Transcript Learning Progressions: The Story of My Life(Sort of)

Assessing Science
Learning in
3 Part Harmony
Richard Duschl
GSE-Rutgers University
[email protected]
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 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
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
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
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)
National Science Education
Standards Content Domains
 Big Cs
 Little Cs




Life Science
Physical Science
Earth/Space Science
Inquiry
 Unifying Principles &
Themes
 Science & Technology
 Science in Personal &
Social Contexts
 Nature of Science
Standards & Benchmarks
Too Much Stuff
3 Part Harmony
 Conceptual “what we need to know”
 Epistemic “rules for deciding what counts”
 Social “communicating & representing
ideas, evidence and explanations
Goals/Units
Vessels
Duschl & Gitomer,
1997
Acids &
Bases
Earthquakes
& Volcanoes
Erduran, 2001
Smith, 1996
Flotation,
Conceptual Buoyancy
Epistemic
Social
Neutralization,
Acid/Base
Chem.
Causal
Models,
Explanation Modeling
Igneous
Rocks, Plate
Tectonics
Scientif ic
Argument
Report to
City Planne r
– Vessel
Design,
Transport
Report to
City Council
– Likelihood
E&V, Emerg.
Med. Plan
Report to
Hazmet – Safe
disposal of
A&B in
Schools
Learning Progressions
&
Learning
Performances
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.
Ta ble 14.Examples of Pe rform ance Ex pectation s for States of Matter

Grade 4
(See content statement P4.3.)
Grade 8
(See content statement P8.1.)
Grade 12
(See content statement P12.1.)
I dentifying Science Principles
I dentifying Science Principles
I dentifying Science Principles
Class ify samples of material as
soli d, liquid or gas.
Given an animation of molecules
in mot ion, identify the substance
that is being ill ustrated as a solid,
liquid, or gas.
Explain why ice is harder t han
liquid w ater in terms of the
s trength of t he force betw een the
molecules.
Using Science Pr inciples
Using Science Pr inciples
Using Science Pr inciples
Infe r that a change of state (e.g.
freezing or me lt ing) aff ects the
identi ty of an object, but not the
identi ty of t he ma terial of which
it is made.
Predict how the mass of a sample
of iodine wil l change aft er
subl ima ti on. Justify the
prediction based on what occurs
during subli mation at a molecular
level.
Use the concept of molecular
arrangements and bonds to
explain why graphite is very soft
and diamond is very hard, even
though they are all made of pure
carbon.
Using Scientific Inquiry
Using Scientific Inquiry
Using Scientific Inquiry
Collect, display, and interpret
data showing how the
temperature of a s ubs tance
changes over time as it cools and
becomes a soli d.
P lan and conduct an investi gation
to determine the melti ng point
and boil ing poin t of a n unknow n
substance.
Explain the results of experiments
showing how the volume of three
diffe rent liquid s changes w hen
they are heated by using
molecular theory.
Using Technological Design
Using Technological Design
Using Technological Design
Propose a method fo r determining
for certain if holi day chocolates
that have been shaped by
diffe rent proces ses (melt ing,
freezing, reshaping, or breaking
into p ieces) have the same
amount of chocolate in them.
Choose the best soluti on for
increas ing the alt itude of a hot air
balloon, based on an
unders tanding of the macros copic
and mi croscopic changes that
occur w hen the gas ins ide the
balloon is heated.
D es ign an ins trument t o measure
temperature as accurately as
possib le, taking in to account both
the therma l properties of liquids
and solids to be used in the
device, and s tructural shape and
dimensions of the device.
Why Things Sink & Float
 Density LP Floating Straws




Relative Density
Density
Mass
Volume
 Forces LP Floating Vessels







Flotation
Buoyancy
Pressure
Mass
Surface Area
Volume
Displacement
Conceptual vs. Epistemic
Goals




Misconception
Structured Problem
Control of Variables
Productive
Misconceptions
 Unconventional
Feature
 Off Target





Causal Explanation
Ill structured problem
Design Application
Modeling
Forecast Items
(Pivotal Cases, Linn)
Learning Goals
 What we know
 How we have come to know it
 Why we believe it over alternatives
Figure 1. Drawings of t he studen t work that was shown during the whole class
discussion. The upper panel was the t opic of the first assessment conversat ion and the
lower of the second
Affordances for Future
Learning
 Knowledge in Use
 Density - continental drift, ocean currents
 Forces - water pressure and neutral buoyancy
 Using Scientific Inquiry
 Density - separation of liquids
 Forces - carrying capacity/displacement
 Using Technological Design
 Density - test of “Crown Jewels” - Eureka!
 Forces - retrieval of sunken ships
Nature of Explanations
Language of Science





Principled
Relational
Unclear Relational
Experiential
Inadequate
Explanation
 Off Target




Evidence-Explanation
Patterns in Evidence
Explanatory Theory
Balance of Forces
 Stronger Hands
 More Hands
Affordances
 Making Thinking visible
 Teacher Assessments of Conceptual, Epistemic,
Social Goals
 Identification of Productive Misconceptions
 Dialogic Discourse
 Measures/Observations-Data-Evidence-ModelsTheory
 Data-Warrant-Backing-Rebuttal-Qualifier-Conclusion
 Images for Nature of Science
 Science as Experiments; as Theory-building; as
Model-building
 Preparation for Future Learning
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).
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
He ar tr ate /m in 60 s e c
35
92
33
86
85
31
81
81
80
79
29
27
75
75
75
73
72
70
70
68
67
67
66
66
64
64
62
60
60
60
60
59
59
57
56
25
23
student
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
51
50
49
3
1
36
0
20
40
60
heartrate
80
100
Group
1
2
3
4
5
Salient Characterist ics of Lab Group Reasoning
Group 1 uses a Ōfrequen cyÕ dec
ision rule to arrive at range of 60 -80. That is,
any heart beat with < 3 data ent ries was elim inated from calculat ion s to
determine the upper boundry for each graph; e,g, 9 0 for 6 secs., 104 for 1 5
secs., 72 for 1 0 secs., 7 5 for 60 secs. T hese 4 averages were then averaged
to get 80 as the upp er lim it . All charts should be since t o get an average all
data should be used. Lab book shows that the decision rule changed with
the considerat ion of each of the heart rate graphs.
Group 2 uses a Ōm
ajorityÕdecision rule to arrive at a range of 6 0-80 . That is,
most of the data fell between 60 and 80 . The 6 sec. chart sho uld be used .
Lab bo oks sho ws that the decisio n rules rem ains the same for each of the
heart rate graphs.
Group 3 used an Ōav
erageÕ decisio n rule based on ho w the data from the 4
members of their lab group, and n ot the class da ta, could be used to get the
average and then establish the range. This strategy resulted in 4 separate
ranges being reported for each of the 4 heart rate grap hs. The selected range
was 6 0-75 . Final decision was based on 10 and 60 seco nd graphs. Lab
books show that t he decision strategy is com mon across heart rate grap hs
but that the range result s are different.
Group 4 used an ŌendpointsÕdecision rule based on t he end p oints of the
normal range determined for each graph. Thus, a range of 70 -80 for 6 sec.,
66-72 for 10 sec., 60-8 0 for 15 sec., an d 60-75 for 6 0 sec. 60 appears twice
as the lower boundary and 80 appears twice as the upper boundary, hence
the no rmal range is 60-80 . All grap hs used.
Group 5 used a Ōc
a lculat ion Õdecision rule to arrive at a range of 60 -80.
That is, each grap h was analyzed to find out where 2/3 of the studen t sÕheart
rates fell o n t he graph. The 60 second grap h was selected as the most
accurat e.
Group Decision Rules
1 - Frequency
2 - Majority
3 - Average
4 - Endpoints
5 - Calculation
Pathways - Historical Steps
 Rochel Gelman & Kim  Lehrer & Schauble
Brennenman Pathsways for
Learning -PreK
 Observe
 Measure
 Write
5th-8th grades





Variation
Distribution
Growth Mechanisms
Adaptive Selection
Evolution
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.
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.
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.
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
3 Part Harmony
 Conceptual Goals
 Epistemic Goals
 Social Goals
Thank You