基于过程挖掘的高中物理课堂形成性评价路径研究——以“闭合电路的欧姆定律”为例

Research on Formative Assessment Paths in High School Physics Classrooms Based on Process Mining—A Case Study of “Ohm’s Law for a Complete Circuit”

摘要: 为考察高中物理课堂形成性评价在连续教学中的展开方式，研究选取七节“闭合电路的欧姆定律”公开课，依据引出、回应、识别和利用四阶段框架及细分活动编码761个评价事件，划分77个评价片段，借助过程挖掘整理片段内的完整路径，并比较数据解释、猜想检验与公式推导任务中的评价安排。结果显示，引出与回应合计占事件总数的77.27%；在有后续事件的学生回应中，47.47%接再次引出，31.99%接利用证据。38个片段在利用证据后仍出现引出或回应，占49.35%。77个片段形成59种完整路径，其中47种仅出现一次；路径既有回答后利用和多轮取证后利用，也有利用后再次取证。三个课例中，教师追问分别指向数据间的数值关系、实验条件与方案，以及能量关系的数量表达。研究表明，课堂评价的接续随教学任务和学生回答而变化；教师可将学生观点外显、追问判断依据，并在适当节点使用已经取得的回答。

Abstract: To investigate how formative assessment unfolds in continuous instruction in high school physics classrooms, this study selected seven open classes on “Ohm’s Law for a Complete Circuit”. This study examined the progression of formative assessment in high school physics classrooms. Based on a four-stage framework—eliciting, responding, recognizing, and using—along with its sub-activities, 761 assessment events were coded and divided into 77 assessment episodes. Process mining was employed to organize the complete pathways within each episode, and the assessment arrangements were compared across three task types: data interpretation, hypothesis testing, and formula derivation. The results showed that eliciting and responding together accounted for 77.27% of all events; Among responses with a subsequent event, 47.47% led to another elicitation and 31.99% to the use of evidence. In 38 episodes (49.35%), elicitation or responding occurred again after evidence had been used. The 77 episodes formed 59 complete pathways, of which 47 appeared only once; these pathways included use-after-answer, use-after-multiple-evidence-gathering, and re-gathering evidence after use. In the three lesson cases, teachers’ follow-up questions targeted, respectively, the numerical relationships among data, experimental conditions and designs, and the quantitative expression of energy relationships. The study indicates that the continuation of classroom assessment varies with instructional tasks and student responses; teachers can make student ideas explicit, probe the grounds for judgments, and use already-obtained responses at appropriate junctures.