指向教师评价素养的表现性评价教学设计框架——以小学生计算思维为例
A Performance Assessment-Based Instructional Design Framework Oriented toward Teachers’ Assessment Literacy—A Case Study of Primary School Students’ Computational Thinking
摘要: 教师教学评价素养的结构性不足,是导致当前教学中教、学、评脱节的深层原因。表现性评价是发展教师评价素养的关键实践场域,但一线教师普遍缺乏结构化的评价设计路径。为此,本文梳理表现性评价与计算思维的内在契合,以教学评价素养“四维结构说”为分析框架,构建“三阶五环”表现性评价教学设计框架,将评价目标、评估证据与教学实施进行系统性对齐。以小学计算思维为例开展示例性应用,呈现评价目标、评估证据与教学活动的生成过程及设计产出,展示该框架的操作逻辑与内部一致性。该框架具有跨学段迁移价值,既为核心素养教学提供目标清晰、证据链完整、操作性强的设计工具,也为教师在设计实践中嵌入式发展评价素养提供实践载体。
Abstract: The structural inadequacy of teachers’ assessment literacy is a deep-seated cause of the current disconnect between teaching, learning, and assessment. Performance assessment is a key practical arena for developing teachers’ assessment literacy, yet front-line teachers generally lack a structured pathway for assessment design. To address this gap, this paper examines the intrinsic alignment between performance assessment and computational thinking. Using the four-dimensional structural model of teacher assessment literacy as an analytical lens, it develops a “three-stage, five-step” performance assessment instructional design framework that systematically aligns assessment objectives, assessment evidence, and instructional implementation. An illustrative application to primary school students’ computational thinking is then presented, showing how assessment objectives, assessment evidence, and teaching activities are generated and what design outputs they produce, thereby demonstrating the framework’s operational logic and internal coherence. The framework is transferable across school stages: it not only provides competency-oriented teaching with a design tool characterized by clear goals, a complete evidence chain, and a high degree of practicality, but also offers teachers a practical vehicle for the embedded development of assessment literacy through design practice.
文章引用:史劲亭, 祝灵芝, 黄伟林, 卢曼萍. 指向教师评价素养的表现性评价教学设计框架——以小学生计算思维为例[J]. 创新教育研究, 2026, 14(10): 459-468. https://doi.org/10.12677/ces.2026.1410810

参考文献

[1] 熊璋. 人工智能教育的中国道路[J]. 中国信息技术教育, 2025(19): 1.
[2] 钟柏昌, 刘晓凡. 人工智能思维: 框架与解读[J]. 课程∙教材∙教法, 2024, 44(1): 149-155.
[3] 祝智庭, 高淑印. 智慧教育引领新质发展: 数智时代教育转型的理论建构与实践路径[J]. 天津师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2025(6): 1-15.
[4] 周文叶, 毛玮洁. 表现性评价: 促进素养养成[J]. 全球教育展望, 2022, 51(05): 94-105.
[5] 教育部关于印发义务教育课程方案和课程标准(2022年版)的通知[EB/OL].
https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-04/21/content_5686535.htm, 2018-03-25.
[6] 陆荣兵, 金立成. 核心素养视角下小学艺术学科表现性评价设计探索[J]. 教师博览, 2026(24): 112-114.
[7] 孙立会, 胡琳琳. 是什么影响了小学生的计算思维——一项基于五省市小学生的横向研究[J]. 中国电化教育, 2021(7): 52-61.
[8] 翁幸, 王小明. 从工具到共生: 生成式人工智能赋能创造性思维的表现性评价研究[J]. 教育与装备研究, 2026, 42(9): 89-96.
[9] 中华人民共和国教育部. 义务教育课程方案(2022年版) [M]. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社, 2022: 10.
[10] 赵雪晶. 我国中学教师教学评价素养研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2014.
[11] 杨丽. 深度学习下表现性评价的内涵、特点及实施策略[J]. 语文建设, 2023(2): 59-64.
[12] Selby, C. and Woollard, J. (2013) Computational Thinking: The Developing Definition. University of Southampton (E-Prints).
[13] Keen, R. (2011) The Development of Problem Solving in Young Children: A Critical Cognitive Skill. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.031809.130730
[14] Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R. and Özden, M.Y. (2017) A Validity and Reliability Study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558-569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
[15] Shiel, T.K. (2017). Designing and Using Performance Tasks: Enhancing Student Learning and Assessment. Corwin, 37, 105-106, 187.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506343402
[16] 张鄂勇. 思维导图的三招十八式[M]. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2012: 10-40.
[17] Wing, J.M. (2006) Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49, 33-35.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
[18] L’Heureux, J., Boisvert, D., Cohen, R. and Sanghera, K. (2012) IT Problem Solving: An Implementation of Computational Thinking in Information Technology. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, Calgary Alberta, 11-13 October 2012, 183-188.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2380552.2380606
[19] Atmatzidou, S. and Demetriadis, S. (2016) Advancing Students’ Computational Thinking Skills through Educational Robotics: A Study on Age and Gender Relevant Differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
[20] Shute, V.J., Sun, C. and Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017) Demystifying Computational Thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
[21] Anderson, N.D. (2016) A Call for Computational Thinking in Undergraduate Psychology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15, 226-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252
[22] Angraini, L.M., Kania, N. and Gürbüz, F. (2024) Students’ Proficiency in Computational Thinking through Constructivist Learning Theory. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 2, 45-59.
https://doi.org/10.56855/ijmme.v2i1.963
[23] Dole, J.A. and Sinatra, G.M. (1998) Reconceptalizing Change in the Cognitive Construction of Knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294
[24] Kapur, M. and Bielaczyc, K. (2012) Designing for Productive Failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45-83.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
[25] Song, Y. (2018) Improving Primary Students’ Collaborative Problem Solving Competency in Project-Based Science Learning with Productive Failure Instructional Design in a Seamless Learning Environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 979-1008.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9600-3
[26] Kaleliolu, F., Gülbahar, Y. and Kukul, V. (2016) A Framework for Computational Thinking Based on a Systematic Research Review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4, 583-596.