ERIC ED403164: Science Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress. NAEP Science Consensus Project.

96 Pages·1996·0.89 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 403 164
SE 059 728
TITLE
Science Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of
Educational Progress. NAEP Science Consensus
Project.
American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral
INSTITUTION
Sciences, Washington, D.C.; Council of Chief State
School Officers, Washington, D.C.; National Center
for Improving Science Education, Washington, DC.
SPONS AGENCY
National Assessment Governing Board, Washington,
DC.
REPORT NO
ISBN-0-16-048903-2
PUB DATE
96
CONTRACT
RS90081001
NOTE
96p.
AVAILABLE FROM
U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of
Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC
20402-9328.
PUB TYPE
Descriptive (141)
Reports
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.
Academic Achievement; Elementary Secondary Education;
DESCRIPTORS
*Evaluation Criteria; *National Competency Tests;
*Science Education; *Science Tests
National Assessment of Educational Progress
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This document contains the Framework and rationale
for assessing science achievement of students throughout the United
States in 1996. It provides a general overview of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), describes the 1996 NAEP
Science Framework'adopted by the National Assessment Governing Board.
(NAGB), and reviews the process by which the Framework was developed.
Chapters include:
(1) "The Nature of Science and the Science
Curriculum";
(2) "The Framework for the 1996 NAEP Science
Assessment";
(3) "Desired Attributes of the Assessment"; and (4)
"Characteristics of Assessment Exercises." Appendices include Fields
of Science, Examples of Themes by Grade Level, Science Content
Outlines (Excerpts), and Consensus Committees and Project Staff.
Contains 14 references. (JRH)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
SCUlot ui- IniLtittbi MU I .,c
SE
The ERIC Facility has assigned
this document for processing
to:
In our judgment, this document
0
is also of interest to the Clear-
noted to the right.
Oposihnotsuldofrevtielewc.t their
ffou° Ile aCC'6 HEloune
9
omood'onl cf
oueoo
aiancaanouf
s°
sli; ;fir
.11
III It I111'IIIlll ll
111
00
0 00
0
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office Of Educational Research and Improvement
DUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
0
his document has been reproduced as
wed from the person or organization
r
originating a
O Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality.
Points of view or or:rim:ins stated in this docu
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
ment do not necessarily represent official
1
1
OERI position or policy
RIAZED Odom Canzemoaro
Prod
Assess Hoare
matt GavanbanF,
MCA
Depart
onomQ emommoDGD
c.
What Is NAEP?
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a
congressionally mandated project of the U.S. Department of
Education's National Center for Education Statistics. It assesses
what U.S. students should know and be able to do in geography, reading,
writing, mathematics, science, U.S. history, the arts, civics, and other
academic subjects. Since 1969, NAEP has surveyed the achievement of
students at ages 9, 13, and 17 and, since the 1980s, in grades 4, 8, and 12.
Measuring educational achievement trends over time is critical to
measuring progress toward the National Education Goals.
The National Assessment Governing Board
The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) was created by
Congress to formulate policy for the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). Among the Board's responsibilities are developing
objectives and test specifications, and designing the assessment methodolog
for NAEP.
Charlotte Crabtree
Members
Honorable Richard P. Mills
Professor
Commissioner of Education
Mark D. Musick,
Chairman
University of California
State Department of Education
President
Los Angeles, California
Montpelier, Vermont
Southern Regional
Chester E. Finn, Jr.
Carl J. Moser
Education Board
Founding Partner and
Director of Schools
Atlanta, Georgia
Senior Scholar
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Sync
Honorable William T. Randall,
The Edison Project
St. Louis, Missouri
Vice-Chair
Washington, D.C.
John A. Murphy
Commissioner of Education
Michael S. Glode
Superintendent of Schools
State Department of Education
Wyoming State Board
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Denver, Colorado
of Education
Charlotte, North Carolina
Parris C. Battle
Saratoga, Wyoming
Michael Nettles
Education Specialist
William J. Hume
Professor
Dade County Public Schools
Chairman of the Board
University of Michigan
Miami, Florida
Basic American, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Honorable Evan Bayh
San Francisco, California
Honorable Carolyn Pollan
Governor of Indiana
Christine Johnson
Arkansas House of Representatives
Indianapolis, Indiana
Director of Urban Initiatives
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Mary R. Blanton
Education Commission of
Thomas Topuzes
Attorney
the States
Senior Vice President
Blanton & Blanton
Denver, Colorado
Valley Independent Bank
Salisbury, North Carolina
John S. Lindley
El Centro, California
Boyd W. Boehlje
Principal
Marilyn Whirry
Attorney and School Board
Galloway Elementary School
English Teacher
Member
Henderson, Nevada
Mira Costa High School
Pella, Iowa
Honorable Stephen E. Merrill
Manhattan Beach, California
Linda R. Bryant
Governor of New Hampshire
Sharon P. Robinson (Ex-Officio)
Dean of Students
Concord, New Hampshire
Assistant Secretary
Florence Reizenstein
Jason Millman
U.S. Department of Education
Middle School
Professor
Washington, D.C.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Cornell University
Roy Truby
Honorable Naomi K. Cohen
Ithaca, New York
Executive Director
Office of Policy and
NAGS
Management
Washington, D.C.
State of Connecticut
3
Hartford, Connecticut
rnpy
RPM-
A \ /AII API P
The ERIC Facility has assigned
this document for processing
to:
Science Framework
In our judgment, this document
is also of interest to the Clear-
inghouses noted to the right.
Indexing should reflect their
special points of view.
for the 1996 National
Assessment of
Educational Progress
NAEP Science Consensus Project
Developed under contract number RS90081001 by the Council of
Chief State School Officers, with the National Center for Improving
Science Education and the American Institutes for Research for the
National Assessment Governing Board.
I
National Assessment Governing Board
Mark D. Musick
Chair
William T. Randall
Vice Chair
Roy Truby
Executive Director
Mary Crovo
Project Officer
Science Consensus Project
Ramsay W. Selden
Council of Chief State School Officers
Richard C. Clark
Council of Chief State School Officers
Senta A. Raizen
National Center for Improving Science Education
Science Assessment Framework for the 1996 National
Assessment of Educational Progress
Developed for the National Assessment Governing Board under
contract number RS90081001 by the Council of Chief State
School Officers with the National Center for Improving Science
Education and the American Institutes for Research for the
National Assessment Governing Board
For further information, contact the National Assessment
Governing Board:
800 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 825
Washington, DC 20002
5
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328
ISBN 0-16-048903-2
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Background
1
Development of the 1996 NAEP Science Assessment
3
Framework
5
Steering Committee Guidelines
Chapter One: The Nature of Science and the
7
Science Curriculum
7
The Nature of Science
9
The Science Curriculum
Chapter Two: The Framework for the 1996 NAEP
Science Assessment
11
Introduction
11
Framework Elements
13
13
The Matrix
17
The Fields of Science
Earth Science
17
Physical Science
18
19
Life Science
20
Knowing and Doing Science
21
Conceptual Understanding
23
Scientific Investigation
24
Practical Reasoning
26
The Nature of Science
26
Science
27
Technology
28
Themes
Chapter Three: Desired Attributes of the Assessment
31
31
Some Assessment Issues
The Nature of Testing and the Nature of
Knowledge and Learning
31
6
iii
Inferring Understanding From Student Responses
32
Developments in Assessment
34
Criteria for Assessing Learning and Achievement
in Science
34
Preliminary Achievement Levels in Science
35
Chapter Four: Characteristics of Assessment Exercises
41
Types of Exercises
41
Performance Exercises
41
Open-Ended Pencil-and-Paper Items
42
Multiple-Choice Items
43
Additional Considerations
43
Pilot Testing
44
Procedures for Development of the Assessment
45
Special Study in Science
45
References
47
Appendix A: Fields of Science
49
Earth Science
51
Physical Science
56
Life Science
66
Appendix B: Examples of Themes by Grade Level
71
Systems
73
Patterns of Change
74
Models
77
Appendix C: Science Content Outlines (Excerpts)
81
Grade 4Earth Science
83
Grade 8Life Science
84
Grade 12Physical Science
86
Appendix D: Consensus Committees and Project Staff
89
7
iv
Introduction
This document contains the Framework and rationale for assess-
ing science achievement of students throughout the United
States in 1996. It provides a general overview of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), describes the 1996
NAEP Science Framework adopted by the National Assessment
Governing Board (NAGB), and reviews the process by which the
Framework was developed.
Background
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is authorized
by Congress and funded by the federal government; it is the only
nationally representative and continuing assessment of what
America's students know and can do. For more than 20 years,
NAEP has been charged with collecting and reporting information
on student achievement in mathematics, reading, science, U.S.
history, writing, and other subjects. NAEP assessments were
conducted on an annual basis until 1981, when they became bien-
nial. Originally, assessments were of students at ages 9, 13, and 17,
but beginning in 1983, they have included students at grades 4, 8,
and 12, as well.
NAEP reports provide descriptive information about student
performance in various subjects, including basic and higher order
skills, and comparisons of performance by race/ethnicity, gender,
type of community, and geographic region. They also show rela-
tionships between achievement and certain background variables,
such as time spent on homework or educational level of parents.
In the past, only results from a national sample of students have
been reported for each NAEP subject assessed; but in 1987, a
national study group chaired by Lamar Alexander, then Governor
of Tennessee, and H. Thomas James, President Emeritus of the
Spencer Foundation, recommended to the Secretary of Education
that NAEP collect representative data on student achievement at the
state level. For the first time, then, in 1990 a trial state assessment
was conducted for 8th-grade mathematics. The trial continued in
1992 with state-level assessments in mathematics at grades 4 and 8
and reading at grade 4. In 1994, reading was assessed at the state
8
1
level in grade 4. State-level assessments beyond 1994 are being
planned.
Assessment is not without critics. The Alexander-James Study
Group expressed concerns that "national assessments of science
were sporadic and almost exclusively devoted to assessing factual
information," and that they did not attempt to assess abilities to
organize and transform a body of information into a coherent
scientific account (The Nation's Report Card: Improving the
Assessment of Student Achievement, 1987).
To address this criticism, the study group recommended that
NAEP broaden its scope to include the collection of information on
whether students are able to design, perform, and analyze experi-
ments; on whether they have acquired complex thinking abilities
essential to various fields of science; on whether they are able to
integrate basic concepts of the various scientific fields; and on
whether they can perceive fundamental relationships. To measure
these kinds of knowledge and abilities, NAEP was urged to
include open-ended items and performance tasks in its assessment
techniques.
NAEP has great prestige, considerable influence, and well-
publicized results. Therefore, the weight of its findings may have a
substantial impact on science education, possibly influencing state
curriculum frameworks and, ultimately, even what teachers teach.
Therefore, the assessment should reflect consensus on priorities,
best practices, and conclusions from research on science education.
A specific example of how NAEP can influence state frame-
works is illustrated by the selection of special assessment tech-
niques, such as hands-on science. Performance, for instance, places
a value on the "doing" of science. That priority actually may not be
reflected in classroom practice, although it always was considered
to be a standard teaching technique in science. Thus, as the NAEP
science reports are circulated, states and curriculum policymakers
become sensitized and may incorporate more hands-on activities
into classroom lessons.
Science educators, by and large, do not quarrel with the essential
concept of assessment, but there has been no formal agreement on a
common framework, outcomes, or goals and objectives to assess.
The 1996 NAEP Science Assessment attempts to reflect a compre-
hensive, contemporary view of science so that those affected by the
9
2
National Assessment are satisfied that it addresses the complex
issues in science education without oversimplification. The framers
of this document have attempted to tread a fine line between clear
communication and technical accuracy in the hope that their efforts
represent a step forward in building national consensus on the key
outcomes of science education.
Development of the 1996 NAEP Science
Assessment Framework
The following factors guided the process for developing
consensus on the Science Assessment Framework:
The first factor is the general process of consensus devel-
opment both as it is set forth in law and as it evolves over
time. The process calls for active participation and broad
involvement of curriculum specialists, science teachers, local
science supervisors, state supervisors, administrators, and
parents, and representatives of scientific associations, business
and industry, government officials, unions, cognitive psy-
chologists, and science educators, as well as participation
from the public and private education sectors.
The second factor is emphasis on the important outcomes
of science education. As much as possible, this Science
Framework represents what is considered essential learning
in science, setting the stage for the 1996 and subsequent
assessments and recommending innovative assessment
techniques to probe the critical abilities and content areas.
The third factor is recognition that the various "players"
in education and in industry often hold diverse and some-
times conflicting views. Further, research and general agree-
ment in the field is lacking. This lack of agreement on a
common scope of instruction and sequence, components of
scientific literacy, important outcomes of learning, and the
nature of overarching themes in science hinders clear
communication between science educators and the public.
The process of developing the Framework document and accom-
panying reports occurred between October 1990 and August 1991.
Original plans called for the new NAEP Science Assessment to be
given in 1994. Due to a budget shortfall, however, both the new
science and mathematics assessments were rescheduled for 1996.
3
1 0