On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity
Abstract
We propose a multilevel‐multifaceted approach to evaluating the impact of education reform on student achievement that would be sensitive to context and small treatment effects. The approach uses different assessments based on their proximity to the enacted curriculum. Immediate assessments are artifacts (students' products) from the enactment of the curriculum; close assessments parallel the content and activities of the unit/curriculum; proximal assessments tap knowledge and skills relevant to the curriculum, but topics can be different; and distal assessments reflect state/national standards in a particular knowledge domain. To provide evidence about the sensitivity of the multilevel approach in ascertaining outcomes of hands‐on science programs we administered close, proximal, and distal performance assessments to evaluate the impact of instruction based on two Full Option Science System units—Variables, and Mixtures and Solutions—in a Bay Area school district. Results indicated that close assessments were more sensitive to the changes in students' pre‐ to post‐test performance than proximal assessments. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 369–393, 2002
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 244
- Authors
- Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- RAND Corporation (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ruiz‐Primo, Maria Araceli
- ORCID
- Hamilton, Laura
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-04-12
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 369-393
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W1989199015
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 28.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Keywords
- education reform evaluation, instructional sensitivity, multi-level evaluation, performance evaluation, academic performance, curriculum enactment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review