Proficiency in science: Assessment challenges and opportunities

Science

Volumn 340, Issue 6130, 2013, Pages 320-323

  Pellegrino, James W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT; KNOWLEDGE; LEARNING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; EDUCATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; KNOWLEDGE; LEARNING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST; STUDENT;

EID: 84876327416     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1232065     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
2. J. W. Pellegrino, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 831 (2012).
3. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), The Nation's Report Card: Science in Action: Hands-On and Interactive Computer Tasks From the 2009 Science Assessment (NCES 2012-468, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2012).
4. A. C. Fu, S. A. Raizen, R. J. Shavelson, Science 326, 1637 (2009).
5. Committee on Science Learning Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade, National Research Council, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grade K-8, R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, A. W. Shouse, Eds. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
6. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, National Research Council, Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits, P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, M. A. Feder, Eds. (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2009).
7. Achieve, Next Generation Science Standards, www.nextgenscience.org/.
8. College Board, The AP Biology Curriculum Framework 2012-2013 (College Board, New York, 2011).
9. College Board, The AP Chemistry Curriculum Framework 2013-2014 (College Board, New York, 2011).
10. Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, National Research Council, Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, H. A. Schweingruber, Eds. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
11. American Association of Medical Colleges, "MR5 5th comprehensive review of the Medical Colleges Admission Test (MCAT): Final MCAT recommendations" (2012), www.aamc.org/download/273766/data/ finalmr5recommendations.pdf.
12. H. Pratt et al., The NSTA Reader's Guide to A Framework for K-12 Science Education, Expanded Edition: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas [National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press, Arlington, VA, 2012].
13. College Board, Science College Board Standards for Success (College Board, New York, 2009).
14. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, J. W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, R. Glaser, Eds. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
15. R. J. Mislevy, G. Haertel, Educ. Meas. 25, 6 (2006).
16. R. J. Mislevy, M. M. Riconscente, in Handbook of Test Development, S. Downing, T. Haladyna, Eds. (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2006), pp. 61-90.
17. Although this discussion of a principled approach to assessment design has focused exclusively on specific tasks and situations, it is equally applicable to the design of an assemblage of tasks - an assessment or test that might be used for various purposes at the classroom level or beyond. Such a process also requires careful selection and assembly of tasks so that the desired inferences about student proficiency can be supported at the level of the overall instrument or its subparts. Thus, assessment design at multiple levels from separate tasks to larger instruments needs to always be approached as a principled design process in which the claims one wants to make about student proficiency are supported by sufficient forms of evidence carefully chosen to meet the intended purpose and use of the assessment results.
18. A. C. Alonzo, A. W. Gotwals, Eds., Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions (Sense, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2012).
19. N. B. Songer, M. A. Ruiz-Primo, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 683 (2012).
20. J. W. Pellegrino, E. S. Quellmalz, J. Res. Technol. Educ. 43, 119 (2010).
21. E. S. Quellmalz, M. J. Timms, M. G. Silberglitt, B. C. Buckley, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 363 (2012).
22. J. Gobert, M. Sao Pedro, R. S. Baker, E. Toto, O. Montalvo, J. Educ. Data Min. 4, 153 (2012).
23. N. B. Songer, A. W. Gotwals, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 141 (2012).
24. National Assessment Governing Board, Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for Educational Statistics, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2008).
25. National Center for Educational Statistics, The Nation's Report Card: Science 2011 (NCES 2012- 465, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2012).
26. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science (OECD, Paris, 2009).
27. H. L. Fleischman, P. J. Hopstock, M. P. Pelczar, B. E. Shelley, Highlights From PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy in an International Context (NCES 2011-004, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2010).
28. K. Huff, L. Steinberg, T. Matts, Appl. Meas. Educ. 23, 310 (2010).
29. W. B. Wood, Science 325, 1627 (2009).
30. College Board, From Research to Practice: Redesigning AP Science Courses to Advance Science Literacy and Support Learning with Understanding, final report submitted to the National Science Foundation for award number ESI-0525575 (2010).
31. G. Wiggins, J. McTighe, Understanding by Design (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, ed. 2, 2005).
32. College Board, AP Biology Course and Exam Description, Effective Fall 2012 (College Board, New York, 2012).