Characterizing college science assessments: The three-dimensional learning assessment protocol

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 9, 2016, Pages

  Laverty, James T ^a,c   Underwood, Sonia M ^a,d   Matz, Rebecca L ^a   Posey, Lynmarie A ^a   Carmel, Justin H ^a   Caballero, Marcos D ^a   Fata Hartley, Cori L ^b   Ebert May, Diane ^a   Jardeleza, Sarah E ^a,e   Cooper, Melanie M ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e SALISBURY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; EDUCATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING ENVIRONMENT; PHYSICS; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY; CURRICULUM; ENGINEERING; LEARNING; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENCE; UNIVERSITY;

BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; ENGINEERING; LEARNING; PHYSICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIENCE; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84992206058     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162333     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Gardner DP, And Others. A Nation At Risk: The Imperative For Educational Reform. An Open Letter to the American People. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education. 1983 Apr. Available: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED226006. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.
2. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century An Agenda for American Science Technology. Rising Above the Gathering Storm. National Academies Press; 2007. (Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future).
3. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2010.
4. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. 2012 Feb.
5. AAAS. Atlas of Science Literacy: Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS Project 2061; 2001.
6. Project 2061. Atlas of Science Literacy, Volume 2. Washington, DC: American Assn. for the Advancement of Science; 2007.
7. National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 1996.
8. NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. 2013.
9. National Research Council. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. National Academies Press; 2012.
10. Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2015.
11. Brewer CA, Smith D, editors. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. AAAS; 2011.
12. Smith D, editor. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: Chronicling Change, Inspiring the Future. AAAS; 2015.
13. College Board. AP Biology Curriculum Framework. 2011.
14. College Board. AP Chemistry. 2014.
15. College Board. AP Physics 1: Algebra-Based and AP Physics 2: Algebra-Based Curriculum Framework. 2015.
16. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014 May
17. Cooper MM, Caballero MD, Ebert-May D, Fata-Hartley CL, Jardeleza SE, Krajcik JS, et al. Challenge faculty to transform STEM learning. Science. 2015 Oct 16; 350(6258):281-2. doi: 10.1126/science. aab0933 PMID: 26472897
18. McDonald J. The Next Generation Science Standards: Impact on College Science Teaching. J Coll Sci Teach. 2015 Oct 9; 45(1):13-4.
19. National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education. National Academies Press; 2012.
20. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2000.
21. Schmidt WH, McKnight CC, Raizen S, editors. A Splintered Vision. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
22. Wiggins G, McTighe J. Understanding by design. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Soc Stud Grade. 2005; 6:31.
23. Aikenhead GS. Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Sci Educ. 2005 Mar 1; 89(2):242-75.
24. Duggan S, Gott R. What sort of science education do we really need? Int J Sci Educ. 2002 Jul 1; 24 (7):661-79.
25. Torrance H. Formative Assessment at the Crossroads: Conformative, Deformative and Transformative Assessment. Oxf Rev Educ. 2012; 38(3):323-42.
26. Hammer D, Elby A, Scherr RE, Redish EF. Resources, framing, and transfer. ResearchGate.
27. Hall KL. Examining the Effects of Students' Classroom Expectations on Undergraduate Biology Course Reform. 2013. Available: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/14080
28. Momsen J, Offerdahl E, Kryjevskaia M, Montplaisir L, Anderson E, Grosz N. Using Assessments to Investigate and Compare the Nature of Learning in Undergraduate Science Courses. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2013 Jun 20; 12(2):239-49. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-08-0130 PMID: 23737631
29. Treagust D. Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. Int J Sci Educ. 1988 Apr; 10:159-69.
30. Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G. Force concept inventory. Phys Teach. 1992 Mar; 30(3):141-58.
31. Mulford DR, Robinson WR. An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General Chemistry Students. J Chem Educ. 2002 Jun 1; 79(6):739.
32. Smith MK, Wood WB, Knight JK. The Genetics Concept Assessment: A New Concept Inventory for Gauging Student Understanding of Genetics. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2008 Dec 21; 7(4):422-30. doi: 10. 1187/cbe.08-08-0045 PMID: 19047428
33. Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys. 1998 Jan; 66(1):64-74.
34. Bloom BS. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain. 1956.
35. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, et al. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Abridged Edition. 1 edition. New York: Pearson; 2000. 336 p.
36. Knight JK, Wise SB, Rentsch J, Furtak EM. Cues Matter: Learning Assistants Influence Introductory Biology Student Interactions during Clicker-Question Discussions. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2015 Dec 21; 14 (4):ar41. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-04-0093 PMID: 26590204
37. Stanger-Hall KF. Multiple-Choice Exams: An Obstacle for Higher-Level Thinking in Introductory Science Classes. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2012 Sep 21; 11(3):294-306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-11-0100 PMID: 22949426
38. Zheng AY, Lawhorn JK, Lumley T, Freeman S. Application of Bloom's Taxonomy Debunks the "MCAT Myth." Science. 2008 Jan 25; 319(5862):414-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1147852 PMID: 18218880
39. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP. Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom's Taxonomy to Enhance Student Learning in Biology. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2008 Dec 21; 7(4):368-81. doi: 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 PMID: 19047424
40. Towns MH. Guide To Developing High-Quality, Reliable, and Valid Multiple-Choice Assessments. J Chem Educ. 2014 Sep 9; 91(9):1426-31.
41. Lawrenz F, Wood NB, Kirchhoff A, Kim NK, Eisenkraft A. Variables affecting physics achievement. J Res Sci Teach. 2009 Nov 1; 46(9):961-76.
42. Wood WB. Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2009; 25:93-112. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175306 PMID: 19575638
43. Lemons PP, Lemons JD. Questions for Assessing Higher-Order Cognitive Skills: It's Not Just Bloom's. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2013 Mar 20; 12(1):47-58. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0024 PMID: 23463228
44. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2007.
45. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2014.
46. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press; 2001.
47. Mislevy RJ, Almond RG, Lukas JF. A Brief Introduction to Evidence-centered Design. 2004.
48. Linn RL. Educational Measurement. 3 edition. Education AC on, editor. Washington; Phoenix: Praeger; 1988. 624 p.
49. Osborne JF, Patterson A. Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Sci Educ. 2011 Jul 1; 95(4):627-38.
50. Hestenes D. Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. Am J Phys. 1987; 55(5):440-54.
51. Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Achér A, Fortus D, et al. Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach. 2009 Aug 1; 46(6):632-54.
52. Windschitl M, Thompson J, Braaten M. Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Sci Educ. 2008 Sep; 92(5):941-67.
53. Henderson C, others. Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. JRST. 2011; 48(8):952-84.
54. Berland LK, McNeill KL. For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Sci Educ. 2012 Sep 1; 96(5):808-13.
55. Osborne J, Patterson A. Authors' response to "For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson" by Berland and McNeill. Sci Educ. 2012 Sep 1; 96 (5):814-7.
56. Laverty JT, Tessmer SH, Cooper MM, Caballero MD. Engaging Physics Faculty in Course Transformation. In: Physics Education Research Conference 2014. Minneapolis, MN; 2014. p. 147-50. (PER Conference).
57. Chi MTH, Feltovich PJ, Glaser R. Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices. Cogn Sci. 1981 Apr 1; 5(2):121-52.
58. Wenger E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. 1 edition. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press; 1999. 336 p.
59. Bretz SL. Designing Assessment Tools To Measure Students? Conceptual Knowledge of Chemistry. In: Tools of Chemistry Education Research. American Chemical Society; 2014. p. 155-68. (ACS Symposium Series; vol. 1166).
60. AERA. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing 2014 edition. Washington, D.C: AERA; 2014. 230 p.