Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete?

This yearlong study was implemented in seventh-grade life science classes with the students' regular teacher serving as teacher/researcher. In the study, a method of scoring concept maps was developed to assess knowledge and comprehension levels of science achievement. By linking scoring of concept maps to instructional objectives, scores were based upon the correctness of propositions. High correlations between the concept map scores and unit multiple choice tests provided strong evidence of the content validity of the map scores. Similarly, correlations between map scores and state criterion-referenced and national norm-referenced standardized tests were indicators of high concurrent validity. The approach to concept map scoring in the study represents a distinct departure from traditional methods that focus on characteristics such as hierarchy and branching. A large body of research has demonstrated the utility of such methods in the assessment of higher-level learning outcomes. The results of the study suggest that a concept map might be used in assessing declarative and procedural knowledge, both of which have a place in the science classroom. One important implication of these results is that science curriculum and its corresponding assessment need not be dichotomized into knowledge/comprehension versus higher-order outcomes. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 35: 1103–1127, 1998.     

Equity and Excellence in Research Funding

The tension between equity and excellence is fundamental in science policy. This tension might appear to be resolved through the use of merit-based evaluation as a criterion for research funding. This is not the case. Merit-based decision making alone is insufficient because of inequality aversion, a fundamental tendency of people to avoid extremely unequal distributions. The distribution of performance in science is extremely unequal, and no decision maker with the power to establish a distribution of public money would dare to match the level of inequality in research performance. We argue that decision makers who increase concentration of resources because they accept that research resources should be distributed according to merit probably implement less inequality than would be justified by differences in research performance. Here we show that the consequences are likely to be suppression of incentives for the very best scientists. The consequences for the performance of a national research system may be substantial. Decision makers are unaware of the issue, as they operate with distributional assumptions of normality that guide our everyday intuitions.     

中世纪晚期的哲学与科学事业

约翰·默多克(John E.Murdoch,1927-),著名美国中世纪科学史家,哈佛大学科学史系教授。他的专长是无限与连续性的研究,尤其注重科学与哲学、宗教、逻辑等背景的关系。今年刚刚宣布他获得了2009年的萨顿奖章。本文选自JohnE.Murdoch,"Philosophy and the Enterprise of Scienceinthe Later Middle Ages."In Y.Elkana(ed.),The Interaction between Science and Philosophy(Humanities Press,1974):51-74,是他最有名的代表作之一,对如何理解中世纪晚期的科学与哲学、避免辉格史的做法提出了十分新鲜和深刻的见解,特译出以飨读者(原文中注释很多,这里删去了一些过专的内容)。