Modeling-Oriented Assessment in K-12 Science Education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions

Namdar, Bahadır; Shen, Ji

doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185

Cited by 34 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This instrument includes a 46-items multi-perspective framework (ontological: 15 items, epistemological: 15 items, methodological: 16 items). Compared to existing assessment instruments for MMingK (Namdar & Shen, 2015;Nicolaou & Constantinou, 2014), this instrument's reliability for high school students is high (α = .90). The higher-order confirmatory factor analysis (Chi-Square = 96.93, df = 33, p-value = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.070) result also validated the theoretical assumption of students' knowledge of models and modeling; the three perspectives was also confirmed to be important in this holistic model (Chiu, 2016).…”

Section: Methodological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 95%

“…Designing an assessment for a holistic understanding of models and modeling knowledge Grosslight et al (1991) identified some characteristics to discriminate participants' understanding of models and modeling from Level 1 (naïve) to Level 3 (scientific). Many scholars followed their idea and interview questions to develop related instruments on MMingK (e.g., Gobert & Pallant, 2004;Sins et al, 2009); yet, most of the instruments on modeling assessment were domain general (Namdar & Shen, 2015;Nicolaou & Constantinou, 2014). Since we cannot discuss students' competence in modeling practice without a science context, it is worth to rethink if there is any difference between domain general and domain specific in MMingK.…”

Section: Methodological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of its definition of modeling competence, only a limited number of studies included modeling "products" (if any, there were implicit) or even assessment of quality of the products in the modeling practices. For instance, in a systemic review of 104 empirical studies on modeling instruction in K-12 between 1980 and 2013, Namdar and Shen (2015) were only able to identified 15 articles that are related to the assessment of modeling products (e.g., Gobert, 2000;Louca et al, 2011;Sun & Looi, 2013). Namdar and Shen (2015) proposed three aspects to assess models, namely, quality of model construct, representation, and coherence of a model as a whole.…”

Section: Modeling Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, researchers have provided various definitions for models, modeling processes, model-or modeling-based instruction, and modeling practice (e.g., Clement & Rea-Ramirez, 2008;Schwarz et al, 2009). Although there were variations in the definitions of these terms, they highlighted the importance of developing such competences and urged for effective assessment instruments to evaluate these competences (e.g., Namdar & Shen, 2015;Nicolaou & Constantinou, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Modeling competence in science education

Chiu

Lin

2019

Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the understanding of the nature of models and modeling processes in science education have received a lot of attention in science education. In this article, we make five claims about the research on modeling competence in science education. The five claims are (1) the development of modeling competence in practice is essential to scientific literacy for twenty-first century citizens, (2) further research is needed to build a holistic and theoretical understanding of models and modeling knowledge (MMingK), (3) providing a modeling-based scaffolding framework for meaningful and active authentic learning is to enhance student's engagement of scientific practice, (4) appropriate formative assessment instruments and evaluation rubrics to assess students' modeling processes and products within the context of modeling practice should be developed, and (5) research on learning progression in modeling competence needs to be intertwined with MMingK and modeling practice. Implications for student learning and teacher professional development will be drawn from existing literature.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Methodological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modeling Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modeling competence in science education

Chiu

Lin

2019

Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, there have been calls for studying science from a modeling perspective (Namdar & Shen, 2015;Shen, Lei, Chang, & Namdar, 2014;Gobert & Buckley, 2000). During modeling, students engage in practices such as constructing, evaluating, using, and revising models (Schwarz et al, 2009).…”

Section: Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues

Namdar

Shen

2016

International Journal of Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using multiple representations and argumentation are two fundamental processes in science. With the advancements of information communication technologies, these two processes are blended more so than ever before. However, little is known about how these two processes interact with each other in student learning. Hence, we conducted a design-based study in order to distill the relationship between these two processes. Specifically, we designed a learning unit on nuclear energy and implemented it with a group of preservice middle school teachers. The participants used a web-based knowledge organization platform that incorporated three representational modes: textual, concept map, and pictorial. The participants organized their knowledge on nuclear energy by searching, sorting, clustering information through the use of these representational modes and argued about the nuclear energy issue. We found that the use of multiple representations and argumentation interacted with each other in a complex way. Based on our findings, we argue that the complexity can be unfolded in two aspects: (a) the use of multiple representations mediates argumentation in different forms and for different purposes; (b) the type of argumentation that leads to refinement of the use of multiple representations is often nonmediated and drawn from personal experience. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Developing an instrument to examine students' analogical modeling competence: An example of electricity

Lin,

Chao

2023

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science education reforms advocate modeling as a core practice in which analogy is a significant form and analogical modeling is a creative process for scientific explanation and discovery. This study adopts the self‐generated analogical modeling approach involving electricity, which considers all the modeling subprocesses and includes two subtopics (circuits and energy) with incompatible ontological presuppositions as a conceptual space to develop an analogical modeling competence (AMC) instrument. Two constructs, phenomenon‐related abductive premises (Phenomenon‐AbPr) and analogical modeling processes (AMP), that describe the increasing sophistication of students' AMC (i.e., Level 0 experience to Level 4 high‐order relation) are considered. The procedures utilize a construct‐based approach of developing an assessment to validate the underlying constructs and subtopics to develop the mapping between the target and the analogical models, design items, and determine outcome spaces. Data were collected from 294 Grade 6 students to examine their AMC. The item response theory technique based on the Rasch partial credit model was used to validate the two‐phase model. Student results revealed that the infit and outfit mean square values were between 0.75 and 1.33, indicating acceptable item fit. Results revealed that students scored highest on the open series circuit and lowest on electric energy in the Phenomenon‐AbPr phase. Most students demonstrated relational mapping in the analogical model validation (Level 3) stage, which performed best in the AMP phase. However, they struggled to transfer factors during the analogical model application and deployment (Level 0). Implications for science assessment and teaching are discussed.

show abstract

Modeling-Oriented Assessment in K-12 Science Education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions

Cited by 34 publications

References 72 publications

Modeling competence in science education

Modeling competence in science education

Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues

Developing an instrument to examine students' analogical modeling competence: An example of electricity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About