Search

Scientific reasoning competencies are relevant science competencies and therefore the development of assessment instruments for scientific reasoning competencies has become an integral part of science education research. However, some authors have questioned the validity of the instruments available so far, since their psychometric quality has not been evaluated satisfactorily. In this study, an established German multiple-choice instrument to assess scientific reasoning competencies has been translated into English and Spanish and the translated versions were evaluated based on the "translation," "review," "adjudication," "pretesting" and "documentation" (TRAPD) approach. Based on samples of German (N = 497), Australian (N = 103), and Chilean (N = 135) pre-service science teachers, statistical analyses (e.g. dimensionality and DIF analyses) provide psychometric evidence for test equivalence between the German and the translated versions of the instrument. Known groups comparisons provide evidence for the valid interpretation of the test scores as measures of scientific reasoning competencies. It is discussed that further studies might evaluate additional sources of validity evidence for the translated versions of the instrument, particularly focusing on cultural specificities. Independent of this need for further research, it is suggested that the three versions can be used to assess the scientific reasoning competencies of pre-service science teachers whose first language is English, German, or Spanish.

The development of metaknowledge about models (MKM) and metaknowledge about the modelling process (MKP) are important in pre-service science teachers (PSTs) education. MKM refers to knowledge about the model's entities and its purposes, while MKP refers to knowledge about the components and structure of the modelling process. Assessing MKM and MKP is crucial to foster this knowledge in PSTs' education. However, assessment instruments focus on MKM rather than MKP, and the connection between MKM and MKP had not been examined deeply. This study validates and applies a diagram task for assessing PSTs' MKP. For validation, ten experts were surveyed and think-aloud interviews were conducted with ten PSTs. The findings support valid interpretations of PSTs' MKP based on the diagram task. In the main study, the diagram task was administrated to 63 PSTs, along with an MKM questionnaire. PSTs' MKP ranged from simple conceptions of modelling as a linear process including few components to sophisticated conceptions of modelling as an iterative process including multiple components. Furthermore, it was found that knowledge about using models to predict a phenomenon is an aspect connecting sophisticated MKM and MKP, indicating that this aspect is crucial to foster both, PSTs MKM and MKP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students' and pre-service teachers' conceptions of scientists have been assessed in a variety of studies. One of the most commonly used instruments is the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) which offers the advantage that no verbal skills are needed by the participants. In some studies, methodical challenges related to the DAST have been discussed; for example, the lack of drawing abilities among the subjects or the impact of the prompt itself on the drawings which lead to invalid interpretations. This study aims to evaluate the eligibility of the DAST or similar instruments to validly assess conceptions of scientists and their work. Pre-service science teachers in two cohorts (N[subscript 1] = 79, N[subscript 2] = 101) were prompted to draw their conceptions of a scientist, the location at which the scientist is working, and his/her scientific activity. The participants of cohort 2 were also asked to give written descriptions of their drawings and information on the conditions while they were drawing. From the results, several points of methodical criticism can be made which question the valid interpretation of DAST-drawings. Instead of using the DAST, we suggest developing and evaluating other formats, such as open-ended or closed-ended instruments which could produce a more validly interpretable assessment of individuals' conceptions in this field.

Research in the field of students' understandings of models and their use in science describes different frameworks concerning these understandings. Currently, there is no conjoint framework that combines these structures and so far, no investigation has focused on whether it reflects students' understandings sufficiently (empirical evaluation). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present the results of an empirical evaluation of a conjoint theoretical framework. The theoretical framework integrates relevant research findings and comprises five aspects which are subdivided into three levels each: "nature of models," "multiple models," "purpose of models," "testing," and "changing models." The study was conducted with a sample of 1,177 seventh to tenth graders (aged 11-19 years) using open-ended items. The data were analysed by identifying students' understandings of models ("nature of models" and "multiple models") and their use in science ("purpose of models," "testing," and "changing models"), and comparing as well as assigning them to the content of the theoretical framework. A comprehensive category system of students' understandings was thus developed. Regarding the empirical evaluation, the students' understandings of the nature and the "purpose of models" were sufficiently described by the theoretical framework. Concerning the understandings of "multiple," "testing," and "changing models," additional initial understandings ("only one model possible," "no testing of models," and "no change of models") need to be considered. This conjoint and now empirically tested framework for students' understandings can provide a common basis for future science education research. Furthermore, evidence-based indications can be provided for teachers and their instructional practice.