...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Research in Science Teaching >Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview
【24h】

Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview

机译:衡量自然选择的知识:CINS,开放式问卷调查和口头访谈的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Growing recognition of the central importance of fostering an in-depth understanding of natural selection has, surprisingly, failed to stimulate work on the development and rigorous evaluation of instruments that measure knowledge of it. We used three different methodological tools, the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS), a modified version of Bishop and Anderson's (Bishop and Anderson [1990] Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27: 415-427) open-response test that we call the Open Response Instrument (ORI), and an oral interview derived from both instruments, to measure biology majors' understanding of and alternative conceptions about natural selection. We explored how these instruments differentially inform science educators about the knowledge and alternative conceptions their students harbor. Overall, both the CINS and ORI provided excellent replacements for the time-consuming process of oral interviews and produced comparable measures of key concept diversity and, to a lesser extent, key concept frequency. In contrast, the ORI and CINS produced significantly different measures of both alternative conception diversity and frequency, with the ORI results completely concordant with oral interview results. Our study indicated that revisions of both the CINS and ORI are necessary because of numerous instrument items characterized by low discriminability, high and/or overlapping difficulty, and mismatches with the sample. While our results revealed that both instruments are valid and generally reliable measures of knowledge and alternative conceptions about natural selection, a test combining particular components of both instruments - a modified version of the CINS to test for key concepts, and a modified version of the ORI to assess student alternative conceptions - should be used until a more approprite instrument is developed and rigorously evaluated. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 1131-1160, 2008
机译:令人惊讶的是,对深入了解自然选择的中心重要性的日益认识,未能激发人们对用于测量自然知识的工具的发展和严格评估的工作。我们使用了三种不同的方法工具,即自然选择概念清单(CINS),Bishop and Anderson(Bishop and Anderson [1990] Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27:415-427)的改进版,我们称之为开放式回应工具(ORI)以及从这两种工具中获得的口头访谈,以评估生物学专业人士对自然选择的理解和替代概念。我们探索了这些工具如何以不同的方式告知理科教育工作者他们的学生所拥有的知识和替代概念。总体而言,CINS和ORI为耗时的口头面试过程提供了绝佳的替代方法,并得出了关键概念多样性的可比较衡量标准,在较小程度上也提供了关键概念频率。相比之下,ORI和CINS在替代概念的多样性和频率上产生了明显不同的度量,而ORI的结果与口头访谈的结果完全一致。我们的研究表明,CINS和ORI都需要进行修订,因为许多仪器具有可识别性低,难度高和/或重叠,以及与样品不匹配的特点。虽然我们的结果表明这两种工具都是有效的且通常是对自然选择的知识和替代概念的可靠度量,但是将两种工具的特定组成部分结合在一起的测试-用于测试关键概念的CINS修改版和ORI的修改版评估学生的替代概念-在开发出更合适的工具并进行严格评估之前,应使用该工具。 ©2008 Wiley Periodicals,Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45:1131-1160,2008

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of Research in Science Teaching》 |2008年第10期|1131-1160|共30页
  • 作者单位

    College of Education and Human Ecology, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, 333 Arps Hall, Columbus, Ohio 43210;

    School of Education, Department of Psychology, The City College, City University of New York, New York, New York;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号