Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0037

Cross-Sectional Item Response Analysis of Geocognition Assessment for the Development of Plate Tectonics Learning Progressions: Rasch Model  

Maeng, Seungho (Kangwon National University)
Lee, Kiyoung (Kangwon National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.35, no.1, 2015 , pp. 37-52 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, assessment items to examine geocognition on plate tectonics were developed and applied to middle and high school students and college students. Conceptual constructs on plate tectonics are Earth interior structure, specific geomorphology, and geologic phenomena at each plate boundary. Construct for geocognition included temporal reasoning, spatial reasoning, retrospective reasoning, and system thinking. Pictorial data in each item were all obtained from GeoMapApp. Students' responses to the items were analyzed and measured cross-sectionally by Rasch model, which distinguishes persons' ability levels based on their scores for all items and compared them with item difficulty. By Rasch model analysis, Wright maps for middle and high school students and college students were obtained and compared with each other. Differential Item Functioning analysis was also implemented to compare students' item responses across school grades. The results showed: 1) Geocognition on plate tectonics was an assessable construct for middle and high school students in current science curriculum, 2) The most distinguished geocognition factor was spatial reasoning based on cross sectional analysis across school grades, 3) Geocognition on plate tectonics could be developed towards more sophisticated level through scaffolding of relevant instruction and earth science content knowledge, and 4) Geocognition was not a general reasoning separated from a task content but a content-specific reasoning related to the content of an assessment item. We proposed several suggestions for learning progressions for plate tectonics and national curriculum development based on the results of the study.
Keywords
plate tectonics; geocognition; item response analysis; Rasch model; learning progressions;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc. On behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.
2 Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
4 Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
5 Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
6 Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33-63.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Carraher, D., Smith, C., Wiser, M.,Schliemann, A., & Cayton-Hodges, G. (2009). Assessing students'evolving understandings about matter. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA, USA.
8 Cervato, C., & Frodeman, R. (2012). The significance of geologic time: Cultural, educational, and economic frameworks. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and Mind II: A synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences (pp. 19-27). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 486.
9 Cheek, K. A. (2010). Commentary: A summary and analysis of twenty-seven years of geoscience conceptions research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58, 122-134.   DOI
10 Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence based approach to reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report #RR-63. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11 Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. GSA Bulletin, 107, 960-968.   DOI
12 Dodick, J., & Argamon, S. (2006). Rediscovering the historical methodology of the earth sciences by analyzing scientific communication styles. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How geologists think and learn about the Earth (pp. 105-120). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 413.
13 Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2006). Building on understanding of geologic time: A cognitive synthesis of the "macro" and "micro" scales of time. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How geologists think and learn about the Earth (pp. 77-93). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 413.
14 Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47, 123-182.   DOI
15 Gobert, J. D. (2000): A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937-977.   DOI
16 Gobert, J. D. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on model-building in plate tectonics: Diagramming versus explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 444-455.
17 Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.   DOI
18 Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013). Validity evidence for learning progression-based assessment items that fuse core disciplinary ideas and science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 597-626.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Hermann, R., & Lewis, B. (2004). A Formative Assessment of Geologic Time for High School Earth Science Students. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52, 231-235.
20 Herbert, B. E. (2006). Student understanding of complex earth systems. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How geologists think and learn about the Earth (pp. 95-104). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 413.
21 Jeong, K-J., Jeong, K-S., Moon, B-C., & Jeong, J-W. (2007). Misconceptions of the freshmen at high school about plate tectonics. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 28(7), 762-774.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1149-1180.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Kastens, K. (2010). Commentary: Object and spatial visualization in geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58, 52-57.   DOI
24 Kastens, K. A., & Ishikawa, T. (2006). Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How geologists think and learn about the Earth (pp. 53-76). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 413.
25 King, H., Clark, S., Libarkin, J., & Stokes, A. (2008, October). The emerging field of geocognition. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of The Geological Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, and the Gulf Coast Section of SEPM. Houston, TX. USA.
26 Lee, H-S., & Liu, O. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94. 665-688.
27 Maeng, S., Lee, K., Park, Y-S., Lee, J., & Oh, H. (2014). Development and Validation of a Learning Progression for Astronomical Systems Using Ordered Multiple-Choice Items. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(8), 703-718.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Libarkin, J. C. (2006). Geoscience education in the United States. Planet, 17, 60-63.
29 Libarkin, J. C., Kurdziel, J. P., & Anderson, S. W. (2007). College student conceptions of geological time and the disconnect between ordering and scale. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 413-422.
30 Liben, L. S., & Titus, S. J. (2012). The importance of spatial thinking for geoscience education: Insights from the crossroads of geoscience and cognitive science. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and Mind II: A synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences (pp. 51-70). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 486.
31 Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present states, methodological features, and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33, 161-180.   DOI
32 Manduca, C. A., & Kastens, K. A. (2012). Geoscience and geoscientists: Uniquely equipped to study Earth. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and Mind II: A synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences (pp. 1-12). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 486.
33 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2011). Science curriculum based on the revision in 2009. Seoul: MEST.
34 Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C.W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 675-698.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop Summary. Margaret Hilton, Rapporteur. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
36 National Assessment Governing Board (2008). NAEP 2009 science framework development: issues and recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org
37 National Research Council (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
38 National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
39 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40 Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 162-188.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Orion, N., & Trend, R. (2009). Thinking and learning in the geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 222-223.   DOI
42 Park, S. (2009). An analysis of high school students' mental models on the plate boundaries. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 30(1), 111-126.   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Park, S. (2011). An analysis of the mental models of middle school students with different learning style on plate tectonics. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(5), 733-744.
44 Ryan, W. B. F., Carbotte, S. M., Coplan, J. O., O'Hara, S., Melkonian, A., Arko, R., Weissel, R.A., Ferrini, V., Goodwillie, A., Nitsche, F., Bonczkowski, J., and Zemsky, R. (2009). Global Multi-Resolution Topography synthesis. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems. 10, Q03014.
45 Petcovic, H. L., & Ruhf, R. J. (2008). Geoscience conceptual knowledge of preservice elementary teachers: Results from the geoscience concept inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(3), 251-260.
46 Petty, M. R., & Rule, A. C. (2008). Effective materials for increasing young children's spatial and mapping skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56, 5-14.
47 Rapp, D. N., & Uttal, D. H. (2006). Understanding and enhancing visualizations: Two models of collaboration between earth science and cognitive science. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How geologists think and learn about the Earth (pp. 121-127). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 413.
48 Seong, Y., Maeng, S., & Jang, S. (2013). A learning progression for water cycle from fourth to sixth graders with ordered multiple-choice items. Elementary Science Education, 32(2), 139-158.
49 Sibley, D. F., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J. E., Parker, J. M., & Szymanski, D. W. (2007). Box diagrams to assess students' systems thinking about the rock, water, and carbon cycles. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 138-146.
50 Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., & Carraher, D. W. (2010, March). Using a comparative, longitudinal study with upper elementary school students to test some assumptions of a learning progression for matter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA. USA.
51 Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52 Stillings, N. (2012). Complex systems in the geosciences and in geoscience learning. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and Mind II: A synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences (pp. 97-111). Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 486.
53 Stokes, A. (2011, January). Geocognition: A new research discipline for the 21stcentury? Paper presented at the conference of the GEES Subject Centre with the Geological Society of London, Leeds, UK.
54 Titus, S., & Horsman, E. (2009). Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 242-254.   DOI