1 / 54

Assessing Science Learning in 3 Part Harmony

Assessing Science Learning in 3 Part Harmony. Richard Duschl GSE-Rutgers University rduschl@rci.rutgers.edu. Performances - Practices. Piano Finger/hand strength and flexibility Read muscial notation Musical phrasing, playing with feeling Creative musicality. Science

augustus
Download Presentation

Assessing Science Learning in 3 Part Harmony

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing Science Learning in 3 Part Harmony Richard Duschl GSE-Rutgers University rduschl@rci.rutgers.edu

  2. Performances - Practices • Piano • Finger/hand strength and flexibility • Read muscial notation • Musical phrasing, playing with feeling • Creative musicality • Science • Building conceptual claims, meanings • Evaluating conceptual claims, meaning • Seeking evidence • Seeking explanations • Communicating

  3. NAEP 2009 Science Framework • Identifying scientific principles (30%) • Using scientific principles (35%) • Using scientific inquiry (25%) • Using technological design (10%) • % = portion of test

  4. 3 Ps • Psychology - Learning • Cognitive Science, Information-processing, Social psychology, Activity theory • Philosophy - Knowledge • Epistemology; Science Studies; Models, Argumentation; (ETHICS) • Pedagogy - Teaching • Inquiry Learning; Problem-based Learning; Community of Learners; Model-based Learning; Design Principles, Preparation for Future Learning

  5. Nature of Science • Science is about testing hypotheses and reasoning deductively from experiments • Hypothetico/Deductive Science • Science is Theory building and revision • Contexts of Generation and Justification • Science is Model building and revision • Models stand between Experiment and Theory

  6. History of Thinking about Human Mind • Differential Perspective • Individual, Mental Tests separate from academic learning - selecting and sorting • Behavioral Perspective • Stimulus/Response Associations - rewarding and punishing • Cognitive Perspective • Prior Knowledge, expert/novice, metacognition (thinking about thinking and knowning) • Situative Perspective • Sociocultural, language, tools, discourse

  7. Psychology & Education • Structured Knowledge • Prior Knowledge • Metacognition • Procedural Knowledge in Meaningful Contexts • Social participation and cognition • Holistic Situation for Learning: • Make Thinking Overt • (Glaser, 1994)

  8. Types of Knowledge • Declarative (what); • Procedural (how); • Schematic (why); • Strategic (where, when) • Conceptual, Epistemic, Communicative or Social • Bloom’s Taxonomy • Knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation

  9. Big Cs Life Science Physical Science Earth/Space Science Inquiry Little Cs Unifying Principles & Themes Science & Technology Science in Personal & Social Contexts Nature of Science National Science Education Standards Content Domains

  10. Standards & Benchmarks • Too Much Stuff

  11. Learning How to Learn • Joe Novak • Concept Mapping; Gowin’s Vee • Lauren Resnick • Prior Knowledge • Capacity to Learn is Limited • Expertise - use of heuristics

  12. Creating Epistemic Communities in Classrooms • Project SEPIA (Science Education through Portfolio Instruction and Assessment) • Pittsburgh- Drew Gitomer, Leona Schauble • Schools for Thought (SFT); Knowledge Forum/CSILE (Computer Supported Intensive Learning Environment) • Vanderbilt - Susan Goldman, John Bransford, Jim Pelligrino, Susan Williams, Kirsten Ellenbogen • Argumentation & Dialogic Discourse • King’s College London - Jonathan Osborne, Sibel Erduran, Kirsten Ellenbogen; Rutgers - Clark Chinn, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Rochel Gelman.

  13. Project SEPIA - Portfolio Assessment Culture - NSF Designing Lesson Sequences and Learning Environments that support conversations among learners and, in turn, create opportunities for: 1) Making Students’ Thinking Visible 2) Evidence/Explanation Continuum 3) Mediation and Formative Assessments in 3 Domains

  14. 3 Part Harmony • Conceptual “what we need to know” • Epistemic “rules for deciding what counts” • Social “communicating & representing ideas, evidence and explanations

  15. Project SEPIA - Portfolio Assessment Culture Designing Lesson Sequences and Learning Environments that support conversations among learners and, in turn, create opportunities for: 1) Making Students’ Thinking Visible 2) Evidence/Explanation Continuum 3) Mediation and Formative Assessments in 3 Domains conceptual “what we need to know”;epistemic “ rules for deciding what counts”; social “communicating and representing ideas, evidence and explanations

  16. Learning Progressions&Learning Performances

  17. NRC (2006) Systems for State Science Assessments • In response to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Systems for State Science Assessment explores the ideas and tools that are needed to assess science learning at the state level. This book provides a detailed examination of K-12 science assessment: looking specifically at what should be measured and how to measure it.

  18. NAEP 2009 Science Framework • http://www.nagb.org/ • A learning progression is a sequence of successively more complex ways of reasoning about a set of ideas.

  19. National Science Education Standards Content Domains • Big Cs • Life Science • Physical Science • Earth/Space Science • Inquiry • Little Cs • Unifying Principles & Themes • Science & Technology • Science in Personal & Social Contexts • Nature of Science

  20. Assessment Triangle3 Part Harmony • Observation Interpretation Cognition C = theory of how Ss learn the topic O = tasks that elicit relevant Ss knowledge/skills I = Classroom assessment - less formal interpretation by the teacher

  21. Learning Goals • What we know • How we have come to know it • Why we believe it over alternatives

  22. Creating Epistemic “Knowledge Building” Communities in Classrooms • Project SEPIA (Science Education through Portfolio Instruction and Assessment) • Pittsburgh- Drew Gitomer, Leona Schauble • Schools for Thought (SFT); Knowledge Forum/CSILE (Computer Supported Intensive Learning Environment) • Vanderbilt - Susan Goldman, John Bransford, Jim Pelligrino, Susan Williams, Kirsten Ellenbogen • Argumentation & Dialogic Discourse • King’s College London - Jonathan Osborne, Sibel Erduran, Kirsten Ellenbogen; Rutgers - Clark Chinn, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Rochel Gelman.

  23. Density LP - Floating Straws Relative Density Density Mass Volume Forces LP - Floating Vessels Flotation Buoyancy Pressure Mass Surface Area Volume Displacement Why Things Sink & Float

  24. Misconception Structured Problem Control of Variables Productive Misconceptions Unconventional Feature Off Target Causal Explanation Ill structured problem Design Application Modeling Forecast Items Conceptual vs. Epistemic Goals

  25. Affordances for Future Learning • Knowledge in Use • Density - continental drift, ocean currents • Forces - carrying capacity/displacement • Inquiry • Density - separation of liquids • Forces - water pressure and neutral buoyancy • Design • Density - test of “Crown Jewels” - Eureka! • Forces - retrieval of sunken ships

  26. Principled Relational Unclear Relational Experiential Inadequate Explanation Off Target Evidence-Explanation Patterns in Evidence Explanatory Theory Balance of Forces Stronger Hands More Hands Nature of ExplanationsLanguage of Science

  27. Affordances • Making Thinking visible • Teacher Assessments of Conceptual, Epistemic, Social Goals • Identification of Productive Misconceptions • Dialogic Discourse • Measures/Observations-Data-Evidence-Models-Theory • Data-Warrant-Backing-Rebuttal-Qualifier-Conclusion • Images for Nature of Science • Science as Experiments; as Theory-building; as Model-building • Preparation for Future Learning

  28. Probing Understandings (White & Gunstone, 1990) • Concept Maps • Interviews about Instances • Interviews about Concepts • Fortune Lines • Drawings • Storyboards

  29. Scaffolding and Assessing Argumentation Processes in Science King’s College London/American School in London Collaborator Kirsten Ellenbogen NSF via a seed grant from CILT (Center for Innovations in Learning Technology).

  30. EHH Activity Sequence • Intro Unit and Lab 1 • Conduct prelab including demonstration of STEP test and taking a pulse. Students collect data Lab 1 • 2. Data Collection for Labs 2 and 3 • Lab 2 - Activity Level and Heart Rate • Lab 3 - Weight and Heart Rate • 3. Data Analysis for Labs 2 and 3 • Knowledge Forum Activity “What Matters in Getting Good Data” • Determining Trends and Patterns of Data • Developing and Evaluating Explanations for the Patterns of Data • 4. Evaluating Exercise Programs

  31. Exercise for a Healthy Heart • Agree/Disagree with the following statements and provide a reason • ~It matters where you take a pulse • Wrist, neck, thigh • ~It matters how long you take a resting pulse • (6-10-15-60 seconds) • ~It matters how long you take an exercising pulse (6-10-15-60 seconds) • ~It matters who takes a pulse

  32. Group Decision Rules 1 - Frequency 2 - Majority 3 - Average 4 - Endpoints 5 - Calculation

  33. TOO MUCH STUFF BIG IDEAS Balancing Learning Outcomes

  34. Rochel Gelman & Kim Brennenman - Pathsways for Learning -PreK Observe Measure Write Lehrer & Schauble 5th-8th grades Variation Distribution Growth Mechanisms Adaptive Selection Evolution Pathways - Historical Steps

  35. Implications of Research on Children’s Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic Molecular Theory • Carol Smith, Marianne Weiser, Charles Anderson & Joe Krajcik (2006)

  36. Matter and material kinds. • Existence and diversity of material kinds: Objects are made of specific materials. There are different kinds of materials. The same kind of object can be made of different materials. • Object properties: Objects have certain properties—weight, length, area, and volume--that can be described, compared andmeasured. • Properties of materials:The properties of materialscan be described and classified.

  37. Conservation and transformation of matter and material kinds. • Conservation of matter:There are some transformations (e.g., reshaping, breaking into pieces) where the amount of stuff and weight are conserved despite changes in perceptual appearance. • Conservation and transformation of materials: Material kindstays the same when objects are reshaped or broken into small pieces. Freezing and melting change some properties of materials but not others.

  38. Epistemology • Measurement:Measurementinvolves comparison. Good measures use iterations of a fixed unit (including fractional parts of that unit) to cover the measured space completely (i.e., no gaps). They are more reliable than common sense impressions. • Models: Some properties of objects can be analyzed as the sum of component units. (Students are involved with the implicit modeling of extensive quantities through the creation of measures.) • Argument: Ideas can be evaluatedthrough observation and measurement.

  39. Complementary Big Ideas • 3. Epistemology: We can learn about the world through measurement, modeling, and argument. • 3AM. Epistemology of the atomic-molecular theory: Atoms are too small to see directly with tools available in classrooms. The properties of and changes in atoms and molecules have to be distinguished from the macroscopic properties and phenomena for which they account. We learn about the properties of atoms and molecules indirectly, using hypothetico-deductive reasoning.

  40. Observation-Evidence • There exists a continuum of what counts as scientific data, and subsequently what counts as scientific evidence. From initial sense-based descriptive observations, to tool assisted measurement observations, and to theory-driven instrument based observations. The latter most sophisticated level underscores the revision-based and theory-laden nature of science.

  41. Evidence-based Argumentation • There exists a continuum regarding the use of evidence to support and refute scientific claims, and the structure and practice of argumentation (language of argumentation and role of consensus). Initial arguments feature a simple single claim-evidence structure, with learning arguments develop to include counter claims and counterevidence with attention to resolving alternative explanation and informing theory.

  42. Theory-building • There exists a continuum of sophistication regarding the use of evidence and explanations to develop, refine and modify scientific theories. Initially students may not discriminate between evidence and theory. With engagement and learning opportunities students can refine and deepen their understanding and practices of the relationships between evidence and explanations. Sophisticated images of the nature of science conceptualize theories as robust explanatory schemes comprised of multiple models, models that stand between evidence and explanation.

  43. Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry Learners are engaged by scientific questions Learners give priority to evidence, to develop & evaluate explanation to address the questions Learners formulate explanations Learners evaluate explanations against alternative explanations Learners communicate and justify explanations. (National Research Council, 2000)

  44. Inquiry Based Learning • Deciding the Content • Aims & Goals • Conceptual • Facts, Principles, Laws & Theories • Epistemic • Explanations, Models, Arguments • Social • Representations, Communications • Deciding the Context • School Science • “Real World” Science • Environment • Social Issues • Museum/Science Centre Science

  45. Learning as InquiryConnelly, et al (1977) Scientific enquiry and the teaching of science. OISE Press. • To develop an understanding of the most important content • To develop an understanding of the parts of a pattern of inquiry • To develop the reading skills and habits of mind to identify and understand knowledge claims • To develop the evaluative skills and habits of mind to assess the status of knowledge claims

More Related