Chapter 4 – “what do you mean by that?” using structured interviews to assess science understanding

Publisher Summary There is a growing consensus that traditional quantitative assessment tools are largely inadequate for producing an adequately fine-grained description of both what learners know and how they build and revise that knowledge. In recent years, teachers, researchers, and curriculum planners have found that a rich understanding of the common alternative conceptions can be a useful guide for planning effective instruction. The selection of the task to be used in a structured interview, including any graphics or other props, is the most critical decision in planning an interview. The interview task should be tightly focused on the concept of interest and at a level of difficulty appropriate to the learner. It should be carefully structured to focus on likely conceptual difficulties based on prior experience with similar students. In interviews about instances, a student is typically presented with a specific set of examples and counterexamples of the concept of interest, and is asked to identify which cases are examples of the concept and then, to explain that decision.

[1]  Sherry S. Demastes Factors Influencing Conceptual Change in Evolution: A Longitudinal, Multicase Study. , 1994 .

[2]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation methods , 1981 .

[3]  R. Driver,et al.  Pupils and Paradigms: a Review of Literature Related to Concept Development in Adolescent Science Students , 1978 .

[4]  M. Linn,et al.  Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements , 1994 .

[5]  Pinchas Tamir,et al.  Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena , 1991 .

[6]  J. Mintzes,et al.  Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology , 1994 .

[7]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[8]  Ron Good,et al.  Problem solving and classical genetics: Successful versus unsuccessful performance† , 1984 .

[9]  M. Chi,et al.  From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts , 1994 .

[10]  Patsye Peebles,et al.  Patterns of Conceptual Change in Evolution , 1996 .

[11]  Assessing Understanding of Biological Processes: Elucidating Students' Models of Meiosis. , 1994 .

[12]  J. A. Easley On clinical studies in mathematics education , 1977 .

[13]  Barbara A. Beyerbach,et al.  Using a computerized concept mapping program to assess preservice teachers' thinking about effective teaching , 1990 .

[14]  Gaalen L. Erickson,et al.  Children's beliefs about inherited characteristics , 1980 .

[15]  E. Mayr Toward a new philosophy of biology: observations of an evolutionist , 1988 .

[16]  J. Piaget Cognitions and Conservations: Two Views. , 1967 .

[17]  M. Belenky,et al.  Women's ways of knowing : the development of self, voice, and mind , 1988 .

[18]  Edward L. Smith,et al.  Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in Science , 1993 .

[19]  Charles W. Anderson,et al.  Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution , 1986 .

[20]  Sylvia Opper,et al.  Piaget's clinical method. , 1977 .

[21]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Students' Perceptions of Tentativeness in Science: Development, Use, and Sources of Change. , 1990 .

[22]  Mike U. Smith Expertise and the organization of knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic counselors, faculty, and students on problem categorization tasks , 1992 .

[23]  Margaret B Row Wait-Time and Rewards as Instructional Variables, Their Influence on Language, Logic, and Fate Control: Part One--Wait-Time. , 1974 .