Assessing the Nature of Science: What is the Nature of Our Assessments?
Assessing the Nature of Science: What is the Nature of Our Assessments?
复制标题
评估科学的本质：我们评估的本质是什么？
DOI：
10.1023/a:1008601707321
复制
发表时间：
1998
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
R. Bell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Norman G. Lederman;P. Wade;R. Bell
本文讨论了过去四十年来用来评估学生和教师对科学本质的概念的工具的性质。批判性地审查与科学性质具体相关的各种研究重点和相关评估工具后，出现了两个突出的要点。第一个是质疑所提出的许多研究的有效性，理由是(A)对评估工具的解释有偏见，(B)一些评估工具的结构似乎很差。尽管这样的评论是有充分根据的，但重要的是要注意到，无论调查中使用的特定工具如何，研究结论都是异常一致的。第二点是对评估个人对科学本质的理解的“传统”纸和铅笔方法的更关键的关注。虽然不是一个新的见解，但对“传统”文书(例如多项选择题评估)的书面答复的解释与答复者的意图之间的差异已经有了很好的记录。建议将当前的教育研究转向更多的定性的、开放式的方法来评估个人(对任何概念)的理解，并将其应用于对个人的科学概念性质的评估。
This paper discusses the nature of the instruments used to assess students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science during the last four decades. Two salient points emerge from critically reviewing the various research emphases and associated assessment instruments specifically related to the nature of science. The first is to question the validity of much of the research presented on the grounds that (a) assessment instruments are interpreted in a biased manner, and (b) some assessment instruments appear to be poorly constructed. Although such comments are well founded, it is important to note that the research conclusions were unusually uniform regardless of the particular instrument used in an investigation. The second point is a more critical concern about the “traditional” paper and pencil approach to the assessment of an individual's understanding of the nature of science. Although not a new insight, discrepancies between the interpretation of a written response to a “traditional” instrument (e.g., multiple choice assessment) and the intent of the respondent have been well documented. It is suggested that the current educational research shift toward more qualitative, open-ended approaches to assessment of individuals' understanding (of any concept) be applied to the assessment of individuals' nature of science conceptions.