Road maps for learning: A guide to the navigation of learning progressions

Measurement

Volumn 9, Issue 2-3, 2011, Pages 71-123

  Black, Paul ^a   Wilson, Mark ^b   Yao, Shih Ying ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Changes of state; Curriculum; Formative; Molecular model; Pedagogy; Progression; Summative; Wright map

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052213531     PISSN: 15366367     EISSN: 15366359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15366367.2011.591654     Document Type: Review

References (80)

1. Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. & Wang, W-C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-23.
2. AERA, APA, & NCME. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
3. Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Dialogos.
4. Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (ages 12-16), Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85
5. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730.
6. Assessment Reform Group. (2006). The role of teachers in the assessment of learning. London, UK: Institute of Education.
7. Bar, V., & Galili, I. (1994). Stages of children's views about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 157-174.
8. Bar, V., & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children's views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 363-382.
9. Biggs, J. B., Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic Press.
10. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, M., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers' summative assessments. Assessment in Education, 17(2), 215-232.
11. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, M. & Serret, N. (in press). Can teachers' summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning? Assessment in Education.
12. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning. London, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
13. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-71.
14. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In John Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (pp. 143-181). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
15. Black, P., &Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31.
16. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals-Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
17. Briggs, D., Alonzo, A., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33-63.
18. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474-482.
20. Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1-14.
21. Butler, R., & Neuman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego-achievement goals on help-seeking behaviours and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 261-271.
22. Chang, J.-Y. (1999). Teachers college students' conceptions about evaporation, condensation, and boiling. Science Education, 83(5), 511-526.
23. Claesgens, J., Scalise, K., Draney, K., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2002, April). Perspectives of chemists: A framework to promote conceptual understanding of chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
24. Costu, B., & Ayas, A. (2005). Evaporation in different liquids: Secondary students' conceptions. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(1), 75-97.
25. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
26. Glaser, Robert. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45, 29-39.
27. Haladyna, T. M. (1994). Cognitive taxonomies. In T. M. Haladyna (Ed.), Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (pp. 104-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (1999). Pedagogy in the secondary school. In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning. London, United Kingdom: Paul Chapman.
29. Harrison, C., & Howard, S. (2009). Inside the primary black box. London, United Kingdom: GL Assessment.
30. Johnson, P. (1998a). Children's understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, Part 1: Boiling water and the particle theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 567-583.
31. Johnson, P. (1998b). Children's understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, Part 2: Evaporation and condensation below boiling point. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 695-709.
32. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Co-operative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from: http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.htm
33. Johnson, P., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130-150
34. Kennedy, C. A., Wilson, M., Draney, K., & Tutunciyan, S. (2007). GradeMap (Version 4.2) [Computer software]. BEAR Center. Berkeley: University of California.
35. Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning re-visited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education, 16(3), 263-268.
36. Linn, R., & Baker, E. (1996). Can performance-based student assessments be psychometrically sound? In J. B. Baron & D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 84-103). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37. Masters, G., & Forster, M. (1996). Progress maps. Assessment resource kit. Victoria, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
38. Masters, G. N., Adams, R. A., &Wilson, M. (1990). Charting student progress. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies. Supplementary volume 2 (pp. 628-634). Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
39. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist:Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377.
40. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Edinburgh, UK: ETL Occasional Report 4. School of Education, University of Edinburgh.
41. Nakhleh, M. B., Samarapungavan, A., & Sablam, Y. (2005). Middle school students' beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 581-612.
42. National Research Council (NRC). (1999). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43. National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. In J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser, (Eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44. National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Systems for state science assessment. In M. Wilson & M. Bertenthal, (Eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Paris, France: OECD.
46. OECD. (2005). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris, France: OECD.
47. Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
48. Paik, S-I., Kim, H-N., Cho, B-K., & Park, J-W. (2004). K-8th grade Korean students' conceptions of "changes of state" and "conditions for changes of state. " International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 207-224.
49. Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils' understanding of particle phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299-1317.
50. Perrenoud, P. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 85-102.
51. Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representations in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787-808.
52. Ross, K., & Law, E. (2003). Children's naive ideas about melting and freezing. School Science Review, 85(311), 99-102.
53. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
54. Roberts, L. (Producer), & Sipusic, M. (Director). (1999). Moderation in all things: A class act [Film]. Available from the Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Center, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1670). http://bearcenter.berkley.edu/
55. Scalise, K., & Wilson, M. (2011). The nature of assessment systems to support effective use of evidence through technology. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8(2), 121-132.
56. Shawn, Y. S., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 687-715.
57. Shayer, M. (2003). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 465-485.
58. Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching. London: Heinemann.
59. Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 395-412.
60. 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, 4,(1 & 2), (Entire issue).
61. Stanley, G., MacCann, R., Gardner, J., Reynolds, L., & Wild, I. (2009). Review of teacher assessment: What works best and issues for development. Oxford University Centre for Educational Development, Report commissioned by the QCA. Retrieved from http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/assessment/uploaded/2009_03-Review_of_teacher_assessment-QCA.pdf
62. Stavy, R. (1990). Children's conceptions of the changes in the state of matter: From liquid (or solid) to gas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 247-286.
63. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
64. Tytler, R. (2000). A comparison of year 1 and year 6 students' conceptions of evaporation and condensation: Dimensions of conceptual progression. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 447-467.
65. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2005). A longitudinal study of children's developing knowledge and reasoning in science. Research in Science Education, 35, 63-98.
66. Varelas, M., Papas, C. C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: Urban second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 637-666.
67. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63-119.
68. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 22(5) 537-548.
69. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 49-65.
70. Wilson, M. (1990). Measurement of developmental levels. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies. Supplementary volume 2 (pp. 628-634). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
71. rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72. rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
73. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
74. rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
75. Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2005). From principles to practice in assessment design: The BEAR Assessment System in a large-scale assessment context. BEAR Research Report. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
76. Wilson, M., & Scalise, K. (2006). Assessment to improve learning in higher education: The BEAR Assessment System. Higher Education, 52, 635-663.
77. Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181-208.
78. Wiske, M. S. (1999). What is teaching for understanding? In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and Pedagogy. London, United Kingdom: Chapman.
79. Wolf, D., & Reardon, S. (1996). Access to excellence through new forms of student assessment. In J. B. Baron & D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
80. Yao, S-Y. (2010). Aligning the melting and evaporation dimensions: Results of the theta and delta methods. BEAR Research Report. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.