get my students an understanding of content knowledge and learning methods I rely heavily on peer assessment, peer tutoring, and meta cognition. I spend a strong amount of time letting the student figure out what they are thinking, and why they are thinking it. Then try to break them of inappropriate methods by the above stated ways. How do these practices help students recognize meaningful patterns of information? By teaching the student what information is, and how it connects together. They do not learn content patterns but content connection patters. Example: Student does not know when Grant was a General. But can figure out from previous questions what time frame we are looking at, using that information can apply the a search pattern to find the knowledge he is needing. Now this is a very simple pattern to see, but is almost impossible when they first start out. So instead of learning a core concept of knowledge, ie why Grant served as a general, they learn a core concept of knowledge finding what method can be applied to find the answer I need. This is an example of knowledge retrieval, and pattern recognition of organization. I believe it is of the same importance as content pattern recognition, especially in the type of classroom I work in.

Connecting the previous statement and question with the topic of the week (assessment-centered learning), how will those specific learning experiences be assessed?
=Strategies and Challenges to Changing the Focus of Assessment and Instruction in Science Classrooms (Richardson)=

What is the "assessment conversation"? How, when, and in which types of classrooms should it be incorporated?
Assessment conversations are instructional practices that embed conversation within the classroom. The goal of assessment conversations is to make “student products and reasoning” public,. (Duschl and Gitomer,1997) The reason the work of the students is made public is to facilitate conceptual growth of all students and to provide an assessment opportunity for teachers.

Bell and Cowie (2001) consider and use of student understanding as a formative assessment. Depending on the context of the learning environment, this could serve as both a formative assessment and assessment conversation that allows for students to evaluate and deepen their own understanding. In addition, students are able to see how a problem can bring about different solutions. Evaluation of these solutions is a critical part of the assessment conversation.

Assessment conversations proceed through three distinct steps:
 * 1) Receiving student ideas – students are able to represent their own understandings through writing, drawing, storyboards, or other communication techniques.
 * 2) Teachers recognize main ideas of lesson – teachers recognize the diversity of ideas in the classroom. Discussion is facilitated where students are encouraged to recognize critical differences using academic vocabulary
 * 3) Achieving consensus – Students and teachers work together to develop a class consensus. This step will require a critical analysis of the different understandings, and a safe environment for students to share. (Duschl and Gitomer, 1997)

===Duschl and Gitomer asserted that assessment activities can help to achieve goals and provide information about progress toward goals. (pg 38) How are assessment activities used in this manner at the state level in Oklahoma? At the district level?===

One way assessment activities are used to help achieve goals and provide information about progress toward those goals is the use of audience response systems, or clickers. Although these aren't the types of assessments that generally come to mind, especially at the state level, Barnes (2008) found that overwhelmingly, his sophomore biology students had favorable impressions of the lecture-free teaching providing using feedback from the clickers. Barnes also sought to measure gains made in both the lecture-free sections and lecture-based sections but only one group of lecture-free students showed a significantly different gain in content knowledge. Although empirical evidence supporting the use of clicker systems in high school biology was not provided in this study, the successes of clickers in college courses is well documented. By using this form of assessment in his classes, Barnes was able to perfectly demonstrate how to integrate assessment-centered learning environments, knowledge-centered learning environments, and learner centered learning environments.

==="Reconceptualizing the relation between assessment and instruction is a major hurdle. Teachers are not used to using student information to guide and revise instructional decision making." (pg 65) - Is this still a problem today? If so, why are teachers not used to using assessments to guide their decision making?===

This is a problem that still exists today in many schools. Part of the problem lies in the fact that some teachers, though not all, resist reform. When reform efforts include the use of assessments in instructional decision making, teachers miss out on a valuable teaching strategy. It is important that our school systems provide teachers opportunity to learn and expand their own practice.

The process of reconceptualization of teacher is a difficult process for in-service teachers. Teachers who have been teaching in the same post for several years develop their own method of instruction. This instructional method is personal, and may or may not be based in research. The perception that currently practicing teachers take when new and challenging information is present tends to be hostile due to the personal nature of the field. As Bransford (2000) discusses, traditional models of instructions focused on the product of instruction and not the application of the learning.

Trauth-Nare and Buck (2011) also explained that past research studies have shown the use of formative assessment in science instructions is an effective strategy to reveal students progress towards achieving learning outcomes. Formative assessment empowers students to take ownership over their own learning and supports active learning. It also provides valuable information to the teacher, who can use the results of formative assessment to make immediate course corrections to instruction. Despite research that shows the effectiveness of formative assessment, few teachers are confident in their ability to use formative assessment during instruction, and many still rely only on end of lesson or unit summative assessments.

Parke & Lane's (1996) study on assessment-centered learning showed that teachers lacked familiarity with the nature of the tasks and how to determine if the assessment truly measured the students' knowledge of the content along with their thinking skills or conceptual knowledge. In order to combat mere multiple choice guessing for answers, open-ended questions that allowed teachers to see what the student was thinking and interpret the students' conceptual knowledge were a major part of the assessment. Additionally, teachers wrote feedback instead of just marking answers right or wrong, as well as a peer-assessed portion of the test to help students with self-regulating their knowledge.

One article that was found states that teachers are driven the curriculum and mandated testing (Russ, Coffey, Hammer, & Hutchison, 2008). It is due to this focus on the curriculum and testing that teachers are always looking for the answer that matches the textbook. Teachers may be asking students for their explanations to certain phenomenon, but they are always guiding students the "correct" answer. The authors also state that this focus on the "correct" answer has the potential to turn students away from the investigative nature of science and can even reduce the level of student participation in class. It is important for teachers to look at what students are saying in their explanations, allow for peer critique of what was said, and finally allow students to re-evaluate their explanations.

=References= Barnes, L. (2008) Lecture –Free High School Biology Using an Audience Response System. //American Biology Teacher//, //70//(9), 531-536.

Bell, B. and Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. //Science Education, 85(5),// 536–553. doi: 10.1002/sce.1022

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R., Donovan, M.S., & Pellegrino, J.W. (Eds.). (2000). //How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school// (Expanded ed.) Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Burns, M. (2005). Looking at how students reason. //Educational Leadership//, //63//(3),26-31.

Coffey, J. E. (2003). Involving students in assessment. In Atkin, J. M., Coffey, J. E. (Eds.) //Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom// (pp.75-89). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and Challenges to Changing the Focus of Assessment and Instruction in Science Classrooms. //Educational Assessment//, //4//(1), 37-73.

Gao, M. (2012). Classroom assessments in mathematics: High school students' perceptions. //International journal of business and social science,// 3(2), 63-68. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. //Science,// 208(4450), 1335-1342.

Goldman, S.R., **Petrosino, A.J.** and CTGV. (1999). Design Principles for Instruction in Content Domains: Lessons from Research on Expertise and Learning. In F.T. Durso, (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Cognition. Chichester, (pp.595-628) England: Wiley.

Parke, C. S., & Lane, S. (1996). Learning from performance assessments in math. //Educational Leadership, 54//(4), 26-29. http://search.proquest.com/docview/224840047?accountid=4117

Russ, R. S., Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., & Hutchison, P. (2008). Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking. //Science Education, 93//(5), 875-891.

Schuh, K.L., (2003). Knowledge construction in the learner-centered classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 426-442.

St Clair-Thompson, H., Stevens, R., Hunt, A., & Bolder, E. (2010). Improving Children's Working Memory and Classroom Performance. //Educational Psychology//, //30//(2), 203-219.

Trauth-Nare, A. & Buck, G. (2011). Using reflective practice to incorporate formative assessment in a middle school science classroom: A participatory action research study. //Education Action Research, 19//(3), 379-398. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2011.600639