Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio-Scientific Reasoning (QuASSR)

Abstract

We describe the development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio‐scientific Reasoning (QuASSR) in a college context. The QuASSR contains 10 polytomous, two‐tiered items crossed between two scenarios, and is based on theory suggesting a four‐pronged structure for SSR (complexity, perspective taking, inquiry, and skepticism). In the context of pre‐post measurement within a 1‐week SSI‐based unit on fracking, we found that the four sub‐constructs represent a one‐dimensional progression of ideas, and that SSR is largely independent of declarative knowledge. In the validation process, we discovered small inconsistencies in item functioning between scenarios in the areas of complexity and perspective‐taking, but determined that resulting biases sat well within the uncertainty in students’ measures. In light of future development and use of the QuASSR, we determined that use of a single scenario is sufficient to produce a measurement reliability of 0.7. Given the time it takes for students to complete a scenario, we consider a 3‐scenario QuASSR, and its accompanying measurement precision of 0.85, to be the practical upper precision limit of the QuASSR when used in experimental contexts. Finally, we found no significant change in SSR due to the SSI‐based intervention. This mirrors prior reports of short‐duration interventions targeting SSR. Our data suggest that as a cognitive construct underpinned by political, moral, and ethical ideologies around SSI, successful efforts to facilitate growth must target SSR as a central focus upon which more basic content knowledge is contextualized, so that sufficient instructional duration can be given to this important construct. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 54: 274–295, 2017

The change in student scientific literacy levels during gymnasium studies

“…Samas on üksikuid teadusuuringuid, mis selgitavad gümnaasiumiastme õpilaste hoiakuid ja enesehinnanguid loodus teaduslikes õppeainetes kujundatavate teadmiste ja oskuste suhtes (Choi, Lee, Shin, Kim, & Krajcik, 2011). On loodud ka mitmeid mudeleid ja instru mente, mille alusel saab iseloomustada gümnaasiumiastmes oman datud teadmisi ja oskusi, sh sotsiaal-teadusliku põhjendamise oskust (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012;NGSS, 2013;Romine, Sadler, & Kinslow, 2017).…”

“…Sellised ülesanded on seotud mitte ainult induktiivsete, vaid ka deduktiivsete protsessidega. Näitena võib tuua instrumendi, millega hinnatakse kvantitatiivselt sotsiaalteadusliku põhjendamise oskust ning mis on üles ehitatud kahele õpilaste oskuste hindamise stsenaariumile (Romine et al, 2017).…”

“…Samuti tekib küsimus, kuidas tõlgen-datakse praktikas loodusteadusliku kirjaoskuse määratlust: kas Robertsi I visiooni (Roberts, 2007) järgi või uue kompetentsuspõhise õppekava ja Robertsi II visiooni järgi? Kuna uurimistöö tulemused näitasid, et erinevate eksamitulemustega kooligruppide õpilaste saavutuste vahel ei ole selgeid erinevusi, jääb arutelu objektiks ka see, milliste teadmiste ja oskuste hindamisele oli suunatud lõpueksamite süsteem, millest juhindusid ka loodusteaduslike õppeainete õpetajad, ja kas see on kooskõlas ühiskonna nõudmistega 21. sajandi oskustele, mille hulgas on ka sotsiaal-teadusliku põhjendamise oskus (Choi et al, 2011;Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2009;Romine et al, 2017).…”

Preface

“…Õpilaste jaoks relevantsete probleemide käsitlemise kaudu kujundatakse nii otsuse tegemise oskust kui ka sotsiaal-teadusliku põhjendamise oskust, mis on olulised 21. sajandi oskused (Choi, Lee, Shin, Kim, & Krajcik, 2011) ja mida tuleb kindlasti ka hinnata (Romine, Sadler, & Kinslow, 2017).…”

Content Analysis of Middle School Students' Argumentation in Engineering

“…For instance, Romine, Sadler, and Kinslow produced a Quantitative Assessment of Socio-Scientific Reasoning instrument that assesses students' ability to determine complexity, perspective-taking, inquiry, and skepticism when thinking about socio-scientific issues. 20 As a second example, Osborne and colleagues developed and validated an instrument for measuring learning progressions in argumentation in science, which can trace students' developments in argumentation from constructing claims to constructing counter-claims with justifications. 6 Though this instrument can be applied to argumentation in engineering contexts, it does not include discipline-specific elements of arguments, such as weighing and justifying trade-offs based on prioritized criteria and constraints, which are features of argumentation in engineering.…”