Exploring Students’ Patterns of Reasoninghttp://web.phys.ksu.edu/talks/2009/matloob-aapt-s09.pdf
Mojgan Matloob Haghanikar, Sytil Murphy, Dean Zollman
Kansas State University, Department of Physics, Manhattan, KS 66506
Cynthia Sunal & Dennis Sunal, University of Alabama, Cheryl Mason San Diego State University
As a part of a study of the science preparation of elementary school teachers students’ reasoning skills in courses with interactive engagement teaching-learning strategies are being compared with those in traditional courses. We have devised a rubric based on the hierarchies of knowledge and cognitive processes cited in a two dimensional revision of Bloom’s taxonomy[1].The rubric is being used to assess the levels of reasoning represented in students’ responses to written examination questions. In this way we believe that we can compare students’ pattern of reasoning across disciplines.
Supported by National Science Foundation grant ESI-055 4594
[1] A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, L.W. Anderson & D.R. Krathwohl, D.R. New York: Longman (2001).
Showing posts with label Content questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Content questions. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2009
Matloob Haghanikar,Murphy,Zollman: PERC 2009
Protocol for Analysis of Content Questions 
Mojgan Matloob Haghanikar, Sytil Murphy and Dean Zollman
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506;USA
As a part of a study of the science preparation of elementary school teachers, we are investigating students' abilities to apply scientific concepts to unfamiliar situations. The objective is to construct a method which will enable us to compare how students use their reasoning and their content knowledge across different disciplines. To analyze students' answers we developed a rubric based on the hierarchies of knowledge and cognitive processes cited in a two dimensional revision of Bloom's taxonomy (1). In this poster we will present the structure of some content questions and the rubric. In addition we will demonstrate the method of analysis for few example questions.
Supported by National Science Foundation grant ESI-055 4594
(1) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, L.W. Anderson & D.R. Krathwohl, D.R. New York: Longman (2001).
Mojgan Matloob Haghanikar, Sytil Murphy and Dean Zollman
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506;USA
As a part of a study of the science preparation of elementary school teachers, we are investigating students' abilities to apply scientific concepts to unfamiliar situations. The objective is to construct a method which will enable us to compare how students use their reasoning and their content knowledge across different disciplines. To analyze students' answers we developed a rubric based on the hierarchies of knowledge and cognitive processes cited in a two dimensional revision of Bloom's taxonomy (1). In this poster we will present the structure of some content questions and the rubric. In addition we will demonstrate the method of analysis for few example questions.
Supported by National Science Foundation grant ESI-055 4594
(1) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, L.W. Anderson & D.R. Krathwohl, D.R. New York: Longman (2001).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)