TRADITIONAL VS. DEVELOPMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The articles listed below describe research in which conventional assessments of content knowledge are compared with assessments of understanding and reasoning. It is clear from this research that (1) conventional assessments are not good measures of conceptual understanding, and (2) a combination of assessments of content knowledge and understanding provides better predictions of school and workplace performance than either type of assessment on its own.

If you are aware of additional articles on this topic, please let us know.

1. von Bergmann, H., Dalrymple, K. R., Wong, S., & Shuler, C. F. (2007). Investigating the relationship between PBL process grades and content acquisition performance in a PBL dental program. Journal of Dental Education, 71, 1160-1170.
2. Agung, S., & Schwartz, M. S. (2007). Students' understanding of conservation of matter, stoichiometry and balancing equations in Indonesia. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1679-1702.
3. Schoenfeld, A. (Ed.). (2007). Assessing mathematical proficiency (Vol. 53). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Sadler, P. M. (2000). The relevance of multiple choice tests in assessing science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 249-278). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61.
6. Jones, D. E. (1995). Predicting college grade point average: The contribution of four developmental domains. Dissertation; University of Kansas.
7. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.