Missing in Measurement: Why Identifying Learning in Integrated Domains Is So Hard
Missing in Measurement: Why Identifying Learning in Integrated Domains Is So Hard
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10956-019-09805-8
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-09
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Lipscomb, Kemper
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bortz, Whitney Wall;Gautam, Aakash;Lipscomb, Kemper
将计算思维 (CT) 与科学教育相结合非常复杂，评估由此产生的学习成果更是如此。评估应与学习相匹配的论点（Biggs，高等教育评估与评估，21(1), 5-16. 1996；Airasian 和 Miranda，理论付诸实践，41(4), 249-254. 2002；Hickey 和 Zuiker，学习科学杂志，21(4), 522-582. 2012；Pellegrino，研究杂志科学教学，49(6), 831-841；Wiggins，实践评估、研究和评估，1990) 提出了一种以绩效为导向的评估方法，使用反映综合教学的任务。这种方法带来了好处，但也带来了挑战。综合 CT 是一种新的学习方法。人们正在努力理解在这种背景下成功运作意味着什么，但共识既不是普遍的，也不是经过时间考验的（Kaput 和 Schorr，技术与数学教学研究：案例和观点（第 2 卷，第 211-253 页）2008）。开发评估 CT 的方法也正在取得进展。尽管将评估与教学法相匹配有好处，但也可能存在内在损失。一个问题是两个域之间的相互作用可能会使结果无效，因为一个域中的增益在某些时间可能比另一个域中的增益更容易测量，或者因为两个域之间的相互作用可能会导致测量干扰。我们的考试既借鉴了理论基础，也借鉴了现有实践，特别是我们自己结合 CT 和辅助科学的工作。我们对学生评估结果进行了混合方法分析，并考虑了过快地依赖基于标准的方法来评估学生学习的潜在问题。我们重点强调评估方法的重要性，这些方法反映了计算环境最重要的可供性之一，即多种认知和行为方式的表达（Turkle and Papert, Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 11(1), 3-33. 1992）。
Integrating computational thinking (CT) and science education is complex, and assessing the resulting learning gains even more so. Arguments that assessment should match the learning (Biggs, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(1), 5-16. 1996; Airasian and Miranda, Theory into Practice, 41(4), 249-254. 2002; Hickey and Zuiker, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 522-582. 2012; Pellegrino, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 831-841. 2012; Wiggins, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 2(2). 1990) lead to a performance-oriented approach to assessment, using tasks that mirror the integrated instruction. This approach reaps benefits but also poses challenges. Integrated CT is a new approach to learning. Movement is being made toward understanding what it means to operate successfully in this context, but consensus is neither general nor time tested (Kaput and Schorr, Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Case and perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 211-253) 2008). Movement is also being made toward developing methods for assessing CT. Despite the benefits of matching assessment with pedagogy, there may be intrinsic losses. One problem is that interactions between the two domains may invalidate the results, either because the gains in one may be easier to measure at certain times than the gains in the other, or because interactions between the two domains may cause measurement interference. Our examination draws upon both theoretical basis and also existing practices, particularly from our own work integrating CT and secondary science. We present a mixed-methods analysis of student assessment results and consider potential issues with moving too quickly toward relying on a rubric-based approach to evaluating this student learning. Centrally, we emphasize the importance of assessment approaches that reflect one of the most important affordances of computational environments, that is, the expression of multiple ways of knowing and doing (Turkle and Papert, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3-33. 1992).