Development and application of a rubric for evaluating students' performance on Newton's laws of motion

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 146-164

  Kocakülah, Mustafa Sabri ^a  

^a BALIKESIR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Newton's laws of motion; Peer assessment; Pre service primary science teachers; Rubric

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952238535     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-009-9188-9     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Andaloro G, Bellomonte L, Sperandeo-Mineo RM (1997) A computer-based learning environment in the field of Newtonian mechanics. Int J Sci Educ 19(6): 661-680.
2. Bakeman R (2005) Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behav Res Methods 37(3): 379-384.
3. Bednarski M (2003) Assessing performance tasks. Sci Teach 70(4): 34.
4. Caleon I, Subramaniam R (2005) The impact of a cryogenics-based enrichment programme on attitude towards science and the learning of science concepts. Int J Sci Educ 27(6): 679-704.
5. Crouch C (1998) Peer instruction: an interactive approach for large classes. Opt Photonics News 9(9): 37-41.
6. Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69(9): 970-977.
7. Crouch CH, Watkins J, Fagen AP, Mazur E (2007) Peer instruction: engaging students one-on-one, all at once. In: Redish EF, Cooney PJ (eds) Research-based reform of university physics: reviews in PER, vol. 1. Retrieved August 21, 2009 from American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile. cfm?ID=4990.
8. D'amico EJ, Neilands TB, Zambarano R (2001) Power analysis for multivariate and repeated measures designs: a flexible approach using the SPSS MANOVA procedure. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 33(4): 479-484.
9. Davidowitz B, Rollnick M, Fakudze C (2005) Development and application of a rubric for analysis of novice students' laboratory flow diagrams. Int J Sci Educ 27(1): 43-59.
10. Ebel RL (1951) Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychometrika 16(4): 407-424.
11. Etkina E, van Heuvelen A, White-Brahmia S, Brookes DT, Gentile M, Murthy S, Rosengrant D, Warren A (2006) Scientific abilities and their assessment. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 2(2): 1-15.
12. Fagen AP (2003) Assessing and enhancing the introductory science course in physics and biology: peer instruction, classroom demonstrations and genetics vocabulary. PhD thesis, Harvard University.
13. Fagen AP, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2002) Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms. Phys Teach 40(4): 206-209.
14. Falchikov N (1995) Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innov Educ Train Int 32(2): 175-187.
15. Ferguson GA (1971) Statistical analysis in psychology and education. McGraw-Hill, New York.
16. Fowler SR, Zeidler DL, Sadler TD (2009) Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. Int J Sci Educ 31(2): 279-296.
17. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE (1996) How to design and evaluate research in education, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.
18. Freeman M (1995) Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assess Eval High Educ 20: 289-299.
19. Gaigher E, Rogan JM, Braun MWH (2007) Exploring the development of conceptual understanding through structured problem-solving in physics. Int J Sci Educ 29(9): 1089-1110.
20. Gatfield T (1999) Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 24: 365-377.
21. Gillmore GM (2000) Drawing inferences about instructors: the inter-class reliability of student ratings of instruction. Office of Educational Assessment, report no. 00-02, University of Washington, US.
22. Gravetter FJ, Wallnau LB (1996) Statistics for the behavioral sciences: a first course for students of psychology and education, 4th edn. West Publishing Company, Minneapolis.
23. Green PJ (2003) Peer instruction for astronomy. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
24. Green SB, Salkind NJ, Akey TM (2000) Using SPSS for Windows: analyzing and understanding data. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
25. Hafner JC, Hafner PM (2003) Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: an empirical study of student peer-group rating. Int J Sci Educ 25(12): 1509-1528.
26. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
27. Herman JL, Aschbacher PR, Winters L (1992) A practical guide to alternative assessment. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria.
28. Hohenshell LM, Hand B (2006) Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed method study. Int J Sci Educ 28(2& 3): 261-289.
29. Hughes IE, Large BJ (1993) Staff and peer group assessment of oral communication skills. Stud High Educ 18: 379-385.
30. Jackson CW, Larkin MJ (2002) Teaching students to use grading rubrics. Teach Except Child 35(1): 40-45.
31. Jimoyiannis A, Komis V (2003) Investigating Greek students' ideas about forces and motion. Res Sci Educ 33: 375-392.
32. Kilic GB, Cakan M (2007) Peer assessment of elementary science teaching skills. J Sci Teacher Educ 18(1): 91-107.
33. Kinnear PR, Gray CD (2008) SPSS 16 made simple. Psychology Press, Hove.
34. Kwan K, Leung R (1996) Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a simulation training exercise. Assess Eval High Educ 21: 205-215.
35. Lasry N, Mazur E, Watkins J (2008) Peer instruction: from Harvard to the two-year college. Am J Phys 76(11): 1066-1069.
36. Litzinger TA, Lee SH, Wise JC, Felder RM (2007) A psychometric study of the index of learning styles. J Eng Educ 96(4): 309-319.
37. Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2006) Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am J Phys 74(2): 118-122.
38. Luft JA (1999) Rubrics: design and use in science teacher education. J Sci Teacher Educ 10(2): 107-121.
39. MacAlpine JMK (1999) Improving and encouraging peer assessment of student presentations. Assess Eval High Educ 24: 15-25.
40. Magin D, Helmore P (2001) Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentation skills: how reliable are they? Stud High Educ 26(3): 287-298.
41. Mazur E (1997) Peer instruction: A user's manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
42. McClure R, Johnson B, Jackson D, Hoff J (2000) Assessing the constructivist classroom. (ERIC No. ED443459) Retrieved September 18, 2007 from http://www.eric.ed. gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/55/50. pdf.
43. McCollister S (2002) Developing criteria rubrics in the art classroom. Art Educ 55(6): 46.
44. Mildenhall PT, Williams JS (2001) Instability in students' use of intuitive and Newtonian models to predict motion: the critical effect of the parameters involved. Int J Sci Educ 23(6): 643-660.
45. Nicol DJ, Boyle JT (2003) Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in the large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Stud High Educ 28(4): 458-473.
46. Parker J, Heywood D (2000) Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers' learning about forces. Int J Sci Educ 22(1): 89-111.
47. Pomplun M, Capps L (1999) Gender differences for constructed response mathematics items. Educ Psychol Measur 59: 597-614.
48. Pomplun M, Sundbye N (1999) Gender differences in constructed response reading items. Appl Measur Educ 12: 95-109.
49. Popham WJ (1997) What's wrong- and what's right-with rubrics. Educ Leadership 55(2): 72-75.
50. Potvin PJ, Schutz RW (2000) Statistical power for the two-factor repeated measures ANOVA. Behav Res Method Instrum Comput 32(2): 347-356.
51. Rosengrant D, van Heuvelen A, Etkina E (2005) Free-body diagrams: necessary or sufficient? Am Inst Phys Conf Proc 790(1): 177-180.
52. Rutherford S (2007) Using a laboratory conclusion rubric. Sci Act Classroom Projects Curr Ideas 43(4): 9-14.
53. Serway RA, Beichner RJ (2000) Physics for scientists and engineers. Saunders College Publishing, Orlando.
54. Shaka FL, Bitner BL (1996) Construction and validation of a rubric for scoring concept maps. In: AETS conference papers and summaries of presentations, pp 650-669. Retrieved October 31, 2007 from http://www.ed.psu.edu/CI/journals/96pap43.htm.
55. Shymansky JA, Yore LD, Treagust DF, Thiele RB, Harrison A, Waldrip BG, Stocklmayer SM, Venville G (1997) Examining the construction process: a study of changes in level 10 students' understanding of classical mechanics. J Res Sci Teach 34(6): 571-593.
56. Stefani LAJ (1994) Peer, self and tutor assessment: relative reliabilities. Stud High Educ 19: 69-75.
57. Stevens J (1996) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Erlbaum, Mahwah.
58. Stoll SA (2003) Assessing elementary students. Strategies 16(1): 33.
59. Topping K (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev Educ Res 68(3): 249-276.
60. Trumper R, Gorsky P (1997) A survey of biology students' conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Res Sci Technol Educ 15(2): 133-149.