Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 699-715

  Steedle, Jeffrey T ^a   Shavelson, Richard J ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive development; Learning progressions; Middle school science; Physical science; Secondary

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING PROGRESSIONS; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; PHYSICAL SCIENCE; SECONDARY;

STUDENTS;

EID: 68149166124     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20308     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alonzo, A.C., & Steedle, J.T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421.
2. Ayala, C., Shavelson, R.J., Brandon, P., Yin, Y., Furtak, E.M., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Young, D., & Tomita, M. (2008). From formal embedded assessments to reflective lessons: The development of formative assessment suites. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 315-334.
3. Bao, L., Hogg, K., & Zollman, D. (2002). Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton's third law. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 766-778.
4. Bao, L., & Redish, E.F. (2001). Concentration analysis: A quantitative assessment of student states. American Journal of Physics, 69(7), Physics Education Supplement, 45-54.
5. Bao, L., & Redish, E.F. (2006). Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 2(1), 010103.
6. Briggs, D.C., Alonzo, A.C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Developmental assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33-63.
7. Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E., & Anderson, J.H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074-1079.
8. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
9. diSessa, A.A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P.B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49 70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades k-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Finegold, M., & Gorsky, P. (1991). Students' concepts of force as applied to related physical systems: A search for consistency. International Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 97-113.
12. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H.M. (1994). The theory theory. In L.A. Hirschfeld & S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257 293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13. Halloun, IA., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056-1065.
14. Halloun, IA., & Hestenes, D. (1985b). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043-1055.
15. Huffman, D., & Heller, P. (1995). What does the force concept inventory actually measure? The Physics Teacher, 33(3), 138-143.
16. loannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force: From coherence to fragmentation. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5-62.
17. Kennedy, C.A., Brown, N.J.S., Draney, K., & Wilson, M. (2005). Using progress variables and embedded assessment to improve teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
18. Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Henry, N.W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Muffin.
19. Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J.K. (2004). Latent class models. In The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 175 198). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
20. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Minstrell, J. (2000). Student thinking and related assessment: Creating a facet assessment-based learning environment. In J. Pellegrino, L. Jones, & K. Mitchell (Eds.), Grading the nation's report card:
22. Research from the evaluation of NAEP (pp. 44-73). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23. National Assessment Governing Board. (2006) Science assessment and item specifications for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress (prepublication edition).
24. Palmer, D. (1997). The effect of context on students' reasoning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 681-696.
25. Reif, F. (1987). Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Applications to the teaching of scientific concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 309-324.
26. 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.
27. Spiegethalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Lunn, D. (2003). WinBUGS user manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health.
28. Steedle, J.T. (2008). Latent class analysis of diagnostic science assessment data using Bayesian networks. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford.
29. Thissen-Roe, A., Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (2004). The diagnoser project: Combining assessment and learning. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 234-240.
30. Thornton, R.K., & Sokoloff, D.R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338-352.
31. Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205-221.
32. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Wilson M.R. & Bertenthal M.W. (Eds.). (2005). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.[