No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A major thrust in assessment reform is the instructional use of assessment (Ministry, 2010). Assessment for learning (AFL) has, however, proven challenging for teachers to implement (Brookhart, 2004; Swaffield, 2011; Tierney, 2006). Researchers have called for studies of classrooms that show how AFL works in practice (Bennett, 2011; Shepard, 2000). This study gathers images of practice from classrooms where teachers have been implementing a structure-based approach called Question Structure. Although a key premise of AFL is that assessment can be used instructionally to support learning, Question Structure’s constructivist-information-processing approach is rooted in educational measurement traditions usually juxtaposed to AFL theory and practice (Broadfoot & Black, 2004). Images of practice were drawn from classroom observation, teaching artifacts, and interviews from teachers who had been implementing the system for three to six years in three Ontario school boards. Data were analyzed through sub-questions emerging from the literature and through grounded theory. The study found that Question Structure supported AFL principles and practices. It also supported a Tylerian, backwards-design approach to program design, but not to excess. Technical revisions tended to evolve into significant change in practice, including program reconceptualization and increased focus on students’ learning. The structure-based approach functioned in a variety of ways, for example to support task clarification, (re)reading and comprehension of text, writing process, open-ended collaborative work, and student-generated questions. Teachers were able to clarify the meaning of ‘structure,’ to distinguish structures from instructional and cognitive strategies, and to use universal structures and strategies as subject-specific pedagogy in Language Arts/English. The role of the technical interest and implications for professional learning are also discussed.

A major thrust in assessment reform is the instructional use of assessment (Ministry, 2010). Assessment for learning (AFL) has, however, proven challenging for teachers to implement (Brookhart, 2004; Swaffield, 2011; Tierney, 2006). Researchers have called for studies of classrooms that show how AFL works in practice (Bennett, 2011; Shepard, 2000). This study gathers images of practice from classrooms where teachers have been implementing a structure-based approach called Question Structure. Although a key premise of AFL is that assessment can be used instructionally to support learning, Question Structure’s constructivist-information-processing approach is rooted in educational measurement traditions usually juxtaposed to AFL theory and practice (Broadfoot & Black, 2004). Images of practice were drawn from classroom observation, teaching artifacts, and interviews from teachers who had been implementing the system for three to six years in three Ontario school boards. Data were analyzed through sub-questions emerging from the literature and through grounded theory. The study found that Question Structure supported AFL principles and practices. It also supported a Tylerian, backwards-design approach to program design, but not to excess. Technical revisions tended to evolve into significant change in practice, including program reconceptualization and increased focus on students’ learning. The structure-based approach functioned in a variety of ways, for example to support task clarification, (re)reading and comprehension of text, writing process, open-ended collaborative work, and student-generated questions. Teachers were able to clarify the meaning of ‘structure,’ to distinguish structures from instructional and cognitive strategies, and to use universal structures and strategies as subject-specific pedagogy in Language Arts/English. The role of the technical interest and implications for professional learning are also discussed.

No description available.

Metacognition is commonly understood in the context of the learners and not their teachers. Extant literature focusing on how Mathematics teachers apply their metacognitive skills in the classroom, clearly distinguishes between teaching with metacognition (TwM) referring to teachers thinking about their own thinking and teaching for metacognition (TfM) which refers to teachers creating opportunities for learners to reflect on their thinking. However, in both of these cases, thinking requires a language, in particular appropriate mathematical language to communicate the thinking by both teacher and learners in the Mathematics classroom. In this qualitative study, which forms part of a bigger project within SANPAD (South Africa Netherlands Research Programme on Alternatives in Development), the metacognitive skills and mathematical language used by Mathematics teachers who teach at two township schools were interrogated using the design-based research approach with lesson study. Data collection instruments included individual interviews and a trigonometric assessment task. Lessons were also observed and video-taped to be viewed and discussed during focus group discussions in which the teachers, together with five Mathematics lecturers, participated. The merging of the design-based research approach with lesson study brought about teacher-lecturer collaboration, referred to in this study as the Mathematics Educators’ Reflective Inquiry (ME’RI) group, and enabled the design of a hypothetical teaching and learning trajectory (HTLT) for the teaching of trigonometric functions. A metacognitive performance profile for the two grade 10 teachers was also developed. The Framework for Analysing Mathematics Teaching for the Advancement of Metacognition (FAMTAM) from Ader (2013) and the Teacher Metacognitive Framework (TMF) from Artzt and Armour-Thomas (2002) were adjusted and merged to develop a new framework, the Metacognitive Teaching for Metacognition Framework (MTMF) to analyse the metacognitive skills used by mathematics teachers TwM as well as TfM. Without oversimplifying the magnitude of these concepts, the findings suggest a simple mathematical equation: metacognitive skills + enhanced mathematical language = conceptualization skills. The findings also suggest that both TwM and TfM are required for effective mathematics instruction. Lastly the findings suggest that the ME’RI group holds promise to enhance the use of the metacognitive skills and mathematical language of Mathematics teachers in Mathematics classrooms. / PhD (Mathematics Education), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014