“科学过程能力”发展进程的实证研究
|
摘要
随着时代的进步与社会的发展,科学教育不再以培养精英科学人才为主旨,科学教育的终极目标是提高全体公民的科学素养,而“科学过程能力”是科学素养的核心构成要素,也是科学素养获得与养成的重要能力,更是科学教育的重要内容。尽管,我国评价制度改革正逐渐从“知识主旨”走向“能力立意”,然而,由于相应的科学能力评价框架以及评价工具的滞后,与“科学过程能力”相匹配的活动表现性评价依旧未能落实,传统的能力评价方式难以提升评价的有效性,也难以发挥评价对学生能力发展的促进作用。基于以上现实,本研究审视了国内外课程一致性研究的现状与趋势,将“学习进程”概念引入“科学过程能力”的研究议题之中,在评价、教学和课程之间建立一致性基础,构建三者互动、互促的反馈系统,试图突破目前国内一致性研究的缺陷,设计学生“科学过程能力”发展进程的框架与实践地图,并付诸教学实践与评价实践,通过亲历其中的实证、互动、反馈机制,寻求一致性研究与学生“科学过程能力”发展的双向突破。基于以上思路,本研究的核心内容和拟解决的首要问题包括：“科学过程能力”的内涵是什么?“科学过程能力”由哪些要素构成?“科学过程能力”的发展进程是怎么样的?如何开展基于“科学过程能力”发展进程的教学干预?如何基于“科学过程能力”发展进程开发表现性任务试题并进行能力测评?“科学过程能力”发展进程的特征如何?围绕着这些问题,本论文进行了以下研究。
第1章：研究概述。首先阐述本研究产生的背景,既是对研究大环境的交代,也说明了开展本研究的目的和意义所在。其次,探讨本研究的理论基础,分析了能力、知识、方法、素养等基本概念的内涵,并描述了它们之间相互作用的关系机制。在此基础上对“科学学科能力”、“科学探究能力”等相关概念进行辨析,梳理了“科学学科能力”的分类方法与研究取向,进而确定了本研究中的“科学过程能力”的本质内涵,即“学生在构建科学知识、探究科学问题的过程中形成并运用的具有科学学科特征的综合能力,其构成内核是科学思维,其显性表征是外部活动,属于特殊能力的范畴”。第三,确定了本研究视角及研究问题,即关注“科学过程能力”的表现性评价,体现活动性；关注“科学过程能力”的动态变化,体现发展性；贯穿“科学过程能力”发展进程的确立过程,体现实证性。第四,在此基础上,拟定本研究的技术路线,确定研究的基本方法,为研究提供方法论基础和手段支撑。
第2章：“科学过程能力”框架结构研究。通过文献综述,确定了本研究的“科学过程能力”框架的构建方法：能力基本要素分析法,并以科学活动、科学内容为载体构建能力框架。进而,采用基本要素分析法研究国内外科学课程标准中的核心能力要素,并对三大国际科学评价项目的能力框架及其发展趋势进行研究。在文献研究的基础上,进一步采用深度访谈的调查方式对一线优秀科学教师和科学教育研究者进行调查访谈,最终确定了“科学过程能力”的四大核心要素,即“提出科学问题的能力”、“探究过程设计的能力”、“运用材料和工具的能力”、“基于证据解释的能力”,并对四大核心能力的内涵进行了界定。
第3章：“科学过程能力”发展进程的构建。阐述并分析了“学习进程”的内容、要素与结构,深入分析了“学习进程”付诸于实践的两种微观路径：横向研究和纵向研究,并根据本研究的视角选择了“学习进程”的纵向研究作为研究路径。进而,根据学生能力发展水平、规律以及本研究的视角构建了“科学过程能力”发展进程和各个能力水平的行为表现,为本研究进一步开展实证研究的提供指导框架。
第4章：实验研究的设计。第4章开始进入实证研究部分,实证研究是本研究的核心部分,它既是实验研究的过程,也是开展“科学过程能力”表现性评价的实践探索,它将本研究的前期理论构建、教学研究、测试任务开发等串联起来并融汇贯通。本章根据研究目的提出了实验研究的假设：基于“科学过程能力”发展进程的教学干预(简称SPADP教学模式)能够促进学生“科学过程能力”的发展,进而确定了实验研究中的自变量、因变量和无关变量。根据研究需要和实际情况选择了TMS中学六年级的四个班级作为研究被试,并进行了实验组和对照组的分配与安排。
第5章：“科学过程能力”测评工具的开发与完善。根据“科学过程能力”征,并对能力发展特征的可能原因作出分析。
第9章：学生“科学过程能力”发展进程的个案研究。从个案研究的视角,选择具有代表性的学生案例进行以质性研究为主的深度剖析。个案的前测结果分析发现,通过书本以及教师讲授获得的知识,不一定能转化为学生的能力；学生Y缺乏实践操作的锻炼；学生Y没有有意识地将思维与行为建立同步联系。后测结果发现学生Y在只需要较浅层次思维的能力上提升较快,在需要较高思维水平的能力上提升较为缓慢。
最后是论文的研究总结,对研究结论、研究启示以及研究展望进行了阐明。虽然,本研究取得了一些有价值的研究结论和启示,但后续的研究还任重而道远,如“科学过程能力”发展进程的再优化研究、长期追踪研究以及相应表现性评价的试题库建设等。
As the times progresses and the society develops, the fundamental purpose of science education is no longer in cultivating talents for scientific research, but in improving scientific literacy of all citizens."Science Processing Ability" is the core element of the scientific literacy, it is an important ability to develop and get scientific literacy, and also it is the important content of education science. Although, the reform of evaluation system in China is gradually changing from "Knowledge oriented" to "ability oriented", due to the lagging of the establishment of science ability evaluation framework and evaluation instruments, the performance assessment which match with the "Science Processing Ability" still fails to implement to the real place. It is difficult for the traditional evaluation methods to promote the validity of evaluation and students'ability development. Based on the situation above, this study examined the current situation and trends of consistency studies in domestic and overseas, and introduced the concept of "Learning Process" to this "Science Processing Ability" study to construct the consistency among the evaluation, teaching and curriculum, to build the interaction and feedback system of these three issues, to improve the shortcoming of the current consistency research, to design the framework and practice map of students'"Science Processing Ability "process of development, and put it into teaching and evaluation practice. Through the empirical experience, interaction, feedback mechanism, we seek the win-win situation of consistency research and the development of students'"Science Processing Ability" Based on the ideas above, the core contents of this study and the primary problems to solve are as follows. What's the meanning of the "Science Processing Ability"? What's the component of the "Science Processing Ability"? What's the developmental process of "Science Processing Ability"? How to develop teaching intervention based on the "Science Processing Ability"? How to develop performance test and evaluation based on "science progressing ability" developmental process? What're the characteristics of "Science Processing Ability" developmental process? Concentrating on these problems, we carryed out the following study.
Chapter1is the summary of the study. Firstly, described the background of this study, and also pointed out the purpose and significance of this study. Secondly, we discussed the theoretical basis of this study. And analysed the meaning of the basic conceptions of this study, such as, ability, knowledge, method and literacy, and described the interaction relationship among them. Based on this, we analysed the relevant conceptions, such as "science inquiry ability","science discipline ability", and clarified the classification method and research orientation of "science discipline ability", and then defined the essential connotation of "Science Processing Ability" in this study as follows,"the comprehensive ability with scientific discipline characteristic that cultivates in the process of constructing scientific knowledge, exploring scientific problems, its inner core is the science thinking, its dominant representation is science activities, it belongs to the category of the special abilities. Thirdly, we ensured the research perspectives and the focus problems in this study. That is focus on the performance assessment of the "Science Processing Ability" to reflect the characteristic of active, focus on the dynamic changes of the "Science Processing Ability" to reflect the characteristic of Developmental, through the establishment of the "Science Processing Ability" developmental processs to reflect the feature of empirical. Fourthly, based on these above, we proposed the technical route and basic method of this study.
Chapter2is the construction of the framework of "Science Processing Ability". By the literature review, we determined the construction method of "Science Processing Ability" framework, that is Primary Trait Analysis (PTA) method, and used scientific activities and scientific contents as the supporter to construct the framework. Then, using the PTA method to study the elements of core competence in science curriculum standards of domestic and overseas, and studied the framework of three projects of major international science ability evaluation and its developmental trend. On the basis of literature research, we put forward depth-interviews of excellent science teachers and education researchers about the framework of "Science Processing Ability", eventually, we get four core elements of the "Science Processing Ability", that is "ability to put forward scientific problems","ability to design the process of exploration","ability to use materials and tools","ability to explain based on evidence", and then defined the connotation of these four core competence.
Chapter3is the construction of the "Science Processing Ability" developmental process. We described and analyzed the content, elements and construction of the "Learning Process", and then deeply analyzed the ways "Learning Process" put into practice, there are cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies two ways. And according to the perspective of this study, we chose the longitudinal study as the research path. According to the level of students'ability and the perspective of this study, we builded the "Science Processing Ability" developmental process and defined the performance behavior of every ability level. This is the guidance framework of the following empirical studies.
Chapter4is the design of the experimental study. From chapter4, it begins to enter the empirical part of this study, and the empirical part is the core part of this study, it is not only the process of experimental study, but also the practice exploration to carry out the "Science Processing Ability" performance assessment, it joins the preliminary theory construction, teaching and development of testing tasks together. According to the purpose of this research, we put forward the assumption of the experimental research, that is teaching intervention based "Science Processing Ability" developmental process (can be called for short as SPADP) can promote the development of the students'"Science Processing Ability", then we confirmed the independent variable, dependent variable and irrelevant variable of this experiment. According to the requirements of the research and the reality, we chose four classes of sixth grade in TMS middle school as the research subjects, and arranged the experimental groups and the control groups.
Chapter5is about development and improvement of the evaluation instruments of "Science Processing Ability". According to the framework of "Science Processing Ability" developmental process, Wilson's theory of "Four Building Blooks" and RASCH model, we developed students'"Science Processing Ability" assessment tasks, and conducted two trial tests, then used RASCH model to test the quality of this instruments, the results showed that the overall quality of the test instruments met the requirements of the RASCH model, after amendment of marks scale of some specific items, the test instruments can be appropriate for testing students'"Science Processing Ability". Afterwards, we gave some descriptions and explainations about the pretest instruments, items and its scoring criteria to illuminate the design intent of the test instruments.
Chapter6is about the initial level of students'"Science Processing Ability" According to the results of the pretest, we analysed the initial level of every sub-layer "Science Processing Ability", compared the level of internal components of "Science Processing Ability", analyzed students'ability level of different classes, and had a qualitative analysis about the ability performance of some specific students from the micro perspective.
Chapter7is about the teaching intervention based on the students'"Science Processing Ability" developmental process. We explored the issue about how performance assessment and "Science Processing Ability" developmental process promote science teaching. We put forwards the teaching intervention model based on students'"Science Processing Ability" developmental process (can be called for short as SPADP teaching model). We described the characteristic, structure, teaching intervention tools, selection of teaching contents of the SPADP teaching model, and described the process of teaching intervention by the way of case study.
Chapter8is about the developmental level of the students'"Science Processing Ability". The results of the pretest and the posttest of "Science Processing Ability" demonstrated that students from four classes all had a promotion in "Science Processing Ability", and the results of the pretest and the posttest had a significant difference. The experimental groups had a bigger rise in SPA than the control groups. The posttest results of experimental groups and control groups had significant difference. In the control group, the improvement of ablity of advanced class students is is much smaller than regular class students. The boys had a better performance than girls in the whole and part of "Science Processing Ability". However, there was no significant difference between them. SPADP teaching intervention can effectively improve the "Science Processing Ability" of boys and girls equally. Besides describing the performance of overall and sub-layer of "Science Processing Ability", we analyzed the developmental characteristics of "SPA" from the micro perspective at the same time, and put forwards some possible reasons.
Chapter9is the case study about students'"Science Processing Ability" developmental process. From the perspective of case study, we selected the typical case of the whole, and mainly used qualitative research methold to study. The pretest results of the case study found out that the knowledge that books carrying or teached by teachers are not always translated to students'ability. Student Y lacks of exploration practice in science. Student Y has not established conection between thinking and behavior consciously. Posttest results found out that student Y had a greater improvement in the abilities that only need low-level of thinking than that need high-level of thinking.
Finally, we proposed the conclusion of this study, it clarified the conclusion, the enlightenment and the prospect of the research. Although, this study has made some valuable conclusion, but there is still a long way to go in the subsequent research, such as the refinement of "Science Processing Ability" framework and its long-term longitudinal studies, as well as construction of item bank of performance assessment etc.
第1章：研究概述。首先阐述本研究产生的背景,既是对研究大环境的交代,也说明了开展本研究的目的和意义所在。其次,探讨本研究的理论基础,分析了能力、知识、方法、素养等基本概念的内涵,并描述了它们之间相互作用的关系机制。在此基础上对“科学学科能力”、“科学探究能力”等相关概念进行辨析,梳理了“科学学科能力”的分类方法与研究取向,进而确定了本研究中的“科学过程能力”的本质内涵,即“学生在构建科学知识、探究科学问题的过程中形成并运用的具有科学学科特征的综合能力,其构成内核是科学思维,其显性表征是外部活动,属于特殊能力的范畴”。第三,确定了本研究视角及研究问题,即关注“科学过程能力”的表现性评价,体现活动性；关注“科学过程能力”的动态变化,体现发展性；贯穿“科学过程能力”发展进程的确立过程,体现实证性。第四,在此基础上,拟定本研究的技术路线,确定研究的基本方法,为研究提供方法论基础和手段支撑。
第2章：“科学过程能力”框架结构研究。通过文献综述,确定了本研究的“科学过程能力”框架的构建方法：能力基本要素分析法,并以科学活动、科学内容为载体构建能力框架。进而,采用基本要素分析法研究国内外科学课程标准中的核心能力要素,并对三大国际科学评价项目的能力框架及其发展趋势进行研究。在文献研究的基础上,进一步采用深度访谈的调查方式对一线优秀科学教师和科学教育研究者进行调查访谈,最终确定了“科学过程能力”的四大核心要素,即“提出科学问题的能力”、“探究过程设计的能力”、“运用材料和工具的能力”、“基于证据解释的能力”,并对四大核心能力的内涵进行了界定。
第3章：“科学过程能力”发展进程的构建。阐述并分析了“学习进程”的内容、要素与结构,深入分析了“学习进程”付诸于实践的两种微观路径：横向研究和纵向研究,并根据本研究的视角选择了“学习进程”的纵向研究作为研究路径。进而,根据学生能力发展水平、规律以及本研究的视角构建了“科学过程能力”发展进程和各个能力水平的行为表现,为本研究进一步开展实证研究的提供指导框架。
第4章：实验研究的设计。第4章开始进入实证研究部分,实证研究是本研究的核心部分,它既是实验研究的过程,也是开展“科学过程能力”表现性评价的实践探索,它将本研究的前期理论构建、教学研究、测试任务开发等串联起来并融汇贯通。本章根据研究目的提出了实验研究的假设：基于“科学过程能力”发展进程的教学干预(简称SPADP教学模式)能够促进学生“科学过程能力”的发展,进而确定了实验研究中的自变量、因变量和无关变量。根据研究需要和实际情况选择了TMS中学六年级的四个班级作为研究被试,并进行了实验组和对照组的分配与安排。
第5章：“科学过程能力”测评工具的开发与完善。根据“科学过程能力”征,并对能力发展特征的可能原因作出分析。
第9章：学生“科学过程能力”发展进程的个案研究。从个案研究的视角,选择具有代表性的学生案例进行以质性研究为主的深度剖析。个案的前测结果分析发现,通过书本以及教师讲授获得的知识,不一定能转化为学生的能力；学生Y缺乏实践操作的锻炼；学生Y没有有意识地将思维与行为建立同步联系。后测结果发现学生Y在只需要较浅层次思维的能力上提升较快,在需要较高思维水平的能力上提升较为缓慢。
最后是论文的研究总结,对研究结论、研究启示以及研究展望进行了阐明。虽然,本研究取得了一些有价值的研究结论和启示,但后续的研究还任重而道远,如“科学过程能力”发展进程的再优化研究、长期追踪研究以及相应表现性评价的试题库建设等。
As the times progresses and the society develops, the fundamental purpose of science education is no longer in cultivating talents for scientific research, but in improving scientific literacy of all citizens."Science Processing Ability" is the core element of the scientific literacy, it is an important ability to develop and get scientific literacy, and also it is the important content of education science. Although, the reform of evaluation system in China is gradually changing from "Knowledge oriented" to "ability oriented", due to the lagging of the establishment of science ability evaluation framework and evaluation instruments, the performance assessment which match with the "Science Processing Ability" still fails to implement to the real place. It is difficult for the traditional evaluation methods to promote the validity of evaluation and students'ability development. Based on the situation above, this study examined the current situation and trends of consistency studies in domestic and overseas, and introduced the concept of "Learning Process" to this "Science Processing Ability" study to construct the consistency among the evaluation, teaching and curriculum, to build the interaction and feedback system of these three issues, to improve the shortcoming of the current consistency research, to design the framework and practice map of students'"Science Processing Ability "process of development, and put it into teaching and evaluation practice. Through the empirical experience, interaction, feedback mechanism, we seek the win-win situation of consistency research and the development of students'"Science Processing Ability" Based on the ideas above, the core contents of this study and the primary problems to solve are as follows. What's the meanning of the "Science Processing Ability"? What's the component of the "Science Processing Ability"? What's the developmental process of "Science Processing Ability"? How to develop teaching intervention based on the "Science Processing Ability"? How to develop performance test and evaluation based on "science progressing ability" developmental process? What're the characteristics of "Science Processing Ability" developmental process? Concentrating on these problems, we carryed out the following study.
Chapter1is the summary of the study. Firstly, described the background of this study, and also pointed out the purpose and significance of this study. Secondly, we discussed the theoretical basis of this study. And analysed the meaning of the basic conceptions of this study, such as, ability, knowledge, method and literacy, and described the interaction relationship among them. Based on this, we analysed the relevant conceptions, such as "science inquiry ability","science discipline ability", and clarified the classification method and research orientation of "science discipline ability", and then defined the essential connotation of "Science Processing Ability" in this study as follows,"the comprehensive ability with scientific discipline characteristic that cultivates in the process of constructing scientific knowledge, exploring scientific problems, its inner core is the science thinking, its dominant representation is science activities, it belongs to the category of the special abilities. Thirdly, we ensured the research perspectives and the focus problems in this study. That is focus on the performance assessment of the "Science Processing Ability" to reflect the characteristic of active, focus on the dynamic changes of the "Science Processing Ability" to reflect the characteristic of Developmental, through the establishment of the "Science Processing Ability" developmental processs to reflect the feature of empirical. Fourthly, based on these above, we proposed the technical route and basic method of this study.
Chapter2is the construction of the framework of "Science Processing Ability". By the literature review, we determined the construction method of "Science Processing Ability" framework, that is Primary Trait Analysis (PTA) method, and used scientific activities and scientific contents as the supporter to construct the framework. Then, using the PTA method to study the elements of core competence in science curriculum standards of domestic and overseas, and studied the framework of three projects of major international science ability evaluation and its developmental trend. On the basis of literature research, we put forward depth-interviews of excellent science teachers and education researchers about the framework of "Science Processing Ability", eventually, we get four core elements of the "Science Processing Ability", that is "ability to put forward scientific problems","ability to design the process of exploration","ability to use materials and tools","ability to explain based on evidence", and then defined the connotation of these four core competence.
Chapter3is the construction of the "Science Processing Ability" developmental process. We described and analyzed the content, elements and construction of the "Learning Process", and then deeply analyzed the ways "Learning Process" put into practice, there are cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies two ways. And according to the perspective of this study, we chose the longitudinal study as the research path. According to the level of students'ability and the perspective of this study, we builded the "Science Processing Ability" developmental process and defined the performance behavior of every ability level. This is the guidance framework of the following empirical studies.
Chapter4is the design of the experimental study. From chapter4, it begins to enter the empirical part of this study, and the empirical part is the core part of this study, it is not only the process of experimental study, but also the practice exploration to carry out the "Science Processing Ability" performance assessment, it joins the preliminary theory construction, teaching and development of testing tasks together. According to the purpose of this research, we put forward the assumption of the experimental research, that is teaching intervention based "Science Processing Ability" developmental process (can be called for short as SPADP) can promote the development of the students'"Science Processing Ability", then we confirmed the independent variable, dependent variable and irrelevant variable of this experiment. According to the requirements of the research and the reality, we chose four classes of sixth grade in TMS middle school as the research subjects, and arranged the experimental groups and the control groups.
Chapter5is about development and improvement of the evaluation instruments of "Science Processing Ability". According to the framework of "Science Processing Ability" developmental process, Wilson's theory of "Four Building Blooks" and RASCH model, we developed students'"Science Processing Ability" assessment tasks, and conducted two trial tests, then used RASCH model to test the quality of this instruments, the results showed that the overall quality of the test instruments met the requirements of the RASCH model, after amendment of marks scale of some specific items, the test instruments can be appropriate for testing students'"Science Processing Ability". Afterwards, we gave some descriptions and explainations about the pretest instruments, items and its scoring criteria to illuminate the design intent of the test instruments.
Chapter6is about the initial level of students'"Science Processing Ability" According to the results of the pretest, we analysed the initial level of every sub-layer "Science Processing Ability", compared the level of internal components of "Science Processing Ability", analyzed students'ability level of different classes, and had a qualitative analysis about the ability performance of some specific students from the micro perspective.
Chapter7is about the teaching intervention based on the students'"Science Processing Ability" developmental process. We explored the issue about how performance assessment and "Science Processing Ability" developmental process promote science teaching. We put forwards the teaching intervention model based on students'"Science Processing Ability" developmental process (can be called for short as SPADP teaching model). We described the characteristic, structure, teaching intervention tools, selection of teaching contents of the SPADP teaching model, and described the process of teaching intervention by the way of case study.
Chapter8is about the developmental level of the students'"Science Processing Ability". The results of the pretest and the posttest of "Science Processing Ability" demonstrated that students from four classes all had a promotion in "Science Processing Ability", and the results of the pretest and the posttest had a significant difference. The experimental groups had a bigger rise in SPA than the control groups. The posttest results of experimental groups and control groups had significant difference. In the control group, the improvement of ablity of advanced class students is is much smaller than regular class students. The boys had a better performance than girls in the whole and part of "Science Processing Ability". However, there was no significant difference between them. SPADP teaching intervention can effectively improve the "Science Processing Ability" of boys and girls equally. Besides describing the performance of overall and sub-layer of "Science Processing Ability", we analyzed the developmental characteristics of "SPA" from the micro perspective at the same time, and put forwards some possible reasons.
Chapter9is the case study about students'"Science Processing Ability" developmental process. From the perspective of case study, we selected the typical case of the whole, and mainly used qualitative research methold to study. The pretest results of the case study found out that the knowledge that books carrying or teached by teachers are not always translated to students'ability. Student Y lacks of exploration practice in science. Student Y has not established conection between thinking and behavior consciously. Posttest results found out that student Y had a greater improvement in the abilities that only need low-level of thinking than that need high-level of thinking.
Finally, we proposed the conclusion of this study, it clarified the conclusion, the enlightenment and the prospect of the research. Although, this study has made some valuable conclusion, but there is still a long way to go in the subsequent research, such as the refinement of "Science Processing Ability" framework and its long-term longitudinal studies, as well as construction of item bank of performance assessment etc.
引文
① 美国科学促进协会,中国公众科学素养调查课题组.2001年中国公众科学素养调查报告[C].北京：科学普及出版社,2002.
① National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas.[EB/OL].2011-09-18, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? record_id= 13165.
② 教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[EB/OL]..2001-06-08. http://www.moe.gov.cn/ publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_309/200412/4672.html.
① 吴颖民.二战后美国基础教育课程改革的特点及其启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2008,(8)：77.
① 教育部.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要.[EB/OL] 2010-07-29. http://news. Xinhuanet. com/edu/2010-07/29/c_12389320.htm.
② 上海市教育委员会.上海市初中科学课程(试行稿)[Z].上海：上海教育出版社,2004：106.
③ Stiggins R J国家基础教育课程改革“促进教师发展与学生成长的评价研究”项目组译.促进学习的学生参与式课堂评价[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：155.
① Shavelson, R.J.Baxter, G.P& Pine, J. Performance assessments in science. Applied Measurement in Education[J].1991,4 (4):347-362.
② Woolnough, B.E. Ton, Ka. Alternative approaches to assessment of practical work in science. School Science Review[J].1990,71 (256):127-130.
① 顾明远主编.教育大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1999：342.
② 林崇德,杨治良,黄希庭.教育学大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2003：868.
③ 皮连生,智育心理学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1996：41.
④ 周瑛,胡玉平主编.心理学[M].吉林：吉林大学出版社,2007(3)：241.
⑤ 郭秀艳主编.心理学导论[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2009(7)：163.
① 郭秀艳主编.心理学导论[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2009(7)：161.
② 胡乔木.中国大百科全书.教育[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993(9)：198.
③ 覃正爱.构建从理论到实践的桥梁：马克思主义哲学方法论及其中国化进程[M].北京：研究出版社,2008(5)：2.
① 林崇德.中小学生能力发展与培养[M].北京：北京出版社,1992：1.
② 马云鹏,刘学智主编.发展性学生评价的理论与方法[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,2007(7)：45.
① National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas [M]. Washington, D.C:The National Academies Press,2011.
② 林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003(1)：325.
① 百度百科[EB/OL] 2010-09-02.http://baike.baidu.com/link?url= pIb3w_h1FYYoAyNeFcOA_rZy_ py6JloLVbx9n2kQvaX3AhlMyG 4in0_AvUzotrLW.
① 沃建中.论认知结构与信息加工过程[J].北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000(1)：81.
② 邢红军,陈清梅.论“智力-技能-认知结构”能力理论[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),2005(3)：45.
① 王晓辉.“动手做”——法国科学教育的新举措[J].全球教育展望,2003(4)：70.
① 赖小林,丁振源.“做中学”：作为儿童科学教育的一种形式[J].教育研究,2005(6)：89-90.
① 美国国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[S].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：30.
① 郝京华.《科学(3-6年级)课程标准(实验稿)解读》[M].湖北：湖北教育出版社,2002：90.
② [美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,罗星凯译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].科学普及出版社,2004(8)：15.
③ 李春密,粱洁,蔡美洁.中学生科学探究能力结构模型初探[J].课程.教材.教法,2004(6)：87.
① 王晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70.
① 郭玉英.学生的科学探究能力：国外的研究及启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2005 (7)：95.
② 工晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70.
① 高凌飚,吴维宁.开放性试题如何评分——介绍两种质性评分方法[J].学科教育,2004(8)：3.
① 工晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70.
① 李春密,梁洁,蔡美洁.中学生科学探究能力结构模型初探[J].课程.教材.教法,2004(6)：87.
① 林崇德.论学科能力的建构[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997(1)：6.
② 林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003(1)：326-327.
③ 林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M]阅.北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003(1)：329.
④ 克鲁捷茨基,李伯黍等译.中小学生数学能力心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988：112.
① 张春莉.小学生数学能力评价框架的建构[J].教育学报,2011(5)：74.
② 徐斌艳.数学学科核心能力研究[J].全球教育展望.2013(6)：71.
① 徐斌艳.数学学科核心能力研究[J].全球教育展望,2013(6)：71.
① 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011年版)[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012(1)：7.
② 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011年版)[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012(1)：10-11.
① 上海市初中科学课程标准(试行稿)说明[EB/OL].2014-02-18 http://wenku.baidu.com /link?url=gAzXPe2xw1Lr0IOAz6huOW3FKieQmWHp7Q52MpSBjtHY1KegyYtU0KnSrUHS09 atRqhSTgYfU90kB75SBur0dMpBiHSuG3D-uv8OVME43KG.
① 上海市教育委员会.上海市科学课程标准(试行稿)[Z].上海：上海教育出版社,2004(10)：35-36.
① 廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：61.
① 朱行建.国际教育评价中的科学探究能力测评简介及启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(2)：89.
① 廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：61.
② 廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：61.
① 张民选,陆璟,占胜利,朱小虎,王婷婷.专业视野中的PISA[J].教育研究,2011(6)：5.
②廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：62.
③ OECD. Take the Test Sample Questions from OECD's PISA Assessment [EB/OL].2011-10-3. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/23/41943106.pdf.
① National Research Council(NRC).Taking Science to School:Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8[M]. Washington National Academies Press,2007(9):217.
② Carol L. Smith, Marianne Wiser, Charles W. Anderson, Joseph Krajcik. Implication of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment:A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic Molecular Theory[J].Measurement:Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives,2006(4):1.
③ Paul D. Nichols. What is a Learning Progression [EB/OL] 2010-02-07.www. Pearson Assessments. Com.pdf,/2013-07-08.
④ Nancy Butler Songer, Ben Kelcey, Amelia Wenk Gotwals. How and When does Complex Reasoning Occur? Empirically Driven Development of a Learning Progression Focused on Complex Reasoning about Biodiversity[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(7):611.
① Tom Corcoran, Frederic A. Mosher, Aaron Rogat. Learning Progressions in Science:An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2009(10):38-37.
① 韦斯林,贾远娥.学习进程：促进课程、教学与评价的一致性[J].课程.教材.教法,2010(9)：27.
② Tom Corcoran, Frederic A. Mosher, Aaron Rogat. Learning Progressions in Science:An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2009(10):38-37.
③ Mark Wilson. Measuring Progressions:Assessment Structures Underlying a Learning Progression[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009:717.
① R.G.Duncan. Learning Progressions:Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment [J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):608.
② Lindsey Mohan, Jing Chen. Charles W. Anderson. Developing a Multi-year Learning Progression for Carbon Cycling in Socio-ecological Systems[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):675-698.
① 韦斯林,贾远娥.学习进程：促进课程、教学与评价的一致性[J].课程.教材.教法,2010(9)：27.
② W. James Popham. The Lowdown on the Learning Progressions[J]. Educational Leadership, 2007:84.
① Karin Hess, Valerie Kurizaki, Linda Holt. Reflections on Tools and Strategies Used in the Hawai'i Progress Maps Project:Lessons Learned from Leaning Progressions [EB/OL]. 2010-08-09 http://tristateeag.nceo.info/attachments/022_HI%201.pdf.
② Phil Daro, Frederic A. Mosher, Tom Corcoran. Learning Trajectories in Mathematics:A Foundation for Standards, Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction[R].Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2011(8):36.
① Karin Hess, Valerie Kurizaki, Linda Holt. Reflections on Tools and Strategies Used in the Hawai'i Progress Maps Project:Lessons Learned from Leaning Progressions [EB/OL].2010-08-09. http://tristateeag.nceo.info/attachments/022_HI%201.pdf.
① 毛泽东.毛泽东选集：第4卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1966：864.
② 张大松主编.科学思维的艺术：科学思维方法导论[M].北京：科学出版社,2008(3)：18.
① [美]杰克.R.弗林克尔诺曼.E.瓦伦.教育研究的设计与评估[M].北京：华夏出版社,2004(1)：264.
① 孟庆茂等.实验心理学[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1999(5)：19.
① 陈琦,刘儒德.教育心理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2007(9)：39.
① 韦斯林.应用Rasch模型构建基于计算机建模的中学生物质结构认知测量的研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2010.9：76.
① [美]罗伯特教学设计的国际观：理论研究模型[M].教育科学出版社,2005(10)：252.
① 温.哈伦编著,韦钰译.科学教育的原则与大概念[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2011(7)2.
② 温.哈伦编著,韦钰译.科学教育的原则与大概念[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2011(7)：23.
① 蔡铁权,姜旭英.新编科学教学论[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008(5)：94.
[1]郝京华.《科学(3-6年级)课程标准(实验稿)解读》[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2002：90.
[2][美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,罗星凯译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].科学普及出版社,2004：15.
[3]王祖浩.化学教育心理学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2013.1.
[4]王顺义.科学探究[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2010.1.
[5]王晶莹.科学探究论[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2011.9.
[6]Stiggins R J国家基础教育课程改革“促进教师发展与学生成长的评价研究”项目组译.促进学习的学生参与式课堂评价[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：155.
[7]顾明远主编.教育大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1999：342.
[8]林崇德,杨治良,黄希庭.教育学大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2003：868.
[9]皮连生,智育心理学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1996：41.
[10]周瑛,胡玉平主编.心理学[M].吉林：吉林大学出版社,2007：241.
[11]郭秀艳主编.心理学导论[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2009：163.
[12]H.赖欣巴哈,伯尼.科学哲学的兴起[M].北京：商务印书馆,1983.4.
[13]胡乔木.中国大百科全书.教育[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993：198.
[14]覃正爱.构建从理论到实践的桥梁：马克思主义哲学方法论及其中国化进程[M].北京：研究出版社,2008：2.
[15]林崇德.中小学生能力发展与培养[M].北京：北京出版社,1992：1.
[16]马云鹏,刘学智.发展性学生评价的理论与方法[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,2007：45.
[17]林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003：325.
[18][美]伯尼·特里林,查尔斯·菲德尔.21世纪技能——为我们所生存的时代而学习[M].天津：天津社会科学院出版社,2011.10
[19]兰本达,P.E.布莱克伍德,P.E布兰德温.小学科学教育的“探究-研讨”教学法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008.12.
[20]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务——SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.5.
[21]周燕,坤如.科学认知的哲学探究：观察的理论渗透与科学解释的认知维度[M].北京：人民出版社,2007.5.
[22]袁优红.上学生喜欢的科学课：小学科学有效性教学策略探究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2013.9.
[23]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2006.3.
[24]姚晓春.小学科学长周期探究案例集[M].上海：上海科技教育出版社,2012.10.
[25]赵骥民.小学科学实验设计与实施[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2013.4.
[26]阿瑟·A·卡琳,乔尔·E·巴斯,特丽·L·康坦特.教作为探究的科学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008.8.
[27]裴新宁,郑泰年.在探究中体验科学：科学主题的研究性学习[M].广州：广东教育出版社,2006.6.
[28]蔡铁权,姜旭英,胡玫.概念转变的科学教学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009.3.
[29]罗伯特.小学科学课教学案例[M].长春：长春出版社,2008.1.
[30]萨玛·沃泽曼,乔治·伊芙妮.新小学科学教育[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.1.
[31]米歇尔·本特利,克里斯汀·艾伯特,爱德华·艾伯特.科学的探究者：小学与中学科学教育新取向[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社2008.7.
[32]A.F.查尔默斯.科学究竟是什么[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.11.
[33]林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003：6-327.
[34]克鲁捷茨基,伯黍等译.中小学生数学能力心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988：112.
[35]毛泽东.毛泽东选集：第4卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1966：864.
[36]张大松主编.科学思维的艺术：科学思维方法导论[M].北京：科学出版社,2008：18.
[37]盛群力等.教学设计[M].杭州：高等教育出版社,2008.10
[38]泰勒.课程与教学的基本原理[M].施良方译.北京：人民教育出版社,1994.1
[39]佐藤学.课程与教师[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[40]朱慕菊.走进新课程：与课程实施者对话[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2008.7.
[41]钟启泉.现代课程论(新版)[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006.2
[42]佐藤学.静悄悄的革命——创造活动的、合作的、反思的综合学习课程[M].李季湄译.长春：长春出版社,2007.12
[43]郝京华.科学(3～6年级)课程标准(实验稿)解读[M].湖北：湖北教育出版社,2002.3
[44]郝京华,陈华彬,梁玲.小学科学教育概论[M].高等教育出版社,2003：54.
[45]魏冰.科学素养教育的理念与实践——理科课程发展研究[M].广东高等教育出版,2006：89.
[46][美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004.7
[47][美]国家研究理事会.每个孩子都是科学家—让每个学生都具备科学素养[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2005.5.
[48][美]Dr.Karen L.Ostlund,王春华译.科学探究过程技能评价手册[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2004.6.
[49][美]Wiggins G国家基础教育课程改革“促进教师发展与学生成长的评价研究”项目组译.教育性评价[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：124.
[50]顾明远,薛理银.比较教育导论——教育与国家发展[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998.12.
[51]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.7.
[52]陈玉琨.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1999.7.
[53]吉恩.D.哈兰,玛丽.S.瑞夫金.儿童早期的科学经验：一种认知与情感整合的方式[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.10.
[54]施良方.学习论[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008.4.
[55]陈琦,刘儒德.教育心理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2011.5.
[56]汪贤泽.基于标准的学生学业成就评价程序研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2008.6.
[57]周文叶.学生表现性评价研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2009.6.
[58]杨玉琴.化学学科能力及其测评研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2012.6.
[59]龚伟.义务教育阶段(7-9年级)科学学科能力测评框架构建及其应用研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2013.9.
[60]韦斯林.应用Rasch模型构建基于计算机建模的中学生物质结构认知测量的研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2010.9.
[61]罗国忠.初中生科学探究能力评价方式的比较研究[D].西南大学博士论文,2007.4.
[62]吴红梅.表现性评价的实证研究[D].南京师范大学硕士论文,2007.6.
[63]高芳.关于五至九年级学生生态系统学习进程的研究[D].杭州师范大学硕士论文,2012.5.
[64]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[N].中国教育报,2001.7.
[65]瞿葆奎主编.教育学文集·教育评价[C].北京：人民教育出版社,1989.10.
[66]美国国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[S].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：30.
[67]上海市教育委员会.上海市初中科学课程标准(试行稿)[Z].上海：上海教育出版社,2004：35-36.
[68]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011年版)[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：7.
[69]美国科学促进协会,中国公众科学素养调查课题组.2001年中国公众科学素养调查报告[C].北京：科学普及出版社,2002：9.
[70]张春莉.小学生数学能力评价框架的建构[J].教育学报,2011：72-77.
[71](美)ArchieE.Lapointe标准化测验对美国社会的影响——以美国国家教育进展评估(NAEP)为例[J].考试研究,2009(4)：19-29.
[72]崔允漷,夏雪梅.试论基于课程标准的学生学业成就评价[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(1)： 13-18.
[73]胡军.学生学习成果标准不能在课程标准中缺失——澳大利亚课程内容与标准给我们的启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2005(9)：12-17.
[74]林静.美国NAEP科学素养评价新趋向[J].课程·教材·教法,2009(8)：92-96.
[75]张华华.中国教育进展评估：我们可以向美国学习什么?[J].课程评价改革国际研讨会论文集,2009(10)：93-97.
[76]张雨强,冯翠典.美国NAEP2009科学课程评价试题编制研究[J].全球教育展望,2007(10)：59-64.
[77]洪志忠.美国学生学业成就质量监测：NAEP的经验[J].全球教育展望,2008(6)：69-73.
[78]徐斌艳.数学学科核心能力研究[J].全球教育展望.2013(6)：67-74.
[79]张雨强.美国教育进展评估：2009科学评估框架及启示[J].全球教育展望2007(6)：37-43.
[80]周红.美国国家教育进展评估体系述评[J].全球教育展望,2004(8)：66-69.
[81]张静,李改枝SOLO分类评价理论在化学开放性实验试题中的应用[J].化学教学,2007(7)： 8-12.
[82]王晶莹,尤新伟TIMSS五国八年级科学教学录像研究述评[J].中小学电教,2011(1)：141-144.
[83]廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：60-64.
[84]朱行建.国际教育评价中的科学探究能力测评简介及启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(2)：89-92.
[85]徐斌艳.德国教师教育标准的理论依据及内涵分析[J].外国中小学教育,2007(2)：13-17.
[86]张民选,陆璟,占胜利,朱小虎,王婷婷.专业视野中的PISA[J].教育研究,2011(6)：5-9.
[87]韦斯林,贾远娥.学习进程：促进课程、教学与评价的一致性[J].课程.教材.教法,2010(9)：25-28.
[88]陈琴.儿童科学探究与科学教育[J].中国教育学刊,2004(10)：49-52.
[89]王素.科学素养与科学教育目标比较——以英、美、加、泰、中等五国为中心[J].外国教育研究,1999(2)：5-8.
[90]郝敬云,郝京华.科学探究如何编入小学课程课程标准——加拿大、日本、美国的科学课程标准分析与启示[J].当代教育科学,2009(2)：52-56.
[91]魏冰.美国“国家科学教育标准”——一项富有挑战性的科学教育改革方案[J].2000(6)：20-23.
[92]乔治·迪波尔.“2061计划”：路在怎么走?——基于目标的教学、学习与评价系统[J].中国教育报,2004(9)：13-16.
[93]唐小为,丁邦平.“科学探究”缘何变身“科学实践”?——解读美国科学教育框架理念的首位关键词之变[J].教育研究,2012(11)：141-145.
[94]陈娟,冯生尧.促进学生学习的表现性评价[J].当代教育科学,2011(11)：21-23.
[95]周雷.表现性评价在能力培养中的应用[J].中国培训,2009(8)：22.
[96]陈瑞生.表现性评价的任务开发：特征、原则与步骤[J].教育测量与评价(理论版),2010(4)：4-7.
[97]李春密,梁洁,蔡美洁.中学生科学探究能力结构模型初探[J].课程.教材.教法,2004(6)：85-88.
[98]王晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70-72.
[99]郭玉英.学生的科学探究能力：国外的研究及启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2005(7)：95.
[100]高凌飚,吴维宁.开放性试题如何评分——介绍两种质性评分方法[J].学科教育,2004(8)： 1-6.
[101]林崇德.论学科能力的建构[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997(1)：5-12.
[102]王小明.表现性评价：一种高级学习的评价方法[J].全球教育展望,2003(11)：47-51.
[103]冯生尧.表现性评价纳入高考制度的必要性和可行性[J].全球教育展望,2007(9)：22-27.
[104]汪杰良,肖恩利,汪争.“动手做”在法国[J].上海教育,2005(3)：42-43.
[105]张建伟,孙燕青.从“做中学”到建构主义—探究学习的理论轨迹[J].教育理论与实践,2006(4)：35-39.
[106]王晓华,文剑冰.项目反应理论在教育考试命题质量评价中的应用[J].教育科学,2010(6)：20-26.
[107]孙晓敏,关丹丹.经典测量理论与项目反应理论的比较研究[J].评价与测量,2009(9)：10-17.
[108]罗照盛,漆书青,戴海琦,丁树良.项目反应理论多级计分模型参数估计的实现[J].心理学报,2003(4)：555-558.
[109]罗国忠.对科学探究能力引导式评价的研究[J].上海教育科研,2007(1)：61-73.
[110]罗国忠.基于工作单的科学探究能力评价的有效性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(11)：69-73.
[111]罗国忠.基于公平视角的科学探究能力评价研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2008(8)：59-63.
[112]罗国忠.科学探究的表现性评价及其有效性研究述评[J].全球教育展望,2008(12)：73-77.
[113]罗国忠.英国APU的科学探究评价案例简析[J].上海教育科研,2008(8)：59-61.
[114]罗国忠.关于提出探究问题的实证研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010(5)：83-85.
[115]罗国忠.多因素问题的科学探究[J].内江师范学院学报,2007(2)：91-93.
[116]罗国忠.学生对科学探究的理性认识和操作性能力的实证研究[J].绵阳师范学院学报2007(2)：65-69.
[117]罗国忠.科学探究能力的评价方法[J].教育科学,2007(6)：7-10.
[118]王磊,黄鸣春,刘恩山.对美国新一代《科学教育标准》的前瞻性分析——基于2011年美国《科学教育的框架》和1996年《国家科学教育标准》的对比[J].全球教育展望,2012(6)： 83-87.
[119]黄芳.美国《科学教育框架》的特点及启示[J].教育研究,2012(8)：143-148.
[120]徐斌艳.来自国际性学生评价项目的反思——访德国教育专家本纳教授和蔡德勒教授[J].全球教育展望,2002(2)：3-5.
[121]徐斌艳.PISA引发的德国教育改革[J].现代教学,2006(6)：47-50.
[122]王烯,李素芳.PISA:解决问题技能的界定与测评[J].上海教育科研,2006(9)：35-37.
[123]王烯,黄慧娟,许明PISA科学素养的界定与测评[J].上海教育科研,2004(4)：49-52.
[124]袁廖,廖伯琴.关国俄勒冈州科学探究的工作单评价方法[J].比较教育研究,2008(1)：66-70.
[125]刘洋,蔡敏BEAR评估系统：美国学生学业评价的新框架[J].外国教育研究,2009(11)：40-44.
[126]石卫林.学生终身学习能力的评价与比较——OECD国际学生评估项目简介[J].比较教育研究,2004(1)：83-87.
[127]张福娟,苏雪云.特殊儿童个案研究资料收集的方法[J].心理科学,2001(6)：673-675.
[128]刘冠军.科学问题的定义新探[J].理论学刊,1999(7)：27-30.
[129]吴红梅.PTA量表在“新课程”教学评价中的应用[J].上海教育科研,2006(5)：47-49.
[130]沃建中.论认知结构与信息加工过程[J].北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000(1)：80-83.
[131]邢红军,陈清梅.论“智力-技能-认知结构”能力理论[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),2005(3)：41-45.
[132]王晓辉.“动手做”——法国科学教育的新举措[J].全球教育展望,2003(4)：70.
[133]赖小林,丁振源.“做中学”：作为儿童科学教育的一种形式[J].教育研究,2005(6)：89-90.
[134]吴颖民.二战后美国基础教育课程改革的特点及其启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2008(8)：76-79.
[135]袁丽,廖伯琴.美国俄勒冈州科学探究的工作单评价方法[J].比较教育研究,2008(1)：66-70.
[136]冯生尧,谢瑶妮.英国高考中的表现性评价：中心评审课程作业[J].比较教育研究,2006(8)：78-82.
[137]杨晓微.中小学科学课程改革：理念、趋势、困难和代价[J].课程·教材·教法,2000(11)：11-15.
[138]魏冰.美国“国家科学教育标准”——一项富有挑战性的科学教育改革方案[J].外国教育研究,2000(6)：20-23.
[139]陈霞.美国“基于标准的改革”研究述评[J].外国中小学教育,2005(8)：28-31.
[140]刘学智,马云鹏.美国“SEC”一致性分析范式的诠释与启示——基础教育中评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2007(5)：64-68.
[141]熊梅,曲霞.关于课程标准问题的国际比较研究[J].外国教育研究,1994(3)：47-51.
[142]陈彦芬,高秀岭.英国国家科学课程标准中的科学探究[J].上海教育科研2005(6)：33-36.
[143]上海市初中科学课程标准(试行稿)说明.EB/OL.2014-02-18 http://wenku.baidu. com/ link?url=gAzXPe2xwlLrOIOAz6huOW3FKieQmWHp7Q52 MpSBjtHY1K egyYtUOKnSrUHS 09atRqhSTgYfU90kB75SBur0dMpBiHSuG3D-uv8OVME43KG.
[144]百度百科.[EB/OL].2013-12-18 http://baike.baidu.com/link?url= plb3 w_h1F YYoA yNeFcOA_ rZy_ py6JloL Vbx9n2kQvaX3AhlMyG 4inO_AvUzotrLW.
[145]中华人民共和国教育部,国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要EB/OL.2010-07-29. http://news. Xinhuanet. com/edu/2010-07/29/c_12389320.htm.
[1]National Research Council(NRC).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts,and Core Ideas [M].Washington, D.C.:The National Academies Press,2012.
[2]Eisner, E. W. The uses and limit s of performance assessment [M].Phi Delta Kappan,1999: 658-660.
[3]Karin Hess. It's time for more focus on educator involvement in developing and using learning progressions[M].Psychology Press,2011.
[4]National Research Council(NRC).Taking Science to School:Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8[M]. Washington,D.C.:The National Academies Press,2007(9):217.
[5]Lawrence S. Lerner, Ursula Goodenough, John Lynch, Martha Schwartz, Richard Schwartz. The State of State Science Stanards[M]. The.Thomas.B..Fordham.Institute.2012.
[6]Tom Corcoran, Frederic A. Mosher, Aaron Rogat. Learning Progressions in Science:An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2009(10):38-37.
[7]Phil Daro, Frederic A. Mosher, Tom Corcoran. Learning Trajectories in Mathematics:A Foundation for Standards, Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education,Philadelphia,2011 (8):36.
[8]Roth,K. J. et al. Teaching science in five countries:Results from the TIMSS1999 video study[R].Washington D.C.:NCES,2006.
[9]Shin N.et al. Learning progression to support coherence curriculum in instructional material,instruction,and assessment design [C]. Learning Progressions in Science Conference, Iowa,2009:1-22.
[10]Lucas,A. M., Tobin, Kenneth. Problems with "Control of Variables"as a Process Skill[J].Science Education,1987(5):685-690.
[11]Dawson, C. J.,&Row ell, J. A. All other things equal:a study of science graduates solving control of variables problems[J]. Research in science and technology education,1986(4):49-60.
[12]Watson R, Goldsworthy A, Wood-Robinson V. What is not fair with investigations [J].School Science Review,1999:101-106.
[13]Shavelson R J, Ruiz-Primo M A. Note on sources of sampling variability in science performance assessments [J]. Journal of Educational Measurement,1999(1):61-71.
[14]Lock R. Assessment of practical skills part 2. Context dependency and construct validity[J]. Research in Science and Technological Education,1990(1):35-52.
[15]Schauble, L. The development of scientific reasoning in knowledg-rich contexts [J]. Developmental Psychology,1996(1):102-119.
[16]Tamir P,Doran RL. Conclusions and discussions of findings related to practical skills testing in science[J]. Studies in Educational Evaluation,1992(3):393-405.
[17]Andrew Kyngdon.Partial Orders Cannot Be Measured[J].Psychology Press,2011:159-162.
[18]Mark Wilson & Kathleen Scale. Assessment to improve learning in higher education:The BEAR assessment system[J]. Higher Education,2006:635-663.
[19]Vicente Talanquer. On cognitive constraints and learning progressions:The case of "structure of matter"[J].International Journal of Science Education,2009 (10):2123-2136.
[20]Anna Karelina, Eugenia Etkina.Acting like a physicist:Student approach study to experimental design[J].Physics Education Research,2007:1-11.
[21]Eugenia Etkina,Sahana Murthy, Xueli Zou. Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design[J].American Association of Physics Teachers,2006(11):979-985.
[22]Eugenia Etkina, Aaron Warren, Michael Gentile.The Role of Models in Physics Instruction [J].The Physics Teacher,2005:15-20.
[23]Baris DEMIRDAG,Burak FEYZIOGLUD,Eralp ALTUN, Murat AKYILDIZ. Developing a science process skills test for secondary students:Validity and reliability study[J]. Educational Sciences:Theory & Practice:1899-1904.
[24]Sinan Ozgelen.Students'science process skills within a cognitive domain framework[J]. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,2012(4):283-292.
[25]Temiz, B.K., Tasar, M.F., and Tan, M. Development and validation of a multiple format test of science process skills[J]. International Education Journal,2006(7):1007-1027.
[26]Kind, P.M. Performance Assessment in Science-What Are We Measuring?[J] Studies in Educational Evaluation,1999:179-194.
[27]Baxter,G.P., Shavelson,R.J.,Goldman,S.R.,&Pine,J.Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-On science assessment[J]. Journal of Educational Measurement,1992:1-17.
[28]Lunetta, V.N.,Hofstein,A.,&Giddings,G. Evaluating science laboratory skills [J]. The Science Teacher,1981:22-25.
[29]Buchan,A.S., Jenkins,E.W. The internal assessment of practical skills in science in England and Wales 1960-1991,some issues in historical perspective[J]. International journal of science education,1992:367-380.
[30]Lawrenz, Frances, Huffman, Douglas, Welch, Wayne. The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats[J]. Science Education,2001:279-290.
[31]Woolnough,B.E., Toh,K.A. Alternative approaches to assessment of practical work in science[J].School Science Review,1990:127-130.
[32]Lunetta V N, Hofstein A G. Evaluating science laboratory skills[J]. The Science Teacher,1981(1):22-25.
[33]Carol L.Smith, Marianne Wiser, Charles W. Anderson, Joseph Krajcik. Implication of research on children's learning for standards and assessment:A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory [J]. Measurement:Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives,2006(4):1.
[34]Nancy Butler Songer, Ben Kelcey, Amelia Wenk Gotwals. How and when does complex reasoning occur? empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(7):611.
[35]Mark Wilson. Measuring progressions:assessment structures underlying a learning progression[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009:717.
[36]R.G.Duncan. Learning progressions:Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment [J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):608.
[37]Lindsey Mohan, Jing Chen, Charles W. Anderson. Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):675-698.
[38]W. James Popham. The lowdown on the learning progressions[J]. Educational Leadership, 2007:84.
[39]Ravit Golan Duncan, Aaron D. Rogat, Anat Yarden. A learning progression for deepening students'understandings of modern genetics across the 5 th-10th grades[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009.
[40]Jeffrey T. Steedle, Richard J. Shavelson. Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009.
[41]Joseph Krajcik. Learning progressions provide road maps or the development and validity of assessments and curriculum materials[J].Psychology Press,2011 (9):155-158.
[42]Paul Black, Mark Wilson, Shih-Ying Yao. Road maps for learning:A guide to the navigation of learning progressions[J]. Psychology Press,2011(9):71-123.
[43]Alicia C. Alonzo. Learning progressions that support formative assessment practices [J]. Psychology Press,2011 (9):124-129.
[44]Shavelson,R.J.Baxter, G.P&Pine,J. Performance assessments in science[J]. Applied Measurement in Education 1991(4):347-362.
[45]Timothy T. Dunne.Road maps for learning:A bird's eye view[J]. Psychology Press, 2011:134-137.
[46]George Engelhard, Jr. Rubye K. Sullivan. An ecological perspective on learning progressions as road maps for learning[J]. Psychology Press,2011:138-145.
[47]Susan M. Butler, Nancy D. McMunn.How to assess student performance in science:Using classroom assessments to enhance learning [R].Greensboro:The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina,2005.
[48]Smith, K. A., Welliver, P. W. Science process assessments for elementary and middle school students. Smith and Welliver Educational Services [EB/OL]. http://www.scienceprocesstests.com,2004.12.02.
[49]OECD. Take the test sample questions from OECD's PISA assessment [EB/OL]. http:// www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/23/41943106.pdf.2011-10-3.
[50]Karin Hess, Valerie Kurizaki, Linda Holt. Reflections on tools and strategies used in the Hawai'i progress maps project:Lessons learned from leaning lrogressions [EB/OL]. http://tristateeag.nceo.info/attachments/022_HI%201.pdf,2010-08-09.
[51]The National Academies Press.National Science Education Standards(1996) [EB/OL], 1999-01-09http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html.
[52]Paul D. Nichols. What is a learning progression [EB/OL] 2010-02-07 http://www.Pearson Assessments. Com. pdf.
① National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas.[EB/OL].2011-09-18, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? record_id= 13165.
② 教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[EB/OL]..2001-06-08. http://www.moe.gov.cn/ publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_309/200412/4672.html.
① 吴颖民.二战后美国基础教育课程改革的特点及其启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2008,(8)：77.
① 教育部.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要.[EB/OL] 2010-07-29. http://news. Xinhuanet. com/edu/2010-07/29/c_12389320.htm.
② 上海市教育委员会.上海市初中科学课程(试行稿)[Z].上海：上海教育出版社,2004：106.
③ Stiggins R J国家基础教育课程改革“促进教师发展与学生成长的评价研究”项目组译.促进学习的学生参与式课堂评价[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：155.
① Shavelson, R.J.Baxter, G.P& Pine, J. Performance assessments in science. Applied Measurement in Education[J].1991,4 (4):347-362.
② Woolnough, B.E. Ton, Ka. Alternative approaches to assessment of practical work in science. School Science Review[J].1990,71 (256):127-130.
① 顾明远主编.教育大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1999：342.
② 林崇德,杨治良,黄希庭.教育学大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2003：868.
③ 皮连生,智育心理学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1996：41.
④ 周瑛,胡玉平主编.心理学[M].吉林：吉林大学出版社,2007(3)：241.
⑤ 郭秀艳主编.心理学导论[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2009(7)：163.
① 郭秀艳主编.心理学导论[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2009(7)：161.
② 胡乔木.中国大百科全书.教育[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993(9)：198.
③ 覃正爱.构建从理论到实践的桥梁：马克思主义哲学方法论及其中国化进程[M].北京：研究出版社,2008(5)：2.
① 林崇德.中小学生能力发展与培养[M].北京：北京出版社,1992：1.
② 马云鹏,刘学智主编.发展性学生评价的理论与方法[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,2007(7)：45.
① National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas [M]. Washington, D.C:The National Academies Press,2011.
② 林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003(1)：325.
① 百度百科[EB/OL] 2010-09-02.http://baike.baidu.com/link?url= pIb3w_h1FYYoAyNeFcOA_rZy_ py6JloLVbx9n2kQvaX3AhlMyG 4in0_AvUzotrLW.
① 沃建中.论认知结构与信息加工过程[J].北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000(1)：81.
② 邢红军,陈清梅.论“智力-技能-认知结构”能力理论[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),2005(3)：45.
① 王晓辉.“动手做”——法国科学教育的新举措[J].全球教育展望,2003(4)：70.
① 赖小林,丁振源.“做中学”：作为儿童科学教育的一种形式[J].教育研究,2005(6)：89-90.
① 美国国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[S].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：30.
① 郝京华.《科学(3-6年级)课程标准(实验稿)解读》[M].湖北：湖北教育出版社,2002：90.
② [美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,罗星凯译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].科学普及出版社,2004(8)：15.
③ 李春密,粱洁,蔡美洁.中学生科学探究能力结构模型初探[J].课程.教材.教法,2004(6)：87.
① 王晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70.
① 郭玉英.学生的科学探究能力：国外的研究及启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2005 (7)：95.
② 工晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70.
① 高凌飚,吴维宁.开放性试题如何评分——介绍两种质性评分方法[J].学科教育,2004(8)：3.
① 工晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70.
① 李春密,梁洁,蔡美洁.中学生科学探究能力结构模型初探[J].课程.教材.教法,2004(6)：87.
① 林崇德.论学科能力的建构[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997(1)：6.
② 林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003(1)：326-327.
③ 林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M]阅.北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003(1)：329.
④ 克鲁捷茨基,李伯黍等译.中小学生数学能力心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988：112.
① 张春莉.小学生数学能力评价框架的建构[J].教育学报,2011(5)：74.
② 徐斌艳.数学学科核心能力研究[J].全球教育展望.2013(6)：71.
① 徐斌艳.数学学科核心能力研究[J].全球教育展望,2013(6)：71.
① 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011年版)[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012(1)：7.
② 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011年版)[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012(1)：10-11.
① 上海市初中科学课程标准(试行稿)说明[EB/OL].2014-02-18 http://wenku.baidu.com /link?url=gAzXPe2xw1Lr0IOAz6huOW3FKieQmWHp7Q52MpSBjtHY1KegyYtU0KnSrUHS09 atRqhSTgYfU90kB75SBur0dMpBiHSuG3D-uv8OVME43KG.
① 上海市教育委员会.上海市科学课程标准(试行稿)[Z].上海：上海教育出版社,2004(10)：35-36.
① 廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：61.
① 朱行建.国际教育评价中的科学探究能力测评简介及启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(2)：89.
① 廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：61.
② 廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：61.
① 张民选,陆璟,占胜利,朱小虎,王婷婷.专业视野中的PISA[J].教育研究,2011(6)：5.
②廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：62.
③ OECD. Take the Test Sample Questions from OECD's PISA Assessment [EB/OL].2011-10-3. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/23/41943106.pdf.
① National Research Council(NRC).Taking Science to School:Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8[M]. Washington National Academies Press,2007(9):217.
② Carol L. Smith, Marianne Wiser, Charles W. Anderson, Joseph Krajcik. Implication of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment:A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic Molecular Theory[J].Measurement:Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives,2006(4):1.
③ Paul D. Nichols. What is a Learning Progression [EB/OL] 2010-02-07.www. Pearson Assessments. Com.pdf,/2013-07-08.
④ Nancy Butler Songer, Ben Kelcey, Amelia Wenk Gotwals. How and When does Complex Reasoning Occur? Empirically Driven Development of a Learning Progression Focused on Complex Reasoning about Biodiversity[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(7):611.
① Tom Corcoran, Frederic A. Mosher, Aaron Rogat. Learning Progressions in Science:An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2009(10):38-37.
① 韦斯林,贾远娥.学习进程：促进课程、教学与评价的一致性[J].课程.教材.教法,2010(9)：27.
② Tom Corcoran, Frederic A. Mosher, Aaron Rogat. Learning Progressions in Science:An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2009(10):38-37.
③ Mark Wilson. Measuring Progressions:Assessment Structures Underlying a Learning Progression[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009:717.
① R.G.Duncan. Learning Progressions:Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment [J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):608.
② Lindsey Mohan, Jing Chen. Charles W. Anderson. Developing a Multi-year Learning Progression for Carbon Cycling in Socio-ecological Systems[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):675-698.
① 韦斯林,贾远娥.学习进程：促进课程、教学与评价的一致性[J].课程.教材.教法,2010(9)：27.
② W. James Popham. The Lowdown on the Learning Progressions[J]. Educational Leadership, 2007:84.
① Karin Hess, Valerie Kurizaki, Linda Holt. Reflections on Tools and Strategies Used in the Hawai'i Progress Maps Project:Lessons Learned from Leaning Progressions [EB/OL]. 2010-08-09 http://tristateeag.nceo.info/attachments/022_HI%201.pdf.
② Phil Daro, Frederic A. Mosher, Tom Corcoran. Learning Trajectories in Mathematics:A Foundation for Standards, Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction[R].Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2011(8):36.
① Karin Hess, Valerie Kurizaki, Linda Holt. Reflections on Tools and Strategies Used in the Hawai'i Progress Maps Project:Lessons Learned from Leaning Progressions [EB/OL].2010-08-09. http://tristateeag.nceo.info/attachments/022_HI%201.pdf.
① 毛泽东.毛泽东选集：第4卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1966：864.
② 张大松主编.科学思维的艺术：科学思维方法导论[M].北京：科学出版社,2008(3)：18.
① [美]杰克.R.弗林克尔诺曼.E.瓦伦.教育研究的设计与评估[M].北京：华夏出版社,2004(1)：264.
① 孟庆茂等.实验心理学[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1999(5)：19.
① 陈琦,刘儒德.教育心理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2007(9)：39.
① 韦斯林.应用Rasch模型构建基于计算机建模的中学生物质结构认知测量的研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2010.9：76.
① [美]罗伯特教学设计的国际观：理论研究模型[M].教育科学出版社,2005(10)：252.
① 温.哈伦编著,韦钰译.科学教育的原则与大概念[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2011(7)2.
② 温.哈伦编著,韦钰译.科学教育的原则与大概念[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2011(7)：23.
① 蔡铁权,姜旭英.新编科学教学论[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008(5)：94.
[1]郝京华.《科学(3-6年级)课程标准(实验稿)解读》[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2002：90.
[2][美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,罗星凯译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].科学普及出版社,2004：15.
[3]王祖浩.化学教育心理学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2013.1.
[4]王顺义.科学探究[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2010.1.
[5]王晶莹.科学探究论[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2011.9.
[6]Stiggins R J国家基础教育课程改革“促进教师发展与学生成长的评价研究”项目组译.促进学习的学生参与式课堂评价[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：155.
[7]顾明远主编.教育大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1999：342.
[8]林崇德,杨治良,黄希庭.教育学大辞典[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2003：868.
[9]皮连生,智育心理学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1996：41.
[10]周瑛,胡玉平主编.心理学[M].吉林：吉林大学出版社,2007：241.
[11]郭秀艳主编.心理学导论[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2009：163.
[12]H.赖欣巴哈,伯尼.科学哲学的兴起[M].北京：商务印书馆,1983.4.
[13]胡乔木.中国大百科全书.教育[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993：198.
[14]覃正爱.构建从理论到实践的桥梁：马克思主义哲学方法论及其中国化进程[M].北京：研究出版社,2008：2.
[15]林崇德.中小学生能力发展与培养[M].北京：北京出版社,1992：1.
[16]马云鹏,刘学智.发展性学生评价的理论与方法[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,2007：45.
[17]林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003：325.
[18][美]伯尼·特里林,查尔斯·菲德尔.21世纪技能——为我们所生存的时代而学习[M].天津：天津社会科学院出版社,2011.10
[19]兰本达,P.E.布莱克伍德,P.E布兰德温.小学科学教育的“探究-研讨”教学法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008.12.
[20]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务——SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.5.
[21]周燕,坤如.科学认知的哲学探究：观察的理论渗透与科学解释的认知维度[M].北京：人民出版社,2007.5.
[22]袁优红.上学生喜欢的科学课：小学科学有效性教学策略探究[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2013.9.
[23]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2006.3.
[24]姚晓春.小学科学长周期探究案例集[M].上海：上海科技教育出版社,2012.10.
[25]赵骥民.小学科学实验设计与实施[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2013.4.
[26]阿瑟·A·卡琳,乔尔·E·巴斯,特丽·L·康坦特.教作为探究的科学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008.8.
[27]裴新宁,郑泰年.在探究中体验科学：科学主题的研究性学习[M].广州：广东教育出版社,2006.6.
[28]蔡铁权,姜旭英,胡玫.概念转变的科学教学[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009.3.
[29]罗伯特.小学科学课教学案例[M].长春：长春出版社,2008.1.
[30]萨玛·沃泽曼,乔治·伊芙妮.新小学科学教育[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.1.
[31]米歇尔·本特利,克里斯汀·艾伯特,爱德华·艾伯特.科学的探究者：小学与中学科学教育新取向[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社2008.7.
[32]A.F.查尔默斯.科学究竟是什么[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.11.
[33]林崇德.学习与发展——中小学生心理能力发展与培养(修订版)[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2003：6-327.
[34]克鲁捷茨基,伯黍等译.中小学生数学能力心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988：112.
[35]毛泽东.毛泽东选集：第4卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1966：864.
[36]张大松主编.科学思维的艺术：科学思维方法导论[M].北京：科学出版社,2008：18.
[37]盛群力等.教学设计[M].杭州：高等教育出版社,2008.10
[38]泰勒.课程与教学的基本原理[M].施良方译.北京：人民教育出版社,1994.1
[39]佐藤学.课程与教师[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[40]朱慕菊.走进新课程：与课程实施者对话[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2008.7.
[41]钟启泉.现代课程论(新版)[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006.2
[42]佐藤学.静悄悄的革命——创造活动的、合作的、反思的综合学习课程[M].李季湄译.长春：长春出版社,2007.12
[43]郝京华.科学(3～6年级)课程标准(实验稿)解读[M].湖北：湖北教育出版社,2002.3
[44]郝京华,陈华彬,梁玲.小学科学教育概论[M].高等教育出版社,2003：54.
[45]魏冰.科学素养教育的理念与实践——理科课程发展研究[M].广东高等教育出版,2006：89.
[46][美]国家研究理事会科学、数学及技术教育中心,罗星凯等译.科学探究与国家科学教育标准——教与学的指南[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2004.7
[47][美]国家研究理事会.每个孩子都是科学家—让每个学生都具备科学素养[M].北京：科学普及出版社,2005.5.
[48][美]Dr.Karen L.Ostlund,王春华译.科学探究过程技能评价手册[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2004.6.
[49][美]Wiggins G国家基础教育课程改革“促进教师发展与学生成长的评价研究”项目组译.教育性评价[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：124.
[50]顾明远,薛理银.比较教育导论——教育与国家发展[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998.12.
[51]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008.7.
[52]陈玉琨.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1999.7.
[53]吉恩.D.哈兰,玛丽.S.瑞夫金.儿童早期的科学经验：一种认知与情感整合的方式[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2006.10.
[54]施良方.学习论[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2008.4.
[55]陈琦,刘儒德.教育心理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2011.5.
[56]汪贤泽.基于标准的学生学业成就评价程序研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2008.6.
[57]周文叶.学生表现性评价研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2009.6.
[58]杨玉琴.化学学科能力及其测评研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2012.6.
[59]龚伟.义务教育阶段(7-9年级)科学学科能力测评框架构建及其应用研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2013.9.
[60]韦斯林.应用Rasch模型构建基于计算机建模的中学生物质结构认知测量的研究[D].华东师范大学博士论文,2010.9.
[61]罗国忠.初中生科学探究能力评价方式的比较研究[D].西南大学博士论文,2007.4.
[62]吴红梅.表现性评价的实证研究[D].南京师范大学硕士论文,2007.6.
[63]高芳.关于五至九年级学生生态系统学习进程的研究[D].杭州师范大学硕士论文,2012.5.
[64]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[N].中国教育报,2001.7.
[65]瞿葆奎主编.教育学文集·教育评价[C].北京：人民教育出版社,1989.10.
[66]美国国家研究理事会,戢守志等译.美国国家科学教育标准[S].北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：30.
[67]上海市教育委员会.上海市初中科学课程标准(试行稿)[Z].上海：上海教育出版社,2004：35-36.
[68]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育初中科学课程标准(2011年版)[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2012：7.
[69]美国科学促进协会,中国公众科学素养调查课题组.2001年中国公众科学素养调查报告[C].北京：科学普及出版社,2002：9.
[70]张春莉.小学生数学能力评价框架的建构[J].教育学报,2011：72-77.
[71](美)ArchieE.Lapointe标准化测验对美国社会的影响——以美国国家教育进展评估(NAEP)为例[J].考试研究,2009(4)：19-29.
[72]崔允漷,夏雪梅.试论基于课程标准的学生学业成就评价[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(1)： 13-18.
[73]胡军.学生学习成果标准不能在课程标准中缺失——澳大利亚课程内容与标准给我们的启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2005(9)：12-17.
[74]林静.美国NAEP科学素养评价新趋向[J].课程·教材·教法,2009(8)：92-96.
[75]张华华.中国教育进展评估：我们可以向美国学习什么?[J].课程评价改革国际研讨会论文集,2009(10)：93-97.
[76]张雨强,冯翠典.美国NAEP2009科学课程评价试题编制研究[J].全球教育展望,2007(10)：59-64.
[77]洪志忠.美国学生学业成就质量监测：NAEP的经验[J].全球教育展望,2008(6)：69-73.
[78]徐斌艳.数学学科核心能力研究[J].全球教育展望.2013(6)：67-74.
[79]张雨强.美国教育进展评估：2009科学评估框架及启示[J].全球教育展望2007(6)：37-43.
[80]周红.美国国家教育进展评估体系述评[J].全球教育展望,2004(8)：66-69.
[81]张静,李改枝SOLO分类评价理论在化学开放性实验试题中的应用[J].化学教学,2007(7)： 8-12.
[82]王晶莹,尤新伟TIMSS五国八年级科学教学录像研究述评[J].中小学电教,2011(1)：141-144.
[83]廖元锡.国际三大评价机构科学探究能力评述[J].中国考试,2011(12)：60-64.
[84]朱行建.国际教育评价中的科学探究能力测评简介及启示[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(2)：89-92.
[85]徐斌艳.德国教师教育标准的理论依据及内涵分析[J].外国中小学教育,2007(2)：13-17.
[86]张民选,陆璟,占胜利,朱小虎,王婷婷.专业视野中的PISA[J].教育研究,2011(6)：5-9.
[87]韦斯林,贾远娥.学习进程：促进课程、教学与评价的一致性[J].课程.教材.教法,2010(9)：25-28.
[88]陈琴.儿童科学探究与科学教育[J].中国教育学刊,2004(10)：49-52.
[89]王素.科学素养与科学教育目标比较——以英、美、加、泰、中等五国为中心[J].外国教育研究,1999(2)：5-8.
[90]郝敬云,郝京华.科学探究如何编入小学课程课程标准——加拿大、日本、美国的科学课程标准分析与启示[J].当代教育科学,2009(2)：52-56.
[91]魏冰.美国“国家科学教育标准”——一项富有挑战性的科学教育改革方案[J].2000(6)：20-23.
[92]乔治·迪波尔.“2061计划”：路在怎么走?——基于目标的教学、学习与评价系统[J].中国教育报,2004(9)：13-16.
[93]唐小为,丁邦平.“科学探究”缘何变身“科学实践”?——解读美国科学教育框架理念的首位关键词之变[J].教育研究,2012(11)：141-145.
[94]陈娟,冯生尧.促进学生学习的表现性评价[J].当代教育科学,2011(11)：21-23.
[95]周雷.表现性评价在能力培养中的应用[J].中国培训,2009(8)：22.
[96]陈瑞生.表现性评价的任务开发：特征、原则与步骤[J].教育测量与评价(理论版),2010(4)：4-7.
[97]李春密,梁洁,蔡美洁.中学生科学探究能力结构模型初探[J].课程.教材.教法,2004(6)：85-88.
[98]王晶莹,郭东辉.中小学生科学探究能力评价的国际比较[J].中国教师,2012(10)：70-72.
[99]郭玉英.学生的科学探究能力：国外的研究及启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2005(7)：95.
[100]高凌飚,吴维宁.开放性试题如何评分——介绍两种质性评分方法[J].学科教育,2004(8)： 1-6.
[101]林崇德.论学科能力的建构[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997(1)：5-12.
[102]王小明.表现性评价：一种高级学习的评价方法[J].全球教育展望,2003(11)：47-51.
[103]冯生尧.表现性评价纳入高考制度的必要性和可行性[J].全球教育展望,2007(9)：22-27.
[104]汪杰良,肖恩利,汪争.“动手做”在法国[J].上海教育,2005(3)：42-43.
[105]张建伟,孙燕青.从“做中学”到建构主义—探究学习的理论轨迹[J].教育理论与实践,2006(4)：35-39.
[106]王晓华,文剑冰.项目反应理论在教育考试命题质量评价中的应用[J].教育科学,2010(6)：20-26.
[107]孙晓敏,关丹丹.经典测量理论与项目反应理论的比较研究[J].评价与测量,2009(9)：10-17.
[108]罗照盛,漆书青,戴海琦,丁树良.项目反应理论多级计分模型参数估计的实现[J].心理学报,2003(4)：555-558.
[109]罗国忠.对科学探究能力引导式评价的研究[J].上海教育科研,2007(1)：61-73.
[110]罗国忠.基于工作单的科学探究能力评价的有效性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(11)：69-73.
[111]罗国忠.基于公平视角的科学探究能力评价研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2008(8)：59-63.
[112]罗国忠.科学探究的表现性评价及其有效性研究述评[J].全球教育展望,2008(12)：73-77.
[113]罗国忠.英国APU的科学探究评价案例简析[J].上海教育科研,2008(8)：59-61.
[114]罗国忠.关于提出探究问题的实证研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010(5)：83-85.
[115]罗国忠.多因素问题的科学探究[J].内江师范学院学报,2007(2)：91-93.
[116]罗国忠.学生对科学探究的理性认识和操作性能力的实证研究[J].绵阳师范学院学报2007(2)：65-69.
[117]罗国忠.科学探究能力的评价方法[J].教育科学,2007(6)：7-10.
[118]王磊,黄鸣春,刘恩山.对美国新一代《科学教育标准》的前瞻性分析——基于2011年美国《科学教育的框架》和1996年《国家科学教育标准》的对比[J].全球教育展望,2012(6)： 83-87.
[119]黄芳.美国《科学教育框架》的特点及启示[J].教育研究,2012(8)：143-148.
[120]徐斌艳.来自国际性学生评价项目的反思——访德国教育专家本纳教授和蔡德勒教授[J].全球教育展望,2002(2)：3-5.
[121]徐斌艳.PISA引发的德国教育改革[J].现代教学,2006(6)：47-50.
[122]王烯,李素芳.PISA:解决问题技能的界定与测评[J].上海教育科研,2006(9)：35-37.
[123]王烯,黄慧娟,许明PISA科学素养的界定与测评[J].上海教育科研,2004(4)：49-52.
[124]袁廖,廖伯琴.关国俄勒冈州科学探究的工作单评价方法[J].比较教育研究,2008(1)：66-70.
[125]刘洋,蔡敏BEAR评估系统：美国学生学业评价的新框架[J].外国教育研究,2009(11)：40-44.
[126]石卫林.学生终身学习能力的评价与比较——OECD国际学生评估项目简介[J].比较教育研究,2004(1)：83-87.
[127]张福娟,苏雪云.特殊儿童个案研究资料收集的方法[J].心理科学,2001(6)：673-675.
[128]刘冠军.科学问题的定义新探[J].理论学刊,1999(7)：27-30.
[129]吴红梅.PTA量表在“新课程”教学评价中的应用[J].上海教育科研,2006(5)：47-49.
[130]沃建中.论认知结构与信息加工过程[J].北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000(1)：80-83.
[131]邢红军,陈清梅.论“智力-技能-认知结构”能力理论[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),2005(3)：41-45.
[132]王晓辉.“动手做”——法国科学教育的新举措[J].全球教育展望,2003(4)：70.
[133]赖小林,丁振源.“做中学”：作为儿童科学教育的一种形式[J].教育研究,2005(6)：89-90.
[134]吴颖民.二战后美国基础教育课程改革的特点及其启示[J].课程.教材.教法,2008(8)：76-79.
[135]袁丽,廖伯琴.美国俄勒冈州科学探究的工作单评价方法[J].比较教育研究,2008(1)：66-70.
[136]冯生尧,谢瑶妮.英国高考中的表现性评价：中心评审课程作业[J].比较教育研究,2006(8)：78-82.
[137]杨晓微.中小学科学课程改革：理念、趋势、困难和代价[J].课程·教材·教法,2000(11)：11-15.
[138]魏冰.美国“国家科学教育标准”——一项富有挑战性的科学教育改革方案[J].外国教育研究,2000(6)：20-23.
[139]陈霞.美国“基于标准的改革”研究述评[J].外国中小学教育,2005(8)：28-31.
[140]刘学智,马云鹏.美国“SEC”一致性分析范式的诠释与启示——基础教育中评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2007(5)：64-68.
[141]熊梅,曲霞.关于课程标准问题的国际比较研究[J].外国教育研究,1994(3)：47-51.
[142]陈彦芬,高秀岭.英国国家科学课程标准中的科学探究[J].上海教育科研2005(6)：33-36.
[143]上海市初中科学课程标准(试行稿)说明.EB/OL.2014-02-18 http://wenku.baidu. com/ link?url=gAzXPe2xwlLrOIOAz6huOW3FKieQmWHp7Q52 MpSBjtHY1K egyYtUOKnSrUHS 09atRqhSTgYfU90kB75SBur0dMpBiHSuG3D-uv8OVME43KG.
[144]百度百科.[EB/OL].2013-12-18 http://baike.baidu.com/link?url= plb3 w_h1F YYoA yNeFcOA_ rZy_ py6JloL Vbx9n2kQvaX3AhlMyG 4inO_AvUzotrLW.
[145]中华人民共和国教育部,国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要EB/OL.2010-07-29. http://news. Xinhuanet. com/edu/2010-07/29/c_12389320.htm.
[1]National Research Council(NRC).A Framework for K-12 Science Education:Practices, Crosscutting Concepts,and Core Ideas [M].Washington, D.C.:The National Academies Press,2012.
[2]Eisner, E. W. The uses and limit s of performance assessment [M].Phi Delta Kappan,1999: 658-660.
[3]Karin Hess. It's time for more focus on educator involvement in developing and using learning progressions[M].Psychology Press,2011.
[4]National Research Council(NRC).Taking Science to School:Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8[M]. Washington,D.C.:The National Academies Press,2007(9):217.
[5]Lawrence S. Lerner, Ursula Goodenough, John Lynch, Martha Schwartz, Richard Schwartz. The State of State Science Stanards[M]. The.Thomas.B..Fordham.Institute.2012.
[6]Tom Corcoran, Frederic A. Mosher, Aaron Rogat. Learning Progressions in Science:An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia,2009(10):38-37.
[7]Phil Daro, Frederic A. Mosher, Tom Corcoran. Learning Trajectories in Mathematics:A Foundation for Standards, Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction[R]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education,Philadelphia,2011 (8):36.
[8]Roth,K. J. et al. Teaching science in five countries:Results from the TIMSS1999 video study[R].Washington D.C.:NCES,2006.
[9]Shin N.et al. Learning progression to support coherence curriculum in instructional material,instruction,and assessment design [C]. Learning Progressions in Science Conference, Iowa,2009:1-22.
[10]Lucas,A. M., Tobin, Kenneth. Problems with "Control of Variables"as a Process Skill[J].Science Education,1987(5):685-690.
[11]Dawson, C. J.,&Row ell, J. A. All other things equal:a study of science graduates solving control of variables problems[J]. Research in science and technology education,1986(4):49-60.
[12]Watson R, Goldsworthy A, Wood-Robinson V. What is not fair with investigations [J].School Science Review,1999:101-106.
[13]Shavelson R J, Ruiz-Primo M A. Note on sources of sampling variability in science performance assessments [J]. Journal of Educational Measurement,1999(1):61-71.
[14]Lock R. Assessment of practical skills part 2. Context dependency and construct validity[J]. Research in Science and Technological Education,1990(1):35-52.
[15]Schauble, L. The development of scientific reasoning in knowledg-rich contexts [J]. Developmental Psychology,1996(1):102-119.
[16]Tamir P,Doran RL. Conclusions and discussions of findings related to practical skills testing in science[J]. Studies in Educational Evaluation,1992(3):393-405.
[17]Andrew Kyngdon.Partial Orders Cannot Be Measured[J].Psychology Press,2011:159-162.
[18]Mark Wilson & Kathleen Scale. Assessment to improve learning in higher education:The BEAR assessment system[J]. Higher Education,2006:635-663.
[19]Vicente Talanquer. On cognitive constraints and learning progressions:The case of "structure of matter"[J].International Journal of Science Education,2009 (10):2123-2136.
[20]Anna Karelina, Eugenia Etkina.Acting like a physicist:Student approach study to experimental design[J].Physics Education Research,2007:1-11.
[21]Eugenia Etkina,Sahana Murthy, Xueli Zou. Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design[J].American Association of Physics Teachers,2006(11):979-985.
[22]Eugenia Etkina, Aaron Warren, Michael Gentile.The Role of Models in Physics Instruction [J].The Physics Teacher,2005:15-20.
[23]Baris DEMIRDAG,Burak FEYZIOGLUD,Eralp ALTUN, Murat AKYILDIZ. Developing a science process skills test for secondary students:Validity and reliability study[J]. Educational Sciences:Theory & Practice:1899-1904.
[24]Sinan Ozgelen.Students'science process skills within a cognitive domain framework[J]. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,2012(4):283-292.
[25]Temiz, B.K., Tasar, M.F., and Tan, M. Development and validation of a multiple format test of science process skills[J]. International Education Journal,2006(7):1007-1027.
[26]Kind, P.M. Performance Assessment in Science-What Are We Measuring?[J] Studies in Educational Evaluation,1999:179-194.
[27]Baxter,G.P., Shavelson,R.J.,Goldman,S.R.,&Pine,J.Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-On science assessment[J]. Journal of Educational Measurement,1992:1-17.
[28]Lunetta, V.N.,Hofstein,A.,&Giddings,G. Evaluating science laboratory skills [J]. The Science Teacher,1981:22-25.
[29]Buchan,A.S., Jenkins,E.W. The internal assessment of practical skills in science in England and Wales 1960-1991,some issues in historical perspective[J]. International journal of science education,1992:367-380.
[30]Lawrenz, Frances, Huffman, Douglas, Welch, Wayne. The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats[J]. Science Education,2001:279-290.
[31]Woolnough,B.E., Toh,K.A. Alternative approaches to assessment of practical work in science[J].School Science Review,1990:127-130.
[32]Lunetta V N, Hofstein A G. Evaluating science laboratory skills[J]. The Science Teacher,1981(1):22-25.
[33]Carol L.Smith, Marianne Wiser, Charles W. Anderson, Joseph Krajcik. Implication of research on children's learning for standards and assessment:A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory [J]. Measurement:Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives,2006(4):1.
[34]Nancy Butler Songer, Ben Kelcey, Amelia Wenk Gotwals. How and when does complex reasoning occur? empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(7):611.
[35]Mark Wilson. Measuring progressions:assessment structures underlying a learning progression[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009:717.
[36]R.G.Duncan. Learning progressions:Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment [J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):608.
[37]Lindsey Mohan, Jing Chen, Charles W. Anderson. Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009(9):675-698.
[38]W. James Popham. The lowdown on the learning progressions[J]. Educational Leadership, 2007:84.
[39]Ravit Golan Duncan, Aaron D. Rogat, Anat Yarden. A learning progression for deepening students'understandings of modern genetics across the 5 th-10th grades[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009.
[40]Jeffrey T. Steedle, Richard J. Shavelson. Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2009.
[41]Joseph Krajcik. Learning progressions provide road maps or the development and validity of assessments and curriculum materials[J].Psychology Press,2011 (9):155-158.
[42]Paul Black, Mark Wilson, Shih-Ying Yao. Road maps for learning:A guide to the navigation of learning progressions[J]. Psychology Press,2011(9):71-123.
[43]Alicia C. Alonzo. Learning progressions that support formative assessment practices [J]. Psychology Press,2011 (9):124-129.
[44]Shavelson,R.J.Baxter, G.P&Pine,J. Performance assessments in science[J]. Applied Measurement in Education 1991(4):347-362.
[45]Timothy T. Dunne.Road maps for learning:A bird's eye view[J]. Psychology Press, 2011:134-137.
[46]George Engelhard, Jr. Rubye K. Sullivan. An ecological perspective on learning progressions as road maps for learning[J]. Psychology Press,2011:138-145.
[47]Susan M. Butler, Nancy D. McMunn.How to assess student performance in science:Using classroom assessments to enhance learning [R].Greensboro:The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina,2005.
[48]Smith, K. A., Welliver, P. W. Science process assessments for elementary and middle school students. Smith and Welliver Educational Services [EB/OL]. http://www.scienceprocesstests.com,2004.12.02.
[49]OECD. Take the test sample questions from OECD's PISA assessment [EB/OL]. http:// www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/23/41943106.pdf.2011-10-3.
[50]Karin Hess, Valerie Kurizaki, Linda Holt. Reflections on tools and strategies used in the Hawai'i progress maps project:Lessons learned from leaning lrogressions [EB/OL]. http://tristateeag.nceo.info/attachments/022_HI%201.pdf,2010-08-09.
[51]The National Academies Press.National Science Education Standards(1996) [EB/OL], 1999-01-09http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html.
[52]Paul D. Nichols. What is a learning progression [EB/OL] 2010-02-07 http://www.Pearson Assessments. Com. pdf.