Measuring Knowledge Integration Learning of Energy Topics: A two-year longitudinal study

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 37, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1044-1066

  Liu, Ou Lydia ^a   Ryoo, Kihyun ^b   Linn, Marcia C ^c   Sato, Elissa ^c   Svihla, Vanessa ^d  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

embedded assessment; knowledge integration; Rasch; WISE

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929841403     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1016470     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy, Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2007). Atlas of science literacy: Project 2061 (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association.
3. T.Bond,, & C.Fox, (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. W.J.Boone,, & K.Scantlebury, (2006). The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science education research utilizing multiple-choice tests. Science Education, 90(2), 253–269. doi: 10.1002/sce.20106
5. J.Bransford,, A.L.Brown,, & R.R.Cocking, (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. H.Braun,, R.Coley,, Y.Jia,, & C.Trapani, (2009). Exploring what works in science instruction: A look at the eighth-grade science classroom (ETS Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7. B.A.Brown,, & K.Ryoo, (2008). Teaching science as a language: A ‘content-first’ approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553. doi: 10.1002/tea.20255
8. C.Buxton, (1999). Designing a model-based methodology for science instruction: Lessons from a bilingual classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2–3), 147–177. doi: 10.1080/15235882.1999.10668684
9. D.B.Clark,, & M.C.Linn, (2003). Scaffolding knowledge integration through curricular depth. Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451–493. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_1
10. J.Cohen, (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. E.A.Davis, (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4
12. E.A.Davis, (2004). Knowledge integration in science teaching: Analyzing teachers’ knowledge development. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 21–53. doi: 10.1023/B:RISE.0000021034.01508.b8
13. E.A.Davis,, & J.Krajcik, (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34, 3–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034003003
14. J.K.Dixon, (1995). Limited English proficiency and spatial visualization in middle school students’ construction of the concepts of reflection and rotation. Bilingual Research Journal, 19(2), 221–247. doi: 10.1080/15235882.1995.10668603
15. R.A.Duschl,, H.A.Schweingruber,, & A.W.Shouse, (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
16. Z.Fang,, & M.J.Schleppegrell, (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17. M.A.K.Halliday,, & J.R.Martin, (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
18. D.Harris, (1989). An NCME instructional module on: Comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3-parameter IRT models. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(1), 35–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1989.tb00313.x
19. P.Johnson,, & P.Tymms, (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 849–877. doi: 10.1002/tea.20433
20. Y.Kali, (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201. doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-8993-x
21. C.Lee, (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 267–279. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08322683
22. H.S.Lee,, & O.L.Liu, (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665–688. doi: 10.1002/sce.20382
23. O.Lee, (2005). Science education and English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530. doi: 10.3102/00346543075004491
24. O.Lee,, J.Maerten-Rivera,, R.Penfield,, K.LeRoy,, & W.G.Secada, (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 31–52. doi: 10.1002/tea.20209
25. O.Lee,, R.Penfield,, & J.Maerten-Rivera, (2009). Effects of fidelity of implementation on science achievement gains among English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 836–859. doi: 10.1002/tea.20335
26. M.C.Linn,, E.A.Davis,, & P.Bell, (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. M.C.Linn,, & B.-S.Eylon, (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P.A.Alexander & P.H.Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. M.C.Linn,, & B.-S.Eylon, (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
29. M.C.Linn,, & S.Hsi, (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. M.C.Linn,, H.S.Lee,, R.Tinker,, F.Husic,, & J.L.Chiu, (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050. doi: 10.1126/science.1131408
31. O.L.Liu,, H.S.Lee,, C.Hoftstetter, & M.C.Linn, (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13, 33–55. doi: 10.1080/10627190801968224
32. O.L.Liu,, H.S.Lee,, & M.C.Linn, (2011a). Measuring knowledge integration: Validation of four-year assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1079–1107. doi: 10.1002/tea.20441
33. O.L.Liu,, H.S.Lee,, & M.C.Linn, (2011b). A comparison among multiple-choice, constructed- response and explanation multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 16, 164–184. doi: 10.1080/10627197.2011.611702
34. X.Liu,, & A.McKeough, (2005). Developmental growth in students’ concept of energy: Analysis of selected items from the TIMSS database. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 493–517. doi: 10.1002/tea.20060
35. G.N.Masters, (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174. doi: 10.1007/BF02296272
36. R.Mayer,, G.Dow,, & S.Mayer, (2003). Multimedia learning in interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–812. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806
37. National Assessment Governing Board. (2004). Twelfth grade student achievement in America: A new vision for NAEP. Washington, DC: Author.
38. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
39. K.Neumann,, W.Boone,, T.Viering,, & H.E.Fischer, (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162–188. doi: 10.1002/tea.21061
40. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. J.Nordine,, J.Krajcik,, & D.Fortus, (2011). Transforming energy instruction in middle school to support integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education, 95(4), 670–699. doi: 10.1002/sce.20423
42. OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. PISA, OECD publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264167872-en
43. J.W.Pellegrino,, N.Chudowsky,, & R.Glaser, (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44. J.Randall,, & G.Engelhard, (2009). Differences between teachers’ grading practices in elementary and middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 175–186. doi: 10.3200/JOER.102.3.175-186
45. G.Rasch, (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research, expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. D. Wright). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46. A.E.Rivet,, & K.A.Kastens, (2012). Developing a construct-based assessment to examine students’ analogical reasoning around physical models in earth science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 713–743. doi: 10.1002/tea.21029
47. K.Ryoo,, & M.C.Linn, (2012). Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students’ understanding of energy in photosynthesis? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 218–243. doi: 10.1002/tea.21003
48. M.Schleppegrell, (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49. W.H.Schmidt,, S.A.Raizen,, E.D.Britton,, L.J.Bianchi,, & R.G.Wolfe, (1997). Many visions, many aims (TIMSS volume 2): A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school science. London: Kluwer.
50. L.A.Shepard, (2007). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In C.A.Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 279–303). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. M.A.Siegel, (2007). Striving for equitable classroom assessments for linguistic minorities: Strategies for and effects of revising life science items. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 864–881. doi: 10.1002/tea.20176
52. J.D.Slotta,, & M.C.Linn, (2009). WISE science. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
53. N.B.Songer, (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of complex reasoning in science. In R.Keith Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54. S.Turkan,, & O.L.Liu, (2012). Differential performance by ELLs on an inquiry-based science assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 1–27.
55. H.Wainer,, & D.Thissen, (1993). Combining multiple-choice and constructed-response test scores: Toward a Marxist theory of test construction. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 103–118. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame0602_1
56. R.White,, & R.Gunstone, (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
57. M.Williams,, A.H.DeBarger,, B.L.Montgomery,, X.Zhou,, & E.Tate, (2012). Exploring middle school students’ conceptions of the relationship between genetic inheritance and cell division. Science Education, 96(1), 78–103. doi: 10.1002/sce.20465
58. B.D.Wright,, & J.M.Linacre, (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
59. M.L.Wu,, R.J.Adams,, M.R.Wilson,, & S.A.Haldane, (2007). ACER ConQuest Version 2: Generalised item response modelling software. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.