Integrating Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Evaluation in a Technology-Supported Genetics Learning Environment

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 495-538

  Hickey, Daniel T ^a   Kindfield, Ann C H ^b   Horwitz, Paul ^c   Christie, Mary Ann T ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b Educational Designs Unlimited Inc ^*  (United States)

^c Concord Consortium ^*  (United States)

^d LESLEY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Design based research; Evaluation; Genetics learning; Model based reasoning; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242596393     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00028312040002495     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
2. Chemlinsky, E. (1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 35-55.
3. Christie, M. (1999, April). "We understood it more 'cause we were doin' it ourself": Students' self-described connections between participation and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
5. Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer.
7. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of educational research. In E. C. Lagemann & L. B. Schulman (Eds.), Issues in educational research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 289-298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction 10, 249-266.
9. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
10. DiSessa, A. (1991). Local science: Viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 162-202). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Duschl, R. (in press). Assessment of inquiry, Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
12. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
13. Fisher, W. P. (1996). Reliability and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9, 472.
14. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.
15. Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Lajoie, S. (1987). Toward a cognitive theory for the measurement of achievement. In R. Ronning, J. Glover, J. C. Conoley, & J. Witt (Eds.), The influence of cognitive psychology on testing and measurement: The Buros-Nebraska Symposium on measurement and testing (Vol. 3, pp. 41-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan.
17. Greeno, J. G., McDermott, R., Cole, K. A., Engle, R. A., Goldman, S., Knudsen, J., et al. (1998). Research, reform, and aims in education: Modes of action in search of each other. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 299-335). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics through Applied Projects Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
19. Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
20. Hickey, D. T. (2001). Assessment, motivation, and epistemological reconciliation in a technology-supported learning environment (Grant REC-0196225, National Science Foundation).
21. Hickey, D. T. (2003), Engaged participation vs. marginal non-participation: A stridently sociocultural model of achievement motivation. Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 401-429.
22. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 181(2), 1-33.
23. Hickey, D. T., Wolfe, E. W., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a technology-supported genetics environment: Evidential and consequential validity issues. Educational Assessment, 6(3), 155-196.
24. Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. (1999). Hypermodels: Embedding curriculum and assessment in computer-based manipulatives. Journal of Education, 181, 1-24.
25. Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. (2000). Computer-based manipulatives for teaching scientific reasoning: An example. M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the twenty-first century: Theory, research, and the design of advanced technology learning environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Horwitz, P., Neumann, E., & Schwartz, J. (1996). Teaching science at multiple levels: The GenScope program. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 127-131.
27. Jungck, J. R., & Calley, J. N. (1985). Strategic simulations and post-Socratic pedagogy: Constructing computer software to develop long-term inference through experimental inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 47(1), 11-15.
28. Kelly, A. E. (Ed.). (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1).
29. Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Approximations to indicators of student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyste, 21, 345-363.
31. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993/1994). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 1-36.
32. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1994). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis. Science Education, 78, 255-283.
33. Kindfield, A. C. H., Hickey, D. T., & Wolfe, E. W. (1999, April). Tools for scaffolding inquiry in the domain of introductory genetics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
34. Lagemann, E. (1999). An auspicious moment for education research? In E. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 3-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-faceted Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press.
36. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa, Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20.
37. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
38. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Breyer, F. J., Almond, R. G., & Johnson, L. (1999). A cognitive task analysis, with implications for designing a simulation-based assessment system. Computers and Human Behavior, 15, 335-374.
39. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). NAEP 1996 Assessment: Science - Public Release, Grade 12. Washington, DC: Author.
40. National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. (1999). Investing in learning: A policy statement on research in education. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
41. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42. National Research Council. (1999a). In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43. National Research Council. (1999b). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44. National Research Council. (2001a). In J. M. Atkin, P. Black, & J. Coffey (Eds.), Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. National Research Council. (2001b). In J. W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowski, & R. W. Glaser. (Eds.), Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. National Research Council. (2002). In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.), Scientific inquiry in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Educational Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. National Research Council, (in press). Assessment in support of instruction and learning: bridging the gap between large-scale and classroom assessment (workshop report, Committee on Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning, Board on Testing and Assessment). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
48. Pellegrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2002). Be careful what you wish for-You may get it: Educational research in the spotlight. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 15-17.
49. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. (1997, March). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
50. Roschelle, J., & Jackiw, N. (2000). Technology design as educational research: Inter-weaving imagination, inquiry, and impact. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 777-798). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 369-393.
52. Sechrest, L. (1992). Roots: Back to our first generation. Evaluation Practice, 13, 1-7.
53. Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 404-450.
54. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
55. Slack, S. J., & Stewart, J. (1990). High school students' problem-solving performance on realistic genetics problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 55-67.
56. Sloane, F. C., & Gorard, S. (2003). Exploring modeling aspects of design experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 29-31.
57. Steffe, L. P. (1983). The teaching experiment methodology in a constructivist research program. Paper presented at the Fourth International Congress on Mathematics Education, Boston.
58. Stewart, J. (1988). Potential learning outcomes from solving genetics problems: A typology of problems. Science Education, 72, 237-254.
59. Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1994). Research on problem solving: Genetics. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science leaching and learning (pp. 284-300). New York: Macmillan.
60. Stewart, J., Hafner, R., Johnson, S., & Finkel, L. (1992). Using computers to facilitate learning science and learning about science. Educational Psychologist, 27, 317-336.
61. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 3-118.
62. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 200-214.
63. Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181-208.
64. Wolfe, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.