期刊專區/ Periodical Section

促進數學學習的評量：BEAR評量系統

Assessment to improve learning in mathematics: The BEAR Assessment System

所屬期刊：	第1卷第3期 「測驗與評量」 主編：玄奘大學 應用心理學系 林邦傑教授
系統編號：	vol003_02
主題：	測驗與評量
出版年份：	2005
作者：	Mark Wilson;Claus Carstensen
作者(英文)：
論文名稱：	促進數學學習的評量：BEAR評量系統
論文名稱(英文)：	Assessment to improve learning in mathematics: The BEAR Assessment System
共同作者：	Claus Carstensen
最高學歷：	PH.D.
校院名稱：	University of Chicago
系所名稱：	Educational Measurement &
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	24
中文關鍵字：	評量;數學教育;BEAR評量系統;試題反應模式;建構圖
英文關鍵字：	assessment; mathematics education; BEAR assessment system; item response models; construct map
服務單位：	加州大學柏克萊分校
稿件字數：	7817
作者專長：
投稿日期：	2004/10/1
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	本文討論數學教育中評量實務，是如何來促進或阻礙學習。我們介紹一個原則基準的評量系統，稱做BEAR評量系統。該系統是建立在先進的評量方法和概念上。我們簡述評量系統的四項原則以及四個基石（building blocks），並且以我們對德國數學能力測驗的工作架構為例，舉例說明每一個成分。
摘要(英文)：	This paper discusses how assessment practices in mathematics education can improve or hinder learning. We describe a principles-based system of assessment, called the BEAR Assessment System. The system was designed to build upon methodological and conceptual advances in assessment. We outline the four principles and the four “building blocks” of the assessment system, and provide an example of each of these components from our work in the context of a German Mathematical Literacy Test.
參考文獻：	Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. & Wang, W-C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-23. Black, P. , Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning. London: Open University Press. Claesgens, J., Scalise, K., Draney, K., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2002). Perspectives of chemists: A framework to promote conceptual understanding of chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Biggs, J. B., Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York; Toronto: Longmans, Green. Briggs, D., Alonzo, A., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (in press). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment. German PISA Consortium. (2004). PISA 2003: Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs (PISA 2003 Results of the second international comparison). Munster: Waxmann. Glaser, R. (1990). Testing and assessment: O tempora! O mores! Pittsburgh: LRDC, University of Pittsburgh. Haladyna, T. M. (1994). Cognitive Taxonomies. In T. M. Haladyna, Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items (pp. 104-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hoskens, M. & Wilson, M. (1999). StandardMap (computer program). University of California, Berkeley. Kennedy, C.A., Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2005). GradeMap 4.1 (computer program). BEAR Center: UC Berkeley, CA. Land, R. (1997). Moving up to complex assessment systems. Evaluation Comment, 7(1), 1-21. Linn, R. & Baker, E. (1996). Can performance-based student assessments be psychometrically sound? In J. B. Baron & D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. (pp. 84-103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Masters, G. N., Adams, R. A., & Wilson, M. (1990). Charting student progress. In . T. Husen and T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies. Supplementary volume 2 (pp. 628–634). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Minstrell, J. (1998, Oct.). Student thinking and related instruction: Creating a facet-based learning environment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Committee on Foundations of Assessment, Woods Hole, MA. National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The science and design of educational assessment. J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser, (Eds.) Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Foundation. (1997, February). Review of instructional materials for middle school science. Arlington, VA: Author. Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling. Oxford: Blackwell. PISA. (2005a). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. PISA. (2005b). PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris: OECD. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B.R. Gifford and M.C. OConnor (Eds.), Changing assessments (pp. 37–76). Boston: Kluwer. Roberts, L. (producer), & Sipusic, M. (director) (1999). Moderation in all things: A class act [Film]. (Available from the Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Center, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1670). Wilson, M. (1990). Measurement of developmental levels. In, T. Husen and T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies. Supplementary volume 2 (pp. 628–634). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Wilson, M. (Ed.). (2004a). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, M. (2004b). A perspective on current trends in assessment and accountability: Degrees of coherence. In, M. Wilson, (Ed.). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilson, M., De Boeck, P., & Carstensen, C. (in press). Explanatory item response models: A brief introduction. In E. Klieme (Ed.), Assessment of Competencies in Educational Contexts. New York: Huber & Huber. Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2002). A technique for setting standards and maintaining them over time. In S. Nishisato, Y. Baba, H. Bozdogan, & K. Kanefugi (Eds.), Measurement and multivariate analysis (Proceedings of the International Conference on Measurement and Multivariate Analysis, Banff, Canada, May 12-14, 2000), pp 325-332. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. Wilson M., & Draney, K. (2004). Some links between large-scale and classroom assessments: The case of the BEAR Assessment System. In, M. Wilson, (Ed.). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2005). From principles to practice in assessment design: The BEAR Assessment System in a large-scale assessment context. BEAR Research Report, University of California, Berkeley. Wilson, M., Roberts, L., Draney, K., & Sloane, K. (2000). SEPUP Assessment Resources Handbook. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research Center. Wilson, M., & Scalise, K. (in press). Assessment to improve learning in higher education: The BEAR Assessment System. Higher Education. Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181-208. Wolf, D. & Reardon, S. (1996). Access to excellence through new forms of student assessment. In J. B. Baron & D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. (Part I) (pp. 52-83). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.