The Diet Cola Test was designed as a process assessment of science aptitude. Investigations of the instrument's reliability and validity for that purpose led to the conclusion that the data did not support the use of the instrument for making decisions about aptitude for individual students. Although the instrument was not suited for decision making for the purpose of identification, examination of the reliability and the item content, and further investigation of the validity suggested that it might be a suitable instrument for assessing science process skills as part of program or curricular evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, L., & James, I.T. (1987). The nation's report card. Cambridge, MA: National Academy of Education.
2.
Behuniak, P. (1992. April). Improving validity through traditional and alternative assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
3.
Brandwein, P.F. (1988). Science talent: In an ecology of achievement, In P. F. Brandwein & A. H. Passow (Eds.), Gifted young in science: Potential through performance (pp. 73-103). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
4.
Burns, J.C., Okey, J.R., & Wise. K.C. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 22, 169-177.
5.
Case. R. (1974). Structures and strictures: Some functional limitations on the course of cognitive growth. Cognitive Psychology, 6. 544-574.
6.
Educational Policies Commission. (1961). The central purpose of American education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
7.
fowler M. (1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13(4), 32-34.
8.
Germann, P.J. (1989). The processes of biological investigations test . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 609-625.
9.
Gronlund, N.E. (1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
10.
Jones, L.V. (1989). School achievement trends in mathematics and science, and what can be done to improve them. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 15 (pp. 307-335). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
11.
Lawson, A. (1976). Formal operations and field independence in a heterogeneous sample. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 981-982.
12.
Lock, R. (1989). Assessment of practical skills part 1: The relationship between component skills. Research in Science and Technological Education. 7, 221-233.
13.
Ludernan, R.R. (1975). Development of the science processes test (TSPT) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 203-A. (University microfilms No. 75-14, 783)
14.
McLeod, R.J., Berkheimer, G.D., Fyffe, D.W., & Robinson, R.W. (1975). The development of criterion-validated test items for four integrated science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 415-421.
15.
Morgenstern, C.F., & Renner, J.W. (1984). Measuring thinking with standardized science tests . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2, 639-648.
16.
Oakes, J. (1986). Educational indicators: A guide for policy makers . Santa Monica, CA: Center for Policy Research in Education. The RAND Corporation .
17.
Padilla, M.J., Cronin, L., & Twiest, M. (1985), April. The development and validation of test of basic process skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching , French Lick Springs, IN.
18.
Rakow, S.J. (1988). The gifted in middle school science. In P. F. Brandwein & A. H. Passow (Eds.), Gifted young in science: Potential through performance (pp. 141-154). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
19.
Riley, J.W. (1972). The development and use of a group process test for selected processes of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
20.
Ronning, R., McCurdy, D., & Ballinger. R. (1984). Individual differences: A third component in problem-solving instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 71-82.
21.
Ross, J.A., & Maynes. F.J. (1983). Development of a test of experimental problem-solving skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.20. 63-75.
22.
Ross, J.A., & Robinson, F. (1987). The use of rule structure in teaching experimental design to secondary school students. Science Education, 71, 571-589.
23.
Sanderson, B.A. (1971). Science ... A process approach. Palo Alto. CA : American Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences .
24.
Shavelson, R.J., Carey, N.B., & Webb, N.B. (1990). Indicators of science achievement: Options for a powerful policy instrument. Phi Delta Kappan,71, 692-697.
25.
Shaw. T.J. (1983). The effect of a process-oriented science curriculum upon problem-solving activity. Science Education, 67, 615-623.
26.
Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60s on student performance, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.
27.
Shymansky, J.A., & Yore, L. (1980). A study of teaching strategies, student cognitive development, and cognitive style as they relate to student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 369-382.
28.
Smith, K.A., & Welliver, P.W. (1990). The development of a science process assessment for fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 727-738.
29.
Sternberg. R.J. (1982). Teaching scientific thinking to gifted children . Roeper Review.4, 4-6.
30.
Strawitz, B. (1984). Cognitive style and the acquisition and transfer of the ability to control variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 133-141.
31.
Tannenbaum. R.S. (1968). The development of the test of science processes . Dissertation Abstracts International, 29, 2159A. (University Microfilms No. 69-677).
32.
Tobin, K.G., & Capie. W. (1982). Development and validation of a group test of integrated science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.19, 133-141.
33.
Walbesser, H., & Carter, H. (1970). The effect of test results of change in task and response format required by altering test administration from an individual to a group format. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 7, 1-8.
34.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity . Phi Delta Kappan,75, 200-214.
35.
Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., III, & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 17 (pp. 31-74). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
