On the development and evaluation of a shell for generating science performance assessments

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 293-315

  Solano Flores, Guillermo ^a   Javanovic, Jasna ^b   Shavelson, Richard J ^c   Bachman, Marilyn ^d  

^a Urbana Champaign ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Montecito Union School   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010619179     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/095006999290714     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. ALBERTS, R. V. J., VAN BEUZEKOM, P. J. and HELLINGHAM, C. (1986) The development of standardized tests for experimental work in schools in the Netherlands. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 135-143.
2. ALBERTS, R. V. J., VAN BEUZEKOM, P. J. and DE ROO, I. (1986) The assessment of practical work: a choice of options. European Journal of Science Education, 8(4), 361-369.
3. ASCHBACHER, P. R. (1991) Performance assessment: state activity, interest, and concerns. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 275-288.
4. BARON, J. B. (1991) Strategies for the development of effective performance exercises. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 305-318.
5. BAXTER, G. P. (1991) Exchangeability of science performance assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara.
6. BAXTER, G. P., GLASER, R. and RAGHAVAN, K. (1994) Analysis of cognitive demand in selected alternative science assessments. CSE Technical Report 382 (August). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7. BAXTER, G. P., SHAVELSON, R. J., GOLDMAN, S. R. and PINE, J. (1992) Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 1-17.
8. BROWN, J. H. and SHAVELSON, R. J. (1996) Assessing Hands-On Science (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press).
9. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (1990) Science Framework for Public Schools (Sacramento, CA: CDE).
10. Crocker, L. and Algina, J. (1986) Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston).
11. CRONBACH, L. J., GLESER, G. C., NANDA, H. and Rajaratnam, N. (1972) The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements (New York: Wiley).
12. Frederlksen, N. (1990) Introduction. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold and M. G. Shafto (eds), Diagnostic Monitoring of Skill and Knowledge Acquisition (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), ix-xvii.
13. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (1993) Student Testing: Current Extent and Expenditures, With Cost Estimates for a National Examination (Washington, DC: GAC).
14. GITOMER, D. H. (1993) Performance assessment and educational measurement. In R. E. Bennett and W. C. Ward (eds), Construction Versus Choice in Cognitive Measurement: Issues in Constructed Response, Performance Testing, and Portfolio Assessment (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 341-263).
15. Haladyna, T. M. and Shindoll, R. R. (1989) Shells: a method for writing effective multiple-choice test items. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 12, 97-104.
16. HAERTEL, E. H. and LINN, R. L. (1996) Comparability. In Phillips, G. W. (ed.), Technical Issues in Large-Scale Performance Assessment (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement).
17. HIVELY, W., PATTERSON, H. L. and PAGE, S. H. (1968) A ‘universe-defined’ system of arithmetic achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5(4), 275-290.
18. HODSON, D. (1992) Assessment of practical work: Some considerations in philosophy of science. Science & Education, 1(2), 115-144.
19. KROHN, G. S. (1983) Flowcharts used for procedural instructions. Human Factors, 25(5), 573-581.
20. MESSlCk, S. (1994) The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researchers, 23(2), 13-23.
21. NUTTALL, D. L. (1992) Performance assessment: the message from England. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 54-57.
22. ONEIL, J. (1992) Putting performance assessment to the test. Educational Leadership, 48(8) 14-19.
23. PIMM, S. L. and LAWTON, J. H. (1998) Planning for biodiversity. Science, 279, 2068-2069.
24. QUELLMALZ, E. S. (1985) Developing criteria for performance assessments: the missing link. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 319-331.
25. RAIZEN, S. A. and KASER, J. S. (1989) Assessing science learning in elementary school: Why, what, and how? Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 718-722.
26. SHAVELSON, R. J. (1995) On the development of a science performance assessment technology. NAEP paper.
27. SHAVELSON, R. J. (1996) Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences (Boston: Allyn & Bacon).
28. SHAVELSON, R. J. and BAXTER G. P. (1992) What we’ve learned about assessing hands-on science. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 20-25.
29. SHAVELSON, R. J., BAXTER, G. P. and GAO, X. (1993) Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 215-232.
30. SHAVELSON, R. J., BAXTER, G. P. and PINE, J. (1991) Performance assessment in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 347-362.
31. SHAVELSON, R. J., BAXTER, G. P. and PINE, J. (1992) Performance assessments: political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21 (4), 22-27.
32. SHAVELSON, R. J., BAXTER, G. P., PINE, J., YURE, J., GOLDMAN, S. R. and SMITH, (1991) Alternative technologies for large scale science assessment: instrument of education reform. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 97-114.
33. SHAVELSON, R. J., CAREy, N. B. and WEBB, N. M. (1990) Indicators of science achievement: options for a powerful policy instrument. Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (9), 692-697.
34. SHAVELSON, R. J. and WEBB, N. M. (1991) Generalizability Theory: A Primer (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
35. SHAVELSON, R. J., Solano-Flores, G. and Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (1998) Toward a science performance assessment technology. Evaluation and Program Planning 21, 171-184.
36. Solano-Flores, G. (1994) A logical model for the development of science performance assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara.
37. Solano-Flores, G., RAYMOND, B., SCHNEIDER, S. A. and TIMMS, M. (1998) Management of scoring sessions in alternative assessment: the computer-assisted scoring approach. (under review)
38. Solano-Flores, G. and SHAVELSON, R. J. (1994) Binary-based versus weight-based scoring in Science perfomance assessments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans, LA, April, 5-7.
39. Solano-Flores, G. and SHAVELSON, R. J. (1997) Development of performance assessments in science: conceptual, practical and logistical issues. (Eng.) Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(3), 16-25.
40. STECHER, B. M. and KLEIN, S. P. (1997) The cost of science performance assessments in large-scale testing programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(1), 1-14.
41. STECHER, B. M., KLEIN, S. P., Solano-Flores, G., Mccaffrey, D., ROBYN, A., SHAVELSON, R. J. and HAERTEL, E. (1998) The effects of content, format, and inquiry level on performance on science performance assessment scores. (under review)
42. STIGGINS, R. J. (1994) Student-Centred Classroom Assessment (New York: Macmillan)
43. TAMIR, P. (1974) An inquiry oriented laboratory examination. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11, 25-33.
44. TAMIR, P. and GLASSMAN, F. (1970) A practical examination for BSCS students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 107-112.
45. TAMIR, P. and GLASSMAN, F. (1971) A practical examination for BSCS students: A progress report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(4), 307-315.
46. WIGGINS, G. (1989a) Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 41-47.
47. WIGGINS, G. (1989b) A true test: toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (9), 703-713.
48. WIGGINS, G. (1992) Creating tests worth taking. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 26-33.