This presentation describes the theoretical rationale behind designs for assessment activities to support self-regulated learning in middle school Earth systems science. The designs employ classroom network technologies to enable rapid collection and aggregation of assessment data to a shared display. The display in these assessment activities is intended to become the focus for teachers to orchestrate discussion in which students have the opportunity to reflect upon and revise their ideas. Participation in these discussions is intended to provide students with experiences of co-regulated learning, which may become internalized as habits of reflection and revision. Motivation for the project that is the focus of this study comes from the power of two mechanisms with great potential for improving self-regulation in learning: improved classroom assessment and powerful new classroom network technologies that make visible to students and teachers alike what it is students know and can do and what they find difficult. High-quality classroom assessment activities can promote self-regulated learning by increasing students’ willingness to review and revise ideas (1) and their ability to detect and correct errors in their thinking (2). Classroom network technology such as “clickers” can support this assessment by making all students’ thinking visible and open to discussion and revision (3). To make the most of these technologies, our project has developed and is studying a set of teaching routines that are aimed at increasing student opportunities to communicate with the teacher and with peers about their thinking, motivating students to participate and learn from lectures, investigations, and readings, and providing feedback to inform the teacher about how to adjust instruction. We present the design of these routines and preliminary evidence of how teachers perceive them and use them in middle school Earth systems science classrooms.

^{(1) Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997) The Jasper Project:Lessons in Curriculum, Instr., Assessment, and Prof. Dev., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., NJ.; (2) Bangert-Drowns et al. (1991) Rev. Ed. Res. 61:213-238; Butler & Winne (1995) Rev. Ed. Res. 65:245-281; (3) Penuel & Yarnall (2005) J. Tech. Learn. Assess. 3(5):http://www.jtla.org.}