Developing a construct-based assessment to examine students' analogical reasoning around physical models in Earth Science

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 713-743

  Rivet, Ann E ^a   Kastens, Kim A ^b  

^a Teachers College Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^b International Research Institute for Climate and Society   (United States)

Author keywords

analogical reasoning; assessment; Earth Science; models

Indexed keywords

ANALOGICAL REASONING; ASSESSMENT; DESIGN APPROACHES; EARTH SYSTEMS; LEARNING SITUATION; LEVEL 2; LEVEL-1; PHYSICAL DYNAMICS; PHYSICAL MODEL; RASCH MODELING; RELATIVE MOTION; RELATIVE PERFORMANCE; SCIENCE EDUCATION; SCIENTIFIC REASONING;

ABILITY TESTING; EARTH (PLANET); EARTH SCIENCES; MODELS; STUDENTS;

EDUCATION COMPUTING;

EID: 84863844271     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21029     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adams, R. J., &, Khoo, S. T., (1996). Quest. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bailey, J. M., &, Slater, T. F., (2004). A review of astronomy education research. Astronomy Education Review, 2 (2), 20-45;.
4. Bridgeman, B., (1992). A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice formats. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29 (3), 253-271;.
5. Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., &, Wilson, M., (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11 (1), 33-63;.
6. Boulter, C. J., &, Buckley, B., (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In, J. Gilbert, &, C. Boulter, (Eds.), Constructing a typology of models for science education (pp. 41-58;). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
7. Brown, N. J. S., (2005). The multidimensional measure of conceptual complexity. Technical Report No. 2005-04-01. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment Research Center.
8. Brown, N., &, Wilson, M., (2011). A model of cognition: The missing cornerstone of assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (2), 221-234;.
9. Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., &, Rogat, A. D., (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
10. Davis, D., Suppe, J., &, Dahlen, F. A., (1983). Mechanics of fold-and-thrust belts and accretionary prisms. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88 (B2), 1153-1172;.
11. Dolphin, G., (2008). Evolution of the theory of the Earth: A contextualized approach for teaching the history of the theory of plate tectonics to ninth grade students. Science & Education, 18 (3-4), 425-441;.
12. Duncan, R., &, Hmelo-Silver, C., (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 606-609;.
13. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., &, Shouse, A. W., (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching in Grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
14. Gentner, D., (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7 (2), 155-170;.
15. Gentner, D., (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34 (5), 752-775;.
16. Gentner, D., &, Colhoun, J., (2010). Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In, B. Glatzeder, V. Goel, &, A. v. Muller, (Eds.), On thinking: Volume 2. Towards a theory of thinking (pp. 35-48;). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17. Gentner, D., &, Gentner, D. R., (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In, D. Gentner, &, A. L. Stevens, (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99-129;). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Gentner, D., &, Toupin, C., (1986). Systemicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science, 10, 277-300;.
19. Glaser, B. G., &, Strauss, A. L., (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
20. Herrick, R. R., &, Pierazzo, E., (2003). Improving knowledge of impact cratering: Bringing together "Modelers" and "Observationalists ". EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 84 (31), 291.
21. Jee, B. D., Uttal, D. H., Gentner, D., Manduca, C., Shipley, T. F., Tikoff, B., Sageman, B., (2010). Commentary: Analogical thinking in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58 (1), 2-13;.
22. Justi, R., &, Gilbert, J., (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of 'the atom.' International Journal of Science Education, 22 (9), 993-1009;.
23. Kastens, K., &, Rivet, A., (2008). Multiple modes of inquiry in earth science. The Science Teacher, 75 (1), 26-31;.
24. Kastens, K., &, Rivet, A., (2010). Using analogical mapping to assess the affordances of scale models used in earth and environmental science education. In, C. Hölscher, et al. (Eds.), Spatial Cognition VII, LNAI 6222 (pp. 112-124;). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
25. Katz, R., Ragnarsson, R., &, Bodenschatz, E., (2005). Tectonic microplates in a wax model of sea-floor spreading. New Journal of Physics, 7, (37).
26. Kennedy, C. A., Wilson, M., Draney, K., Tutunciyan, S., &, Vorp, R., (2008). ConstructMap Version 4 (computer program). Berkeley, CA: BEAR Center, University of California.
27. Lehrer, R., &, Schauble, L., (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In, K. Sawyer, (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (p. 393-410;). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28. Liben, L., (1999). Developing an understanding of external spatial representations. In, I. Sigel, (Ed.), Development of mental representation: Theories and applications (pp. 297-321;). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Lindell, R. S., &, Olsen, J. P., (2002). Developing the lunar phases concept inventory. Presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers Summer Meeting (Physics Education Research Conference), Boise, Idaho. Retrieved January 5, 2012 from
30. Messick, S., (1988). The once and future issues with validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In, H. Wainer, &, H. Braun, (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
32. Nersessian, N. J., Kurz-Milche, E., Newsletter, W. C., &, Davies, J., (2003). Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. In, R. Alterman, &, D. Kirsh, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857-862;). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Oldenburg, D. W., &, Brune, J. N., (1972). Ridge transform fault spreading patterns in freezing wax. Science, 178, 301-304;.
34. Plummer, J. D., (2009). Early elementary students' development of astronomy concepts in the planetarium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (2), 192-209;.
35. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., &, Duncan, R. G., (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (5), 486-511;.
36. Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H., Miller, J. L., Cook-Smith, N., Dussault, M., &, Gould, R. R., (2010). The astronomy and space science concept inventory: Development and validation of assessment instruments aligned with the K-12 National Science Standards. Astronomy Education Review, 8 (1), 010111-1-101011-26;.
37. Scales, J. A., Smith, M. L., &, Treitel, S., (2001). Introductory geophysical inverse theory. White River Junction, VT: Samizdat Press.
38. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, B., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., (2009). Designing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 632-654;.
39. Shin, N., Stevens, S. Y., &, Krajcik, J., (2010). Tracking student learning over time using construct-centered design. In, S. Rodrigues, (Ed.), Using analytical frameworks for classroom research: Collecting data and analyzing narrative. New York: Routledge.
40. Stahly, L. L., Krockover, G. H., &, Shepardson, D. P., (1999). Third grade students' ideas about the lunar phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (2), 159-177;. (Pubitemid 129534712)
41. Steedle, J., &, Shavelson, R., (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 699-715;.
42. Storti, F., Marin, R. S., Rossetti, F., &, Sainz, A. M. C., (2007). Evolution of experimental thrust wedges accreted from along-strike tapered, silicone-floored multilayers. Journal of the Geological Society, 164 (1), 73-85;. (Pubitemid 46099457)
43. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., &, Christopher, J. E., (2002). Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (7), 633-658;.
44. Vosniadou, S., &, Brewer, W. F., (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18 (1), 123-183;.
45. Wilson, M., (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.