Representations of Disciplinary Knowledge in Assessment: Associations between High School and University Assessments in Science, Mathematics and the Humanities and Predictors of Success

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2022-06-24 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2022.2088495
Michael Johnston, B. Wood, Sue Cherrington, S. Boniface, A. Mortlock
{"title":"Representations of Disciplinary Knowledge in Assessment: Associations between High School and University Assessments in Science, Mathematics and the Humanities and Predictors of Success","authors":"Michael Johnston, B. Wood, Sue Cherrington, S. Boniface, A. Mortlock","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2088495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, we report an exploratory investigation of the types of assessment in a variety of high school subjects that best predicted subsequent success at university in those subjects. In social sciences and the humanities, internal (school-based) assessment was a better predictor of university success than external, examination-based assessment, whereas the converse was true for mathematics and the sciences. A plausible interpretation of these findings, and one that warrants further research, is that approaches to assessment that recognize differences in the knowledge structures of disciplines at the point of university transition could be a significant factor in better preparing students for success at university. There are other plausible explanations, which we also explore. If further research validates our conjecture regarding the importance of aligning the disciplinary learning and assessment, we will have identified a potentially powerful mechanism to use the motivating force of assessment to enhance learning.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"27 1","pages":"301 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2088495","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this paper, we report an exploratory investigation of the types of assessment in a variety of high school subjects that best predicted subsequent success at university in those subjects. In social sciences and the humanities, internal (school-based) assessment was a better predictor of university success than external, examination-based assessment, whereas the converse was true for mathematics and the sciences. A plausible interpretation of these findings, and one that warrants further research, is that approaches to assessment that recognize differences in the knowledge structures of disciplines at the point of university transition could be a significant factor in better preparing students for success at university. There are other plausible explanations, which we also explore. If further research validates our conjecture regarding the importance of aligning the disciplinary learning and assessment, we will have identified a potentially powerful mechanism to use the motivating force of assessment to enhance learning.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学科知识在评估中的表现:高中和大学科学、数学和人文评估与成功预测因素的关联
摘要在本文中,我们对各种高中科目的评估类型进行了探索性调查,这些评估类型最能预测这些科目在大学的成功。在社会科学和人文学科中,内部(基于学校的)评估比外部的基于考试的评估更能预测大学的成功,而数学和科学则相反。对这些发现的一个合理解释是,在大学转型期认识到学科知识结构差异的评估方法可能是更好地为学生在大学取得成功做好准备的一个重要因素,这也值得进一步研究。还有其他合理的解释,我们也在探索。如果进一步的研究验证了我们关于调整学科学习和评估的重要性的猜测,我们将发现一种潜在的强大机制,可以利用评估的动力来增强学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Assessment
Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.
期刊最新文献
Dialect and Mathematics Performance in African American Children Who Use AAE: Insights from Explanatory IRT and Error Analysis Raising the Bar: How Revising an English Language Proficiency Assessment for Initial English Learner Classification Affects Students’ Later Academic Achievements Monitoring Rater Quality in Observational Systems: Issues Due to Unreliable Estimates of Rater Quality Improving the Precision of Classroom Observation Scores Using a Multi-Rater and Multi-Timepoint Item Response Theory Model High Stakes Assessments in Primary Schools and Teachers’ Anxiety About Work
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1