Teaching and Assessment Methods: STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation
Full Text (PDF)
More Detail
1 Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, ISRAEL2 Yonatan Netanyahu Secondary School, Kyriat Motzkin 2643011, ISRAEL3 The Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research, Haifa 3200003, ISRAEL* Corresponding Author
Abstract
This study explores Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teachers’ perceptions of teaching and assessment methods. We investigated 125 STEM subject coordinators and teachers using interviews and questionnaires. We examined the most commonly implemented teaching and assessment methods, and the reasons teachers chose them. Then, we compared teachers from different school levels, subjects, teaching experience and cultural backgrounds. The teaching methods implemented the most were lectures and presentations, followed by class discussions and collaborative classwork. The most implemented assessment method was tests with open- and closed-ended questions, followed by project portfolios and experiment reports. Subject coordinators preferred methods that integrate formative assessment more than teachers. The study contributes to a better understanding of the teaching and assessment methods implemented in schools and the gap between recommendations and actual implementation. Conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, this research sets a baseline for similar future post-COVID research.
License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Article Type: Research Article
EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2021, Volume 17, Issue 6, Article No: em1969
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882
Publication date: 07 May 2021
Article Views: 4461
Article Downloads: 2833
Open Access Disclosures References How to cite this articleDisclosure
Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).
Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).
References
- Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
- Aitken, N. (2016). Grading and Reporting Student Learning. In S. Scott, D. Scott, & C. Webber (Eds.), Assessment in Education Implications for Leadership (pp. 231-260). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23398-7_10
- Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629
- Anghelache, V. (2013). Determinant factors of students’ attitudes toward learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 478-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.223
- Aslam, F., Adefila, A., & Bagiya, Y. (2018). STEM outreach activities: an approach to teachers’ professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(1), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1422618
- Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 207-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9302-7
- Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Challenges in the transition to large-scale reform in chemical education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.008
- Barabash, M. (2019). Dragging as a Geometric Construction Tool: Continuity Considerations Inspired by Students’ Attempts. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 5(2) 124-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-0050-2
- Barak, M., & Raz, E. (1998). Hot-air balloons: project- centered study as a bridge between science and technology education. Science Education, 84(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<27::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-8
- Barak, M., & Shakhman, L. (2008). Reform-based science teaching: Teachers’ instructional practices and conceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75301
- Barnea, N., Dori, Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: Reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chemistry Education Research and Practice - CERP, 11, 218-228. https://doi.org/10.1039/C005471M
- Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning [Book Excerpt]. George Lucas Educational Foundation. http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf
- Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975-1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802425581
- Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18032.x
- Birenbaum, M., & Rosenau, S. (2006). Assessment preferences, learning orientations, and learning strategies of pre‐service and in‐service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(2), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470600655300
- Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Dori, Y. J., Ridgway, J. & Wiesemes, R. (2006). A learning integrated assessment system. In EARLI Series of Position Papers. Wiesemes, R., & Nickmans, G. A. (Eds.). Educational Research Review, 1(1), 61-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.01.001
- Bramwell Lalor, S., & Rainford, M. (2016). Advanced level biology teachers’ attitudes towards assessment and their engagement in assessment for learning. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 380‐396. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9478
- Buchnik, Z. Natan, O., Rave, A., & Hazan, O. (2014). Scientific and technological education in Israel: selected metrics for strategy building. Risk management due to the expected shortage in science and technology teachers in upper division. Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy. https://www.neaman.org.il/EN/Selected-Indicators-Development-Risk-Management-Strategy (In Hebrew with Abstract in English).
- Buldur, S. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the preservice science teachers’ beliefs about science teaching during a science teacher training programme. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1262084
- Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific Literacy and Student Attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
- Chetcuti, D., & Cutajar, C. (2014). Implementing Peer Assessment in a Post-Secondary (16-18) Physics Classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3101-3124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.953621
- Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Thacker, I. (2020). A Comparison of Perceived and Observed Learning from Professional Development: Relationships Among Self-Reports, Direct Assessments, and Teacher Characteristics. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 138-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119899101
- Corlu, M., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
- Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE publications.
- Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86), 2-38. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n86.2014
- Davis, K. (2002). ‘‘Change Is Hard’’: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10037
- Deeley, S. J. (2018). Using technology to facilitate effective assessment for learning and feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356906
- Dogan, S., Pringle, R., & Mesa, J. (2015). The impacts of professional learning communities on science teachers’ knowledge, practice and student learning: a review. Professional Development in Education, 42(4), 569-588. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1065899
- Dori, Y. J. (2003). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the “Matriculation 2000” Project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10059
- Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., & Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1198-1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351
- Dori, Y. J., Kohen, Z., & Rizowy, B. (2020). Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1915. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149
- Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597
- Eskilsson, O., & Hellden, G. (2003). A longitudinal study on 10-12-year-olds´ conceptions of the transformations of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(3), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1039/B2RP90046G
- Evers, W., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158865
- Fairbanks, C. M., Freedman, D., & Kahn, C. (2000). The role of effective mentors in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710005100204
- Farchi T., & Tubin D. (2016). Midlevel management as a link between the principal and school success. Studies in Education, (13/14), 80-101. University of Haifa. (in Hebrew). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26598414
- Fischman, G. E., Topper, A. M., Silova, I., Goebel, J., & Holloway, J. L. (2019). Examining the influence of international large-scale assessments on national education policies. Journal of Education Policy, 34(4), 470-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1460493
- Fitzgerald, A. (2020). Out in the field: examining the role of school-based experiences in preparing primary pre-service teachers as confident and competent teachers of science. International Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 290-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1710618
- Foon Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
- Gale, J., Wind, S., Koval, J., Dagosta, J., Ryan, M., & Usselman, M. (2016). Simulation-based performance assessment: an innovative approach to exploring understanding of physical science concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(14), 2284-2302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1236298
- Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
- Gindi, S., & Erlich-Ron, R. (2019). Bargaining with the system: A mixed-methods study of Arab teachers in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 44-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.12.004
- Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870
- Gozuyesil, E., & Tanriseven, I. (2017). A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Alternative Assessment Techniques. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 70, 37-56. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.70.3
- Grob, R., Holmeier, M., & Labudde, P. (2019). Analysing formal formative assessment activities in the context of inquiry at primary and upper secondary school in Switzerland. International Journal of Science Education, Published online: 8 October 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1663453
- Harlen, W., & James, M. (2006). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594970040304
- Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). Formative assessment and teachers’ sensitivity to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 629-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.1003262
- Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
- Hebel, F. L., Montpied, P., Tiberghien, A., & Fontanieu, V. (2017). Sources of difficulty in assessment: example of PISA science items. International Journal of Science Education, 39(4), 468-487. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1294784
- Hodgson, Y., Varsavsky, C., & Matthews, K. E. (2014). Assessment and teaching of science skills: whole of programme perceptions of graduating students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 515-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.842539
- Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2012). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education-a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459-1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9
- Howells, K. (2018). The future of education and skills: education 2030: the future we want. OECD– Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
- Husny Arar, K., & Massry-Herzllah, A. (2016). Motivation to teach: the case of Arab teachers in Israel. Educational Studies, 42(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1127136
- Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2010). Science teaching methods prefered by grade 9 students in Finland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 611-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9177-8
- Karpudewan, M., Ismail, Z., & Roth, W. M. (2011). Ensuring sustainability of tomorrow through green chemistry integrated with sustainable development concepts (SDCs). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90066H
- Kohen, Z., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2020). How to promote chemical literacy? On-line question posing and communicating with scientists. Chemistry Education Research and Practice - CERP, 21(1), 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00134d
- Kop, P., Janssen, F., Drijvers, P., & van Driel, J. (2020). Promoting insight into algebraic formulas through graphing by hand. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, Published online: 25 May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1765078
- Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497. https://doi.org/10.1086/461779
- Lavi, R., Tal, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing 21st century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101002
- Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
- Lesseig, K., Nelson, T. H., Slavit, D., & Seidel, R. A. (2016). Supporting middle school teachers’ implementation of STEM design challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 116(4), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12172
- Liu, M., Shi, Y., Pan, Z., Li, C., Pan, X., & Lopez, F. (2020). Examining middle school teachers’ implementation of a technology-enriched problem-based learning program: Motivational factors, challenges, and strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Published online: 16 June 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1768183
- Mandler, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Blonder, R., Yayon, M., & Hofstein, A. (2012). High-school chemistry teaching through environmentally oriented curricula. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90071D
- Marchis, I. (2011). Factors that influence secondary school students’ attitude to mathematics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 786-793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.306
- Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics on the gain in students’ development of reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 301-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.582522
- Miedijensky, S., & Tal, T. (2009). Embedded Assessment in Project‐based Science Courses for the Gifted: Insights to inform teaching all students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(18), 2411-2435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802389597
- Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian journal of engineering education, 3(2), 2-16. http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf
- Moore, J. L. (1992). The Role of the Science Co‐ordinator in Primary Schools. A Survey of Headteachers’ Views. School Organization, 12(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260136920120102
- Muema, J., Mulwa, D., & Mailu, S. (2018). Relationship between teaching method and students’ performance in Mathematics in public secondary schools in Dadaab sub country, Garissa country; Kenya. IOSR Journal of Research and Method of Education, 8(5), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0805052832
- Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Forkosh‐Baruch, A. (2010). ICT use in education: Different uptake and practice in Hebrew‐speaking and Arabic‐speaking schools in Israel. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 492-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00374.x
- Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling-Oriented Assessment in K-12 Science Education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 993-1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185
- National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260136920120102
- Neumann K. (2015) Formative Assessment. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science Education. Springer.
- Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
- Rached, E., & Grangeat, M. (2020). French teachers’ informal formative assessment in the context of inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, Published online: 19 March 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1740818
- Rees, C. A., & Roth, W. M. (2019). Discourse forms in a classroom transitioning to student-centred scientific inquiry through co-teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 41(5), 586-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1571649
- Ropohl, M., & Rönnebeck, S. (2019). Making learning effective - quantity and quality of pre-service. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2156-2176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1663452
- Rumschlag, K. E. (2017). Teacher Burnout: A Quantitative Analysis of Emotional Exhaustion, Personal Accomplishment, and Depersonalization. International Management Review, 13(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.2515
- 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 Studies and Science Education, 93(5), 875-891. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20320
- Schallies, M., & Eysel, C. (2004). Learning beyond school: Establishing a laboratory for sustainable education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(5), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90015D
- Schwerdt, G., & Wuppermann, A. (2011). Is traditional teaching really all that bad? A within-student between-subject approach. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.11.005
- Sedawi, W., Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Reiss, M. J. (2019). Regenerating Our Place: Fostering a Sense of Place Through Rehabilitation and Place-Based Education. Research in Science Education, Published online: 19 November 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09903-y
- Shaukat, S., Vishnumolakala, V. R., & Alghamdi, A. K. H. (2020). Science Teachers’ Perceptions of Personal Science Efficacy Beliefs and Science Teaching in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(8), em1866. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8290
- Soldano, C., & Arzarello, F. (2016). Learning with touchscreen devices: game strategies to improve geometric thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0166-7
- Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: the influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1812-1831. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346
- Stollman, S., Meirink, J., Westenberg, M., & Van Driel, J. (2020). Teachers’ learning and sense-making processes in the context of an innovation: a two year follow-up study. Professional Development in Education, Published online: 27 Mar 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1744683
- Tal, T., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Urban Schools’ Teachers Enacting Project-Based Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722-745. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20102
- Toren, Z., & Iliyan, S. (2008). The problems of the beginning teacher in the Arab schools in Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 1041-1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.009
- Tsybulsky, D. (2018). Comparing the impact of two science-as-inquiry methods on the NOS understanding of high-school biology students. Science & Education, 27(7), 661-683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0001-0
- Umugiraneza, O., Bansilal, S., & North, D. (2017). Exploring teachers’ practices in teaching Mathematics and Statistics in KwaZulu-Natal schools. South African Journal of Education, 37(2), 1306. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n2a1306
- Usher, M., & Barak, M. (2020). Team diversity as a predictor of innovation in projects of online and face-to-face learners. Computers & Education, 144, 103702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103702
- Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-1121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213488622
- Wengrowicz, N., Dori, Y. J., & Dori, D. (2017). Meta-assessment in a project-based systems engineering course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 607-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1173648
- Westbroek, H. B., van Rens, L., van den Berg, E., & Janssen, F. (2020). A practical approach to assessment for learning and differentiated instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 42(6), 955-976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1744044
- Wieman, C. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319-8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111
- Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
- Wong, V. J. (2018). The relationship between school science and mathematics education (Doctoral dissertation, King’s College London). https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/
- Worlitz, J., Branke, M., Troike, M., Hettling, L., & Woll, R. (2018, December). The contribution of learning, teaching and assessment activities to the development of 21st century STEM competencies. In 2018 IEEE international conference on teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (TALE) (pp. 316-321). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615320
- Zee, M., & Koomen, H. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A Synthesis of 40 Years of Research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981-1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
- Zezekwa, N., & Nkopodi, N. (2020). Physics teachers’ views and practices on the assessment of students’ practical work skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(8), em1865. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8289
- Zlabkova, I., Petr, J., Stuchlikova, I., Rokos, L., & Hospesova, A. (2020). Development of teachers’ perspective on formative peer assessment. International Journal of Science Education, Published online: 18 Jan 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1713418
- Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
How to cite this article
APA
Akiri, E., Tor, H. M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Teaching and Assessment Methods: STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(6), em1969. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882
Vancouver
Akiri E, Tor HM, Dori YJ. Teaching and Assessment Methods: STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(6):em1969. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882
AMA
Akiri E, Tor HM, Dori YJ. Teaching and Assessment Methods: STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(6), em1969. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882
Chicago
Akiri, Effrat, Hrisilda Matathia Tor, and Yehudit Judy Dori. "Teaching and Assessment Methods: STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2021 17 no. 6 (2021): em1969. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882
Harvard
Akiri, E., Tor, H. M., and Dori, Y. J. (2021). Teaching and Assessment Methods: STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(6), em1969. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882
MLA
Akiri, Effrat et al. "Teaching and Assessment Methods: STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 17, no. 6, 2021, em1969. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882