On the need to strengthen political-critical thinking in history education

The past twenty years have seen a dramatic change in the research of history education and its meaning in the Western academic world. Basically, there are three productive research directions: (1) a growing interest in cultural studies; (2) an exploration of various educational paths towards shaping a historical consciousness; and (3) cognitive and psychological research. Situated within the second group, but drawing on knowledge that has been gathered in all three research areas, this article focuses on the need to foster a political-critical dimension in the context of history education. The author proposes the implementation of a pedagogy of subversion in history teaching practices. Seeking to unsettle the students’ mind and ignite their intellect, this pedagogy supports the strengthening of political-moral thinking through the use of particular history content and teaching practices that take into account youthful rebellion and typical juvenile desire to fix the world. Adolescent resistance to education can thus be harnessed as a content tool, providing an object for the student to contend with personally as part of his or her maturation and individuation process. The desired outcome of such pedagogical practices is the development of an effective historical consciousness that enhances autonomous thinking, reflective skills and empathetic capabilities among young people. The future use of these capabilities is the ultimate aim of all education towards democratic citizenship.     

Articulating the validity evidence for a science alternate assessment

Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) are the 1% of the total student population who have a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviors and who require individualized instruction and substantial supports. Historically, these students have received little instruction in science and the science assessments they have participated in have not included age‐appropriate science content. Guided by a theory of action for a new assessment system, an eight‐state consortium developed multidimensional alternate content standards and alternate assessments in science for students in three grade bands (3–5, 6–8, 9–12) that are linked to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ) and A Framework for K‐12 Science Education (Framework; National Research Council, 2012 ). The great variability within the population of students with SCD necessitates variability in the assessment content, which creates inherent challenges in establishing technical quality. To address this issue, a primary feature of this assessment system is the use of hypothetical cognitive models to provide a structure for variability in assessed content. System features and subsequent validity studies were guided by a theory of action that explains how the proposed claims about score interpretation and use depend on specific assumptions about the assessment, as well as precursors to the assessment. This paper describes evidence for the main claim that test scores represent what students know and can do. We present validity evidence for the assumptions about the assessment and its precursors, related to this main claim. The assessment was administered to over 21,000 students in eight states in 2015–2016. We present selected evidence from system components, procedural evidence, and validity studies. We evaluate the validity argument and demonstrate how it supports the claim about score interpretation and use.     

How much anatomy is enough?

Innovations in undergraduate medical education, such as integration of disciplines and problem based learning, have given rise to concerns about students' knowledge of anatomy. This article originated from several studies investigating the knowledge of anatomy of students at the eight Dutch medical schools. The studies showed that undergraduate students uniformly perceived deficiencies in their anatomical knowledge when they started clinical training regardless of their school's didactic approach. A study assessing students' actual knowledge of clinical anatomy revealed no relationship between students' knowledge and the school's didactic approach. Test failure rates based on absolute standards set by different groups of experts were indicative of unsatisfactory levels of anatomical knowledge, although standards differed markedly between the groups of experts. Good test performance by students seems to be related to total teaching time for anatomy, teaching in clinical context, and revisiting anatomy topics in the course of the curriculum. These factors appeared to outweigh the effects of disciplinary integration orwhether the curriculum was problem‐based or traditional. Anat Sci Ed 2008. © 2008 American Association of Anatomists.