Windows into the mind

Higher Education

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 413-430

  Shavelson, Richard J ^a   Ruiz Primo, Maria Araceli ^a   Wiley, Edward W ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MCKINSEY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22044445235     PISSN: 00181560     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-004-9448-9     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
2. Anderson, R.C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher 13(10), 5-10.
3. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J. and Glaser, R. (1981). 'Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices', Cognitive Science 5, 121-152.
4. Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Farr, M.J. (1988). The Nature of Expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.
5. Ericsson, A.K. and Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
6. Ericsson, A.K. and Simon, H.A. (1998). 'How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking', Mind, Culture & Activity 5(3), 178-186.
7. Fisher, K.M. (2000). 'SemNet software as an assessment tool', in Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. and Novak, J.D. (eds.), Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View. New York: Academic Press, pp. 197-221.
8. Centner, D. and Stevens, A.L. (eds.) (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Glaser, R. (1991). 'Expertise and assessment', in Wittrock, M.C. and Baker, E.L. (eds.), Testing and Cognition, pp. 17-39.
10. Glaser, R. and Bassok, M. (1989). 'Learning theory and the study of instruction', Annual Review of Psychology 40, 631-666.
11. Goldsmith, I.E., Johnson, P.J. and Acton, W.H. (1991). 'Assessing structural knowledge', Journal of Educational Psychology 83(1), 88-96.
12. Li., M. and Shavelson, R.J. (2001). 'Examining the links between science achievement and assessment'. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
13. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. and Novak, J.D. (1997). Teaching Science for Understanding. San Diego: Academic Press.
14. Novak, J.D. (1990). 'Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(10), 937-949.
15. Novak, J.D. and Gowin, D.R. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge Press.
16. Pearsall, N.R., Skipper, J.E.J. and Mintzes, J.J. (1997). 'Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences. A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology', Science Education 81 (2), 193-215.
17. Ruiz-Primo, M.A. and Shavelson, R.J. (1996a). 'Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6), 569-600.
18. Ruiz-Primo, M.A. and Shavelson, R.J. (1996b). 'Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(10), 1045-1063.
19. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Schultz, E.S. and Shavelson, R.J. (1996c). 'Concept map-based assessments in science: An exploratory study'. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
20. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Schutlz, S.E., Li, M. and Shavelson, R.J. (2001). 'Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(2), 260-278.
21. Sadler, P.M. (1998). 'Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments', Journal of Research in science Teaching 35(3), 265-296.
22. Schau, C. and Mattern, N. (1997). 'Use of map techniques in teaching applied statistics courses', The American Statistician 51(2), 171-175.
23. Schultz, S.E. (1999). To Group or not to Group: Effects of Grouping on Students' Declarative and Procedural Knowledge in Science. Stanford, CA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
24. Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P. and Pine, J. (1992). 'Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality', Educational Researcher 21(4), 22-27.
25. Shavelson, R.J. and Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (1999a). 'Leistungsbewertung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht' (Evaluation in natural science instruction), Unterrichtswissenschaft 27, 102-127.
26. Shavelson, R.J. and Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (1999b). On the Psychometrics of Assessing Science Understanding. New York: Academic Press.
27. Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., Solano-Flores, G., McCaffrey, D., Robyn, A., Shavelson, RJ. and Haertel, E. (2000). The effects of content, format, and inquiry level on performance on science performance assessment scores', Applied Measurement in Education 13(2), 139-160.
28. Shavelson, R.J. (1972). 'Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction', Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 225-234.
29. Shavelson, R.J. (1974). 'Some methods for examining content structure and cognitive structure in instruction', Educational Psychologist 11, 110-122.
30. Shavelson, R.J. and Stanton, G.C. (1975). 'Construct validation: Methodology and application to three measures of cognitive structure', Journal of Educational Measurement 12, 67-85.
31. Shavelson, R.J. and Webb, N.M. (1991). Generalizability Theory: A Primer. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
32. White, R.T. and Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. New York: Falmer Press.
33. Wiley, E.W. (1998). Indirect and Direct Assessment of Structural Knowledge in Statistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University School of Education.
34. Zajchowski, R. and Martin, J. (1993). 'Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge, strategies, or knowledge structure', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(5), 459-470.