Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

Standards for educational and psychological testing

Basing its arguments in current perspectives on the nature of the scientific enterprise, which see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists, this article develops the case for the inclusion and central role of argument in science education. Beginning with a review of the nature of argument, it discusses the function and purpose of dialogic argument in the social construction of scientific knowledge and the interpretation of empirical data. The case is then advanced that any education about science, rather than education in science, must give the role of argument a high priority if it is to give a fair account of the social practice of science, and develop a knowledge and understanding of the evaluative criteria used to establish scientific theories. Such knowledge is essential to enhance the public understanding of science and improve scientific literacy. The existing literature, and work that has attempted to use argument within science education, is reviewed to show that classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop young people's ability to construct argument. Furthermore, the case is advanced that the lack of opportunities for the practice of argument within science classrooms, and lack of teacher's pedagogical skills in organizing argumentative discourse within the classroom are significant impediments to progress in the field. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed84:287–312, 2000.

Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms

The laboratory has been given a central and distinctive role in science education, and science educators have suggested that rich benefits in learning accrue from using laboratory activities. Twenty years have been elapsed since we published a frequently cited, critical review of the research on the school science laboratory (Hofstein & Lunetta, Rev. Educ. Res.52(2), 201–217, 1982). Twenty years later, we are living in an era of dramatic new technology resources and new standards in science education in which learning by inquiry has been given renewed central status. Methodologies for research and assessment that have developed in the last 20 years can help researchers seeking to understand how science laboratory resources are used, how students' work in the laboratory is assessed, and how science laboratory activities can be used by teachers to enhance intended learning outcomes. In that context, we take another look at the school laboratory in the light of contemporary practices and scholarship. This analysis examines scholarship that has emerged in the past 20 years in the context of earlier scholarship, contemporary goals for science learning, current models of how students construct knowledge, and information about how teachers and students engage in science laboratory activities. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed88:28–54, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/.sce10106

https://gpquae.iqm.unicamp.br/gtexperimentacao.pdf

The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century

The research reported in this paper focussed on the design of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over two years between 1999 and 2001 in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first developmental phase, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support argumentation in the classroom and to assess teachers‘ development with teaching argumentation. Data were collected by videoing and audio recording the teachers attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of argumentation were developed based on Toulmin‘s argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of argumentation is teacher specific, as is the nature of the change. In the second phase of the project, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a control group at the beginning and end of the year. Here the emphasis lay on assessing the progression in student capabilities with argumentation. Hence data were collected from several lessons of two groups of students engaging in argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality, the findings show that there was an improvement in the quality of students‘ argumentation. In addition, the research offers methodological developments for work in this field.

http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/28363/mod_resource/content/1/Enhancing%20the%20Quality%20of%20Argumentation%20in%20School%20Science.pdf

Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science

This study examined the outcomes of a unit that integrates explicit teaching of general reasoning patterns into the teaching of a specific science content. Specifically, this article examined the teaching of argumentation skills in the context of dilemmas in human genetics. Before instruction only a minority (16.2%) of the students referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments in the context of dilemmas in genetics. Approximately 90% of the students were successful in formulating simple arguments. An assessment that took place following instruction supported the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation into the teaching of dilemmas in human genetics enhances performance in both biological knowledge and argumentation. An increase was found in the frequency of students who referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments. Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in a test of genetics knowledge. An increase was also found in the quality of students' argumentation. Students were able to transfer the reasoning abilities taught in the context of genetics to the context of dilemmas taken from everyday life. The effects of metacognitive thinking and of changing students' thinking dispositions by modifying what is considered valuable in the class culture are discussed. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 35–62, 2002

Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics

The research reported in this paper stemmed from our conviction that argument is a central dimension of both science and science education. Our specific intention was to determine whether secondary science teachers in England give pupils opportunities to develop and rehearse the skills of argumentation during their lessons. We found that classroom discourse was largely teacher dominated and tended not to foster the reflective discussion of scientific issues. Opportunities for the social construction of knowledge, that are afforded by the use of argument-based pedagogical techniques, were few and far between. After a discussion of teachers' responses to this finding, we highlighted two major explanations: firstly, limitations in teachers' pedagogical repertoires; secondly, external pressures imposed upon science teachers in England by the National Curriculum and its assessment system.

The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science

uk This article concerns the importance of clarity in thinking and talking about certain core concepts of educational assessment. It begins by identifying three quite distinct interpretations of the term ‘assessment purpose’. It continues by challenging the supposed distinction between ‘formative’ and ‘summative’—arguing that the latter only applies to a kind of assessment result while the former only applies to a kind of use of assessment results. It ends by illustrating the wide range of uses to which assessment results might be put and stresses the importance of not concealing important distinctions by locating multiple discrete purposes within a small number of misleading categories.

/pdf/clarifying-the-purposes-of-educational-assessment-3gjjkcolpx.pdf

Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment

Current theory and experimental research suggests that children's discovery of false beliefs at around 4 years of age allows the development of intentional deception. Anecdotal evidence of earlier lies has been dismissed with the argument that they may be ‘blind’ learned strategies rather than genuine deception. This paper presents two studies of everyday deception in comparison with false-belief task performance in young children. Study 1, a longitudinal study of 24 children, shows that the variety and incidence of everyday deceptions reported by mothers did not relate to success or failure on a battery of false-belief tasks, either between different children or over time in the same children. In Study 2 the deceptions of a 21/2-year-old child over a 6-month period were shown to be varied, flexible, context appropriate and too complex to be ‘blind’ learned strategies. It is argued that children's deceptive skills develop from pragmatic need and situational exigencies rather than from conceptual developments; they may learn to lie in the same way as they learn to speak.

Children's everyday deception and performance on false-belief tasks

Validity and Validation The Genesis of Validity: Mid-1800s-1951 The Fragmentation of Validity: 1952-1974 The (Re)Unification of Validity: 1975-1999 The Deconstruction of Validity: 2000-2012 Twenty-first-century Evaluation

/pdf/validity-in-educational-psychological-assessment-2xtues4a17.pdf

Paul E. Newton

Papers

Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms

The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science

Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment

Children's everyday deception and performance on false-belief tasks

Validity in educational & psychological assessment