4.4 Article

Measuring Knowledge Integration: Validation of Four-Year Assessments

期刊

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 1079-1107

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20441

关键词

item format; item response theory; knowledge integration; science assessment; validation

资金

  1. Direct For Education and Human Resources [0918743] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  2. Division Of Research On Learning [0918743] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Science education needs valid, authentic, and efficient assessments. Many typical science assessments primarily measure recall of isolated information. This paper reports on the validation of assessments that measure knowledge integration ability among middle school and high school students. The assessments were administered to 18,729 students in five states. Rasch analyses of the assessments demonstrated satisfactory item fit, item difficulty, test reliability, and person reliability. The study showed that, when appropriately designed, knowledge integration assessments can be balanced between validity and reliability, authenticity and generalizability, and instructional sensitivity and technical quality. Results also showed that, when paired with multiple-choice items and scored with an effective scoring rubric, constructed-response items can achieve high reliabilities. Analyses showed that English language learner status and computer use significantly impacted students' science knowledge integration abilities. Students who took the assessment online, which matched the format of content delivery, performed significantly better than students who took the paper-and-pencil version. Implications and future directions of research are noted, including refining curriculum materials to meet the needs of diverse students and expanding the range of topics measured by knowledge integration assessments. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 1079-1107, 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据