Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence

Educational Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 33-55

  Liu, Ou Lydia ^a,d   Lee, Hee Sun ^b   Hofstetter, Carolyn ^c   Linn, Marcia C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 42549100860     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627190801968224     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adams, R. J., & Khoo, S. (1996). ACER quest-The interactive test analysis system. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
2. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2002), Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148
4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
5. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
6. DeBarger, A. H., Quellmalz, E., Fried, R., & Fujii, R. (2006, April). Examining validities of science inquiry assessments with cognitive analyses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
7. diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355-385.
9. Hempel, C.G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
10. Holland, P., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. IEA (1995). Third International Mathematics and Science Study/TIMSS Science Items: Released Set for Population Z (Seventh and Eighth Grades). Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/BSItems.pdf
12. Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 103-126.
13. Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243-264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Linn, M. C. Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006), Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Linn, M. C., & Holmes, J. (2006). Establishing a design process for technology enhanced learning (TELS Report). Berkeley: University of California, Graduate School of Education.
17. Linn, M. C., Husic, F., Slotta, J., & Tinker, R. (2006). Technology enhanced learning in science (TELS): Research programs. Educatiorml Technology, 46(3), 54-68.
18. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
20. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-173.
21. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
22. Mislevy, R. J. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design (Technical). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
23. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). National assessment of educational progress: The nation's report card. Washington, DC: Author.
24. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. National Research Council. (2000). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Paris: Author.
27. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National. Research Council.
28. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R. D., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
29. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of student' scientific explanation. Journal of the Learning Science, 12, 5-51.
30. Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2006, April). The development and evaluation of an assessment system to chronicle non-mainstream students' learning progressions associated with deep thinking in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
31. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213-1230.
32. Wang, J. (2006). An empirical study of gender difference in the relationship between self-concept and mathematics achievement in a cross-cultural context. Educational Psychology, 26, 689-706.
33. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427-445.
34. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 181-208.
36. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.
37. Wu, M., Adams, R., & Wilson, M. (1998). ConQuest: Generalized item response modeling software. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
38. Yeh, S. S. (2006). Tests worth teaching to: Constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 30, 12-17.