The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment
By Janet Coffey, David M. Hammer, D. Levin, Terrence Grant. 2011
270 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Education
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35b2f7e84ec2b8c8b7323600683397ee83cb2bb7
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Education
- Mark Windschitl
- Jessica J. Thompson
- Vickie Winters
- April Cordero Maskiewicz
- Melissa Braaten
- Sara C. Heredia
- Lama Z. Jaber
- David M. Hammer
Citations in the corpus
- Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year intervention study (2016, background): “closely explore the disciplinary substance of student ideas in this dataset (Coffey et al. 2011).”
- Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom (2012, background): “The challenge remains for instruction: How to coordinate the objectives that students take up the pursuit with the objectives that they understand what scientists have established? We are working to meet that challenge with responsive teaching, meaning practices of attending and responding to the su”
- Understanding the co‐construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment (2012, background): “research shows that even experienced teachers have difficulty hearing the substance in student thinking (Coffey et al., 2011; Empson & Jacobs, 2008; Sandoval, Deneroff, & Franke, 2002; Sherin & Han, 2004).”
- Engaging in Science: A Feeling for the Discipline (2016, background): “The professional development focused on cultivating practices of responsive teaching— recognizing, interpreting, and responding to the substance of student thinking in class (Coffey et al., 2011; Hammer, Goldberg, & Fargason, 2012; Levin, Hammer, Elby, & Coffey, 2012) along with the teachers’ own in”
- Developing a Theory of Ambitious Early-Career Teacher Practice (2013, background): “…most to least sophistication were: eliciting ideas and adapting instruction based on the ideas; eliciting students’ initial understandings, but with no adaptive follow-up; no eliciting of ideas, rather an ongoing monitoring, checking, and reteaching for ‘‘correct’’ answers (Coffey et al., 2011).”