Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 389-421

  Alonzo, Alicia C ^a   Steedle, Jeffrey T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68049103103     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20303     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, C. W., Alonzo, A. C., Smith, C., & Wilson, M. (2007, August). NAEP pilot learning progression framework. Report to the National Assessment Governing Board.
3. Bell, B., Osborne, R., & Tasker, R. (1985). Appendix A: Finding out what children think. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children's science (pp. 151 - 165). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
4. Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiplechoice items. Educational Assessment, 11, 33 - 63.
5. Catley, K., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2004). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Paper commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. RetrievedMarch 23, 2007, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Evolution.pdf
6. Champagne, A., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074 - 1079.
7. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Characterization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121 - 152.
8. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
9. diSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 15-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
11. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Finegold, M., & Gorksy, P. (1991). Students' concepts of force as applied to related physical systems: A search for consistency. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 97-113.
13. Full Option Science System. (2003, Spring). Force andmotion teacher's guide (Trial ed.). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science.
14. Gilbert, J., & Watts, M. (1983). Misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
15. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1065.
16. Holt science spectrum: A physical approach. (2001). Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
17. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2001). The changing meanings of force: From coherence to fragmentation. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5-62. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://www.cs.phs.uoa.gr/el/staff/vosniadou/force.pdf
18. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Lucas, D., Henrie, A., Taylor, R., & Knapp, N. (2008, March). Development of models and modeling in the life sciences. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Chairs), Diverse perspectives on the development, assessment, and validation of learning progressions in science. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
19. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Minstrell, J. (n.d.). Facets of students' thinking. Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://depts.washington.edu/huntlab/diagnoser/facetcode.html
21. National Assessment Governing Board. (2006a). Science assessment and item specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (Prepublication ed.). Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/naepsciencespecs2009.doc
22. National Assessment Governing Board. (2006b). Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (Prepublication ed.). Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/naep science framework 2009.doc
23. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25. National Research Council. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
26. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
27. Popham, W. J. (2007). The lowdown on learning progressions. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 83-84.
28. Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 1-34.
29. Reiser, B. J., Schwarz, C., Shwartz, Y., Kenyon, L., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., et al. (2008, March). MoDeLS: Articulating a learning progression for scientific modeling. In A. C. Alonzo & A.W. Gotwals (Chairs), Diverse perspectives on the development, assessment, and validation of learning progressions in science. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
30. Roberts, L.,Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (1997, June). The SEPUP assessment system: An overview. BEAR Report Series, SA-97-1. University of California, Berkeley.
31. Roseman, J. E., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kurth, L. (2006, April). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/articles/papers/narst2006.pdf
32. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 14, 1-98.
33. Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory. (2003). FAST teacher's guide to the reflective lessons Ver 6_22. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
34. Steedle, J. T. (2006, April). Seeking evidence supporting assumptions underlying the measurement of progress variable levels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
35. Trumper, R., & Gorsky, P. (1996). A cross-college age study about physics students' conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Physics Education, 31, 227-235.
36. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Wilson, M. (2008, March). Measuring progressions. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Chairs), Diverse perspectives on the development, assessment, and validation of learning progressions in science. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://myweb.uiowa.edu/alonzo/aera2008.html