Abstract.
As faculty, our goals for students are often tacit, hidden not only from students but from ourselves as well. We present a conceptual framework for considering teaching goals – what we want our students to achieve – that encourages us to think more broadly about what we mean by achieving in our knowledge domains. This framework includes declarative knowledge (“knowing that”), procedural knowledge (“knowing how”), schematic knowledge (“knowing why”) and strategic knowledge (“knowing when, where and how our knowledge applies”). We link the framework to a variety of assessment methods and focus on assessing the structure of declarative knowledge – knowledge structure. From prior research, we know that experts and knowledgeable students have extensive, well-structured, declarative knowledge; not so novices. We then present two different techniques for assessing knowledge structure – cognitive and concept maps, and a combination of the two – and provide evidence on their technical quality. We show that these maps provide a window into the structure of students declarative knowledge not otherwise tapped by typical pencil-and-paper tests. These maps provide us with new teaching goals and new evidence on student learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R.C. Anderson (1984) ArticleTitleSome reflections on the acquisition of knowledge Educational Researcher 13 IssueID10 5–10
M.T.H. Chi P.J Feltovich R. Glaser (1981) ArticleTitle‘Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices’ Cognitive Science 5 121–152
M.T.H. Chi R Glaser M.J. Farr (1988) The Nature of Expertise Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers Hillsdale, NJ
A.K Ericsson H.A. Simon (1993) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data MIT Cambridge, MA
A.K Ericsson H.A. Simon (1998) ArticleTitle‘How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking’ Mind, Culture and Activity 5 IssueID3 178–186
K.M. Fisher (2000) ‘SemNet software as an assessment tool’. J.J. Mintzes J.H Wandersee (Eds) Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View Academic Press New York 197–221
D Gentner A.L. Stevens (Eds) (1983) Mental Models Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ
Glaser R. (1991). ‘Expertise and assessment’. In: Wittrock M.C, Baker E.L. (eds.), Testingand Cognition, pp. 17–39
R Glaser M. Bassok (1989) ArticleTitle‘Learning theory and the study of instruction’ Annual Review of Psychology 40 631–666 Occurrence Handle10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.003215
T.E. Goldsmith P.J Johnson W.H. Acton (1991) ArticleTitleássessing structural knowledge’. Journal of Educational Psychology 83 IssueID1 88–96 Occurrence Handle10.1037//0022-0663.83.1.88
Li. M, Shavelson R.J. (2001). ‘Examining the links between science achievement and assessment’. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
J.J. Mintzes J.H Wandersee J.D. Novak (1997) Teaching Science for Understanding Academic Press San Diego
J.D. Novak (1990) ArticleTitle‘Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27 IssueID10 937–949
J.D Novak D.R. Gowin (1984) Learning How to Learn Cambridge Press New York
N.R. Pearsall J.E.J Skipper J.J. Mintzes (1997) ArticleTitle‘Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences. A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology’. Science Education 81 IssueID2 193–215 Occurrence Handle10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<193::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-A
M.A Ruiz-Primo R.J. Shavelson (1996a) ArticleTitle‘Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33 IssueID6 569–600 Occurrence Handle10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<569::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-M
M.A Ruiz-Primo R.J. Shavelson (1996b) ArticleTitle‘Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33 IssueID10 1045–1063 Occurrence Handle10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1045::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-S
Ruiz-Primo M.A., Schultz E.S, Shavelson R.J. (1996c). ‘Concept map-based assessments in science: An exploratory study’. Presentedat the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association,New York, NY
M.A. Ruiz-Primo S.E. Schutlz M Li R.J. Shavelson (2001) ArticleTitle‘Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 IssueID2 260–278 Occurrence Handle10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<260::AID-TEA1005>3.0.CO;2-F
P.M. Sadler (1998) ArticleTitle‘Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments’ Journal of Research in science Teaching 35 IssueID3 265–296 Occurrence Handle10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199803)35:3<265::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P
C Schau N. Mattern (1997) ArticleTitle‘Use of map techniques in teaching applied statistics courses’ The American Statistician 51 IssueID2 171–175
Schultz S.E. (1999). To Group or not to Group: Effects of Grouping on Students’. Declarative and Procedural Knowledge in Science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford CA.
R.J. Shavelson G.P Baxter J. Pine (1992) ArticleTitle‘Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality’ Educational Researcher 21 IssueID4 22–27
R.J Shavelson M.A. Ruiz-Primo (1999b) ArticleTitle‘Leistungsbewertung im naturwissenschaftlichen unterricht’, Unterrichtswissenschaft Evaluation in natural science instruction 27 102–127
R.J Shavelson M.A. Ruiz-Primo (1999) On the Psychometrics of Assessing Science Understanding Academic Press New York
B.M. Stecher S.P. Klein G. Solano-Flores D. McCaffrey A. Robyn R.J Shavelson E. Haertel (2000) ArticleTitle‘The effects of content, format, and inquiry level on performance on science performance assessment scores’ Applied Measurement in Education 13 IssueID2 139–160 Occurrence Handle10.1207/S15324818AME1302_2
R.J. Shavelson (1972) ArticleTitle‘Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction’ Journal of Educational Psychology 63 225–234
R.J. Shavelson (1974) ArticleTitle‘Some methods for examining content structure and cognitive structure in instruction’ Educational Psychologist 11 110–122
R.J Shavelson G.C. Stanton (1975) ArticleTitle‘Construct validation: Methodology and application to three measures of cognitive structure’ Journal of Educational Measurement 12 67–85
R.J Shavelson N.M. Webb (1991) Generalizability Theory: A Primer SAGE Newbury Park, CA
R.T White R. Gunstone (1992) Probing Understanding Falmer Press New York
E.W. Wiley (1998) Indirect and Direct Assessment of Structural Knowledge in Statistics Stanford University School of Education Stanford CA
R Zajchowski J. Martin (1993) ArticleTitle‘Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge, strategies, or knowledge structure’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30 IssueID5 459–470
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Based on an invited address, Facoltá di Ingegneria dell’Universitá degli Studi di Ancona, June 27, 2000. This research was supported, in part, by the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (Grant R117G10027), and by the National Science Foundation (Nos. ESI 95-96080). The opinions expressed here represent those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding agency.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shavelson, R.J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Wiley, E.W. Windows into the mind. High Educ 49, 413–430 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-9448-9
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-9448-9