Modeling-Oriented Assessment in K-12 Science Education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions

Abstract

Scientific modeling has been advocated as one of the core practices in recent science education policy initiatives. In modeling-based instruction (MBI), students use, construct, and revise models to gain scientific knowledge and inquiry skills. Oftentimes, the benefits of MBI have been documented using assessments targeting students’ conceptual understanding or affective domains. Fewer studies have used assessments directly built on the ideas of modeling. The purpose of this study is to synthesize and examine modeling-oriented assessments (MOA) in the last three decades and propose new directions for research in this area. The study uses a collection of 30 empirical research articles that report MOA from an initial library of 153 articles focusing on MBI in K-12 science education from 1980 to 2013. The findings include the variety of themes within each of the three MOA dimensions (modeling products, modeling practices, and meta-modeling knowledge) and the areas of MOA still in need of much work. Based on the review, three guiding principles are proposed for future work in MOA: (a) framing MOA in an ecology of assessment, (b) providing authentic modeling contexts for assessment, and (c) spelling out the connections between MOA items and the essential aspects of modeling to be assessed.

Keywords:

• Modeling-oriented assessment
• Model-based learning
• Modeling
• Assessment

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant number DRL1019866. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this poster are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We thank our collaborators who contributed significantly in the larger project from which a part of the data was drawn: Jing Lei, Heng Luo, Ye Chen, and Sung Hye Lee. We also thank the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable feedback to an earlier version of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The original project reviewed literature from 1980 to 2010. We expanded the search to 2013 in this paper.