Advertisement

Assessment Practices and Gender in Science

Chapter
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (volume 2)

Abstract

In recent years, growing awareness of the relationship between assessment and learning has resulted in several major critiques of existing practice and proposals for reforms at national and regional levels. For example, in the USA, the almost exclusive use of paper-and-pencil multiple-choice tests has been challenged by numerous bodies and the need for new and more varied assessment methods has been emphasised (Murname & Raizen, 1988; Raizen et al., 1989). Central to this new approach is the use of carefully constructed performance tasks that give students opportunities to demonstrate and apply their understanding as they would ‘in the world outside of school’ (Marzano et al., 1994).

Keywords

Science Curriculum Assessment Practice Assessment Task Scientific Equipment Socioscientific Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateson, D., Erickson, G., Gaskell, J. & Wideen, M. (1991). Science in British Columbia, British Columbia, Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Bentley, D. & Drobinski, S. (1995). ‘Girls, learning and science in the framework of the National Curriculum’, Curriculum Journal 6(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadfoot, P.M., James, M.E., McMeeking, S., Nuttall, D.L. & Stierer, B.M. (1988). Records of achievement: Report of the national evaluation of pilot schemes, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, M. (1989). ‘Graded assessment projects: Similarities and differences’, in P. Murphy and B. Moon (eds.), Developments in learning and assessment, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 300–311.Google Scholar
  5. Comber, L.C. & Keeves, J.P. (1973). Science education in nineteen countries, Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  6. Consortium for Assessment & Testing in Schools (CATS) (1991). Pilot report 1991: Key stage 3 science, London, Schools Examination and Assessment Council.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Education (DOE) (1989). Assessment for better learning — a public discussion document, Wellington, New Zealand, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Education & Science (DES) (1988a). Task Group on Assessment and Testing: A report, London, DES.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Education & Science (DES) (1988b). Science in schools age 15: Review report, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Education & Science (DES) (1989a). National assessment: The APU science approach, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Education & Science (DES) (1989b). Science in schools age 13: Review report, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  12. Foulds, K., Gott, R. & Feasey, R. (1992). Investigative work in science, Durham, The University of Durham.Google Scholar
  13. Foxman, D. (1992). Learning mathematics and science: The second 1AEP in England, Windsor, UK, National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  14. Gipps, C. & Murphy, P. (1994). A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goddard-Spear, M. (1987). ‘The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise’, in A. Kelly (ed.), Science for girls? Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 46–51.Google Scholar
  16. Gorman, T.P., White, J., Brook, G., Maclure, M. & Kispal, A. (1988). Language performance in schools: Review of APU language monitoring 1979-1983, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  17. Harding, J., Hildebrand, G. & Klainin, S. (1988). ‘International concerns in gender and science/technology’, Educational Review (40), 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobbs, E.D., Boldt, W.B., Erickson, G., Quelch, T.P. & Sieban, B.A. (1979). British Columbia science assessment 1978, general report 1, British Columbia, Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, S. & Murphy, P. (1986). Girls and physics, London, Department of Education and Science.Google Scholar
  20. Lapointe, A., Mead, N. & Phillips, G. (1989). A world of differences: An international assessment of mathematics and science, Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  21. Levin, T., Stobar, N. & Libman, Z. (1987). ‘Girls’ understanding of science: A problem of cognitive or affective readiness’, in J. Daniels and J.B. Kahle (eds.), Contributions to the Fourth GASAT Conference, Vol. II, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan, 104–112.Google Scholar
  22. Marzano, R.J., Pikering, D & McTighe, J. (1994). Assessing student outcomes, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  23. Messick, S. (1989). ‘Meaning and values in text validation: The science and ethics of assessment’, Educational Researcher 18(2), 5–11.Google Scholar
  24. Mullis, I.VS., Owen, E.H. & Phillips, G.W. (1990). Accelerating academic achievement: A summary of findings from 20 Years of NAEP, Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  25. Murname, R.J. & Raizen, S.A. (eds.) (1988). Improving indicators for the quality of science and mathematics education in grades K-12, Washington, DC. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Murphy, P. (1991). ‘Gender and practical work’ in B. Woolnough (ed.), Practical work in science, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 112–122.Google Scholar
  27. Murphy, P. & Gott, R. (1984). Science assessment framework age 13 and 15: Science report for teachers: 2, Hatfield, Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  28. Murphy, P., Scanlon, E., Hodgson, B. & Whitelegg, E. (1994). ‘Developing investigative learning in science-the role of collaboration’, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Curriculum, Enschede, The Netherlands, University of Twente.Google Scholar
  29. National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) (1978). Science achievement in schools: A summary of results from the 1976-1977 national assessment of science, Washington, DC, Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  30. Raizen, S.A., Baron, J.G., Champagne, A.B., Haertel, E., Mullis, I.N.V. & Oakes, J. (1989). Assessment in elementary school science education, Washington, DC, National Center for improving Science Education.Google Scholar
  31. Randall, G.J. (1987). ‘Gender differences in pupil-teacher interactions in workshops and laboratories’, in G. Weiner and M. Arnot (eds.), Gender under scrutiny, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rennie, L.J. (1987). ‘Out of school science: Are gender differences related to subsequent attitudes and achievements in science?’, in J. Daniels and J.B. Kahle (eds.), Contributions to the Fourth GASAT Conference, Vol. 11, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan, 9–17.Google Scholar
  33. Sorensen, H. (1990). ‘When girls do physics’, in I. Granstam and I. Frostfeldt (eds.), Contributions to GASAT Conference, Jönköping, Sweden, Jönköping University College, 42–52.Google Scholar
  34. Stobart, G., White, J., Elwood, J., Hayden, M. & Mason K. (1992). Differential performance at 16+: English and mathematics, London, Schools Examination and Assessment Council.Google Scholar
  35. White, J. (1988). The language of science, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  36. Wilder, G.Z. & Powell, K. (1989). Sex differences in test performance: A survey of the literature, College Board Report No. 88-1, New York, College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations