Perspectives on Problem Solving in Educational Assessment--论文代写范文精选

生活本来是不断解决问题的过程。从研究的角度来看,什么是一个问题,我们需要应用解决问题的技巧吗?根据迈耶的回答,一个问题发生在在任何给定的状态,需要达到一个目标状态,没有常规的解决方案的方法。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Abstract 
Problem solving has received broad public interest as an important competency in modern societies. In educational large-scale assessments paper-pencil based analytical problem solving was included first (e.g., Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA 2003). With growing interest in more complex situations, the focus has shifted to interactive problem solving (e.g., PISA 2012) requiring identification and control of complex systems. In the future, collaborative problem solving represents the next step in assessing problem solving ability (e.g., PISA 2015). This paper describes these different approaches to assessing problem solving ability in large-scale assessments considering theoretical questions as well as assessment issues. For each of the three types of problem solving, the definition and understanding of the construct is explained, items examples are shown together with some empirical results, and limitations of the respective approach are discussed. A final discussion centers on the connection of cognitive and differential psychology within educational research and assessment. 
Keywords:problem solving, large-scale assessment, PISA, analytical problem solving, interactive problem solving, collaborative problem solving

Introduction 
All life is problem solving. This simple title of one of Karl Popper’s (1999) later volumes emphasizes the importance of and the frequency with which our daily lives are peppered with small and large problems: a new kind of software introduced at work, road construction blocking our weekly trip to the gym, a difficult interaction with a new colleague, a scientific problem—the list could be extended indefinitely. But what constitutes a problem from a research perspective, and when do we need to apply our problem-solving skills? According to Mayer (2003), a problem occurs when in any given state, a goal state needs to be reached, and there is no routine method of solution available. 

The subsequent process of transforming the given state into the desired goal state is defined as problem solving (Lovett, 2002) in which a phase of establishing a representation of the problem (knowledge acquisition; Klahr & Dunbar, 1988) is usually followed by the implementation of a solution process (knowledge application; Novick & Bassok, 2005). Within experimental and cognitive psychology, a large body of studies on problem solving has accumulated (cf. Jonassen, 2007; Mayer & Wittrock, 2006). Problems in some domains such as mathematics (e.g., Daniel & Embretson, 2010), the natural sciences (e.g., Dunbar & Fugelsang, 2005), or technology (e.g., Baumert, Evans, & Geiser, 1998) may require domain-specific problem-solving skills (Sugrue, 1995) that are usually considered analytical (i.e., all information needed to solve the problem is available at the outset; Wirth & Klieme, 2003). 

Besides analytical problem solving in specific domains, problem solving may involve complex general mental processes that are not bound to specific domains (Funke, 2001; Sternberg, 1995). According to Novick, Hurley, and Francis (1999), these general mental processes are important in a number of settings because they result in general and abstract representation schemas, which are more useful for understanding the structure of novel problems because these general schemas are not contaminated by specific content (Holyoak, 1985). If Popper is correct that problem solving is everywhere in our lives, then independent of the underlying conception of problem solving as domain-specific or general, problem solving as a construct—even though it originated from cognitive and experimental psychology—has high relevance for educational and assessment perspectives in particular. 

In fact, according to Mayer and Wittrock, enhancing students’ problemsolving capacity is one of educational psychology’s greatest challenges and is a major demand placed on any educational institution. Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that educational large-scale assessments (LSAs) around the world have recently identified problem solving as a core domain that complements classical literacy concepts in school subjects. More specifically, one of the most prominent LSAs, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA; OECD, 2009), decided to include assessments of problem-solving abilities in 2003, 2012, and 2015. PISA is a cross-sectional study of 15-year-old high school students across all member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and a number of associated countries (totaling over 70 participating countries). It is one of the largest educational assessment programs worldwide, testing approximately half a million students in 3-year cycles and reporting average performances on several literacy scales. 

Thus, it provides an international benchmark that can be used to compare educational systems. In PISA 2003, the assessment of Analytical Problem Solving (APS)1 was aligned with a number of different disciplines including mathematics, science, commerce, and literature in line with the domain-specific research mentioned above. However, the majority of these problems were located in the areas of mathematics and science. In the PISA 2012 cycle, by contrast, computer-based tests of Interactive Problem Solving (IPS) focusing on domain-general and content-free aspects of problem solving were administered; these were aligned with a more general and less domain-bound understanding of problem solving. 

As not only complex mental skills such as problem solving, but also teamwork and communication are becoming increasingly important in modern societies (Autor, Levy, & Murnane, 2003), the upcoming PISA 2015 assessment will include measures of Collaborative Problem Solving (ColPS), thus extending the previous cognitive emphasis on the social aspects of problem solving such as interaction and communication by substantially connecting problem solving to the research area of collaborative learning (e.g., Engelmann, Tergan, & Hesse, 2010). The focus of this paper lies on these different conceptions of problem solving within PISA. In a way, these conceptions represent research efforts from different communities (Domain-Specific and Analytical Problem Solving in PISA 2003, Interactive Problem Solving in PISA 2012, and Collaborative Learning in PISA 2015), which have until now functioned independently of each other and have yielded few interdisciplinary contributions. 

To this end, we have observed considerable differences in the approaches to problem solving in PISA 2003, 2012, and 2015, albeit they are all housed under the common umbrella of problem solving. By reviewing and reflecting on the three problem-solving concepts and by evaluating them from an integrative perspective, we try to connect cognitive experimental research and educational assessment into a joint and comprehensive understanding, thus bridging the gap between experimental psychology and assessment in education as well as between different types of problem solving. Thus, this paper is not aimed at facilitating a specific theory or definition of problem solving, but rather at showing how a construct such as problem solving can be understood in different ways at different points in time. Specifically, we will review the understanding of problem-solving concepts endorsed in PISA, illustrate the items, and show the potential contribution of relating cognitive problem-solving research to recent contributions from educational large-scale assessments.

Analytical Problem Solving in PISA 2003
In 2003, problem solving was included in the PISA survey for the first time. Before then, PISA had emphasized narrowly defined ability domains related to disciplinary subjects commonly found in school curricula, such as mathematics, sciences, or reading. The motivation behind extending the range of abilities assessed was the recognition that problem solving is an important cross-curricular skill with high real-world relevance. The PISA 2003 framework explicitly stated that: “The processes of problem solving . . . are found across the curriculum” and “educators and policy makers are especially concerned about students’ competencies of solving problems in real-life settings” (OECD, 2003, p. 154). 

Moreover, an increasing number of empirical studies have suggested that problem solving may represent an ability domain that can be at least partly delineated from basic cognitive ability and from content knowledge in disciplinary domains such as mathematics and science (e.g., Frensch & Buchner, 1999; Leutner, Fleischer, Wirth, Greiff, & Funke, 2012; Wüstenberg, Greiff, & Funke, 2012). Supporting this assumption, the German national option of PISA found that although German students showed average performance in disciplinary assessments, they scored higher in problem solving ability than other countries (Leutner, Klieme, Meyer, & Wirth, 2004). Although the PISA 2003 framework acknowledged that there is no comprehensive definition of problem solving (cf. Frensch & Funke, 1995), the working definition described problem solving as “an individual’s capacity to use cognitive processes to resolve real, crossdisciplinary situations where the solution path is not immediately obvious” (OECD, 2003, p. 156). 

The cognitive processes involved were subdivided into two main branches labeled problem-solving processes and reasoning skills. Reasoning represented the ability to draw valid conclusions from given information or to transfer a solution strategy to similar problems. It was broken down further into the domains of analytical, quantitative, analogical, and combinatorial reasoning. The branch of problem-solving processes consisted of additional abilities required for problem solving, such as understanding and representing the problem (knowledge acquisition), finding solutions (knowledge application), reflecting progress, and communicating the results. Problem representation and finding a solution matched the similar distinction made by Novick and Bassok (2005), as described in the introduction. Reflection and communication were added as part of the initial PISA concept; however, they were largely dropped from the actual assessment conducted later on.

Interactive Problem Solving in PISA 2012
To overcome the conceptual limitations associated with pen-and-paper testing encountered in PISA 2003 and to make use of process data captured by computer-generated log files, one of the major shifts from PISA 2003 to PISA 2012 was the move toward computeradministered interactive problems, for which students can test different ideas for solving the problem in simulated environments. Interactive problem solving2 is characterized by the dynamic interaction between a problem solver and the problem to generate and integrate information about the problem. That is, whereas all relevant information is available at the outset in APS, this information needs to be actively generated in IPS. To this end, the PISA 2012 framework states that problem solving takes place:
When encountering real-world artefacts such as ticket vending machines, air-conditioning systems or mobile telephones for the first time, especially if the instructions for use of such devices are not clear or not available. Understanding how to control such devices is a problem faced universally in everyday life. In these situations it is often the case that some relevant information is not apparent at the outset. (OECD, 2010, p. 18)

The move away from Analytical Problem Solving (see previous section) was motivated by the desire to adequately represent the complexity of our modern world and by the opportunity to simulate this complexity offered by computer-based assessment. In fact, computer-based assessment is able to go substantially beyond the pen-and-paper assessments that were employed in PISA 2003. More specifically, one of the sources of complexity is the increase in dynamic and interactive situations in our daily environments (Autor et al.; Funke, 2001; Greiff, 2012). Not only do software interfaces and their rapid change make continuous learning necessary, but also the way that specialized hardware confronts us with complex interactions: Mobile phones, ticket machines, electronic room access, copiers, and even washing machines now require sequences of interactions to set up these devices and to make them run. The common denominator of these examples is that a problem solver needs to actively interact with any kind of technical or nontechnical system, thereby generating the new information that is necessary to proceed successfully toward building a problem representation and carrying out a goal-directed solution process. However, the targeted type of dynamic situation is by no means limited to technical devices and can be extended even to social situations (cf. Collaborative Problem Solving in the next section).

Notes 
1. Please note that in PISA 2003, the term problem solving was officially used. However, in research, the term Analytical Problem Solving is usually used to indicate that all relevant information needed to solve a problem is available at the outset (e.g., Wirth & Klieme, 2003) as in PISA 2003. In this article, we use the term Analytical Problem Solving to describe the assessment of problem solving in PISA 2003. 
2. The terms Interactive Problem Solving, Complex Problem Solving, and Dynamic Problem Solving are used synonymously in research (Fischer et al., 2012). In this paper, we consistently use the term Interactive Problem Solving in accordance with PISA terminology.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)