Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Investigating Student's Understandings of Light Using Dynamic Science Assessment Method

  • Published : 2005.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Assessing students' knowledge can be a challenging endeavor, as researchers attempt to capture the full complexity and potential development of children's ideas. In this study, the Dynamic Science Assessment (DSA) method (Magnusson, Templin, and Boyle, 1997) was employed to investigate 9-12 year old students' understandings of light, while engaging in multiple tasks with a flashlight with various reflectors and mirrors. The results showed that DSA was effective in providing an opportunity to establish a Zone of Proximal Development, in addition to diagnosing a student's prior understanding. Throughout the interview, a student showed a conceptual model of light as being a solid single entity whose shape can be determined by the shape of the casing of a flashlight. However, as DSA provided phenomena that could not be explained by his unitary model, the student began to re-examine his original conceptual model, and attempted to revise it. This study addressed how Dynamic Science Assessment can help us better understand, not only students' current state of understanding, but also a potential development of understanding in their ZPD. In that sense, this study argues that we should pay more attention to the instructive role of classroom assessment that can promote and support further development of students' deeper understandings.

Keywords

References

  1. Brickhouse, N. (1994). Children's observations, ideas, and the development of classroom theories and light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 639-656 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310606
  2. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
  3. Budoff, M. (1987). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.). Dynamic assessment: An interactive approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173-195). New York: Guilford
  4. Campione, J. C. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Learning ability and transfer propensity as sources of individual differences in intelligence. In P.H. Brooks, R. Sperber, & C. McCauley (Eds.). Learning and cognition in the mentally retarded (pp. 265-293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawarence Erlbaum
  5. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge
  6. Feher, E., & Rice, K. (1988). Shadows and anti-images: Children's conceptions of light and vision. Science Education, 72(5), 637-649 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720509
  7. Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students' understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653-672 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760606
  8. Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device: Theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press
  9. Firestone, W. A., & Mayerowitz, D. (2000). Rethinking 'high stakes': Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102, 724-749 https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00075
  10. Guesne, E. (1985). Light. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science (pp. 11-32). Philadelphia: Open University Press
  11. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41)
  12. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
  14. Lidz, C. s. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. The Guilford Press, New York
  15. Lidz, C. S., and Elliott, J. G. (2000). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevier Science
  16. Madaus, G. F., & Clarke, M. (2001). The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students: Evidence from 100 years of test data. In G. Orfield & M. Kornhaber (Eds), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education. New York: The Century Foundation
  17. Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 91-142 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0601_5
  18. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
  19. McNeil, L., & Valanzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield, & M. L. Kornhaber (Eds). Raising standards or raising barriers? New York: Century Foundation Press, pp. 127-150
  20. Monk, M. (1991). Generic epistemological notes on recent research into children's understanding of light. International Journal of science Education, 13, 255-270 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130304
  21. National Center for Educational Statistics (2004). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/timss
  22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org
  23. Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
  24. Powell, R. R., & Skoog, G. (2000). Middle level integrative curriculum reform: A study of teachers' epistemological theories. Research in Middle Level Education Annual, 23, 1-34 https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2000.11658148
  25. Rice, K., & Feher, E. (1987). Pinholes and images: Children's conceptions of light and vision. Science Education, 71(4), 629-639 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710413
  26. Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significance. The structure of knowledge and the curriculum. G. W. Ford and L. Pugno. Chicago, Rand McNally & Co.
  27. Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America's urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114-127 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10012
  28. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1990). Performance assessment in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 347-362
  29. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020005008
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (Ed.). (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Edited by Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. and Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  31. Watts, M. (1985). Student conceptions of light: A case study. Physics Education, 20, 183-7 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/20/4/310
  32. Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks