DOC PREVIEW
THE STRUCTURED CONSTRUCTS MODEL

This preview shows page 1-2-23-24 out of 24 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, June 2009, Iowa City, IA THE STRUCTURED CONSTRUCTS MODEL (SCM): A FAMILY OF STATISTICAL MODELS RELATED TO LEARNING PROGRESSIONS This paper describes a family of statistical models fashioned to embody some of the underlying conceptualizations that have gone into the work of the BEAR Center in the development of learning progressions. The core of all of these developments has been the construct map, which is the first building block in the BEAR Assessment System (BAS). After introducing the concept of a learning progression, the paper summarizes the elements of the BAS, emphasizing the central concept of a construct map. The paper then focuses on one of the more complex ways to see the relationship between a set of construct maps and a learning progression (see Wilson (in press) for the full set). Here the paper uses an example based on the Atomic-Molecular Model in middle school science. This provides the context for the development of the Structured Constructs Model. A simple example of an SCM is given in some detail. The paper then discusses some strengths and limitations of this conceptualization, and suggests further elaborations of the ideas. Mark Wilson, University of California, Berkeley INTRODUCTION The concept of a learning progression is one that is still developing at the current time. However, it is really just the latest step in the growth of a much older set of ideas—consistencies in the development of students as they grow in cognitive sophistication. Developing assessment to measure a person’s growth in a learning progression is crucial. In this paper, a family of statistical models is described which is seen as fundamentally important to the delineation of the measurement basis for a learning progression. We contextualize this development within the scope of one particular approach to measurement, called the BEAR Assessment System (BAS; Wilson, 2005; Wilson & Sloane, 2000), is used as a lens through which to portray a perspective on the many possible ways that leaning progressions could be conceived of and measured. In this paper, the manner in which the measurement approach supports the learning progression is referred to as the assessment structure for the learning progression. Of course, there are other measurement approaches that one could take—but the specifics of these are outside the scope of this current effort, although the particular family of models described could also be used in other approaches. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the idea of a learning progression, and adds some notes about assessment perspectives on learning progressions. It then summarizes the elements of the BAS, emphasizing the central concept of a construct map, which is the focus of the rest of the paper. The paper then focuses on one of the more complex ways to see the relationship between a set of construct maps and a learning progression (see Wilson (in press) for the full set). Here the paper uses an example based on the Atomic-Molecular Model in middle school science. This then provides the context for the development of the Structured Constructs Model (SCM): A simple example of an SCM is given in some detail. Finally, the paper discusses some strengths and limitations of this conceptualization, and suggests further elaborations of the ideas.2 Learning progressions: Links to assessment At a recent meeting of researchers working on the topic of leaning progressions, the following broad description of learning progressions was suggested by a group consensus: Learning progressions are descriptions of the successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about an important domain of knowledge and practice that can follow one another as children learn about and investigate a topic over a broad span of time. They are crucially dependent on instructional practices if they are to occur. (CCII, 2009) The description is deliberately encompassing, allowing a wide possibility of usage, but, at the same time, it is intended to reserve the term to mean something more than just an ordered set of ideas or curriculum pieces. As well, the group saw it as a requirement that the learning progression should indeed describe the “progress” through a series of levels of sophistication in the student’s thinking. Although the idea of a learning progression has links to many older and venerable ideas in education, the history of the specific term “learning progression” in the context of science education is a relatively brief one (CCII, 2009), starting with the publication of an NRC report (NRC, 2006). That report was focused on assessment in K-12 education, and hence the connections to assessment have been there right from the start. Nevertheless, given the brief time-span since then, there is not a great deal of extant literature regarding the relationship between the two, although this may well change in the near future. A second NRC report (NRC, 2007) also featured the concept, and enlarged upon classroom applications. Several assessment initiatives and perspectives are discussed in these reports, including references to the seminal 2001 NRC report Knowing What Students Know. Among the assessment programs highlighted there, probably the most prominent is the work on progress variables by the Australian researcher Geoff Masters and his colleagues (e.g., Masters, Adams & Wilson, 1990; Masters & Forster, 1996), and the closely-related work on the somewhat more elaborated BEAR Assessment System (Wilson, 2005 Wilson & Sloane, 2000). In this paper I will draw on the latter as the core set of assessment perspectives and practices to relate to learning progressions. The BEAR Assessment System (BAS) The BEAR Assessment System is based on the idea that good assessment addresses the need for sound measurement through four principles: (1) a developmental perspective, (2) a match between instruction and assessment, (3) the generating of quality evidence, and (4) management by instructors to allow appropriate feedback, feed forward and follow-up. These four principles, plus four building blocks that embody them are shown in Figure 1. Below we take up each of these principles and building blocks in turn. See Wilson (2005) for a detailed account of an instrument development process that works through these steps. ====================== Insert Figure 1 about here


THE STRUCTURED CONSTRUCTS MODEL

Download THE STRUCTURED CONSTRUCTS MODEL
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view THE STRUCTURED CONSTRUCTS MODEL and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view THE STRUCTURED CONSTRUCTS MODEL 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?