Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2094757
Michaeline Russell, Olivia Szendey, Zhushan Li
ABSTRACT Recent research provides evidence that an intersectional approach to defining reference and focal groups results in a higher percentage of comparisons flagged for potential DIF. The study presented here examined the generalizability of this pattern across methods for examining DIF. While the level of DIF detection differed among the four methods examined, the pattern in which the intersectional approach yielded a substantially larger percentage of flagged comparisons compared to the traditional approach was consistent across three of the four methods. The study explores implications that an intersectional approach to examining differential item functioning has for use by large-scale test development programs and identifies further research needed to support the adoption of an intersectional approach to DIF analyses.
{"title":"An Intersectional Approach to DIF: Comparing Outcomes across Methods","authors":"Michaeline Russell, Olivia Szendey, Zhushan Li","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2094757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2094757","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent research provides evidence that an intersectional approach to defining reference and focal groups results in a higher percentage of comparisons flagged for potential DIF. The study presented here examined the generalizability of this pattern across methods for examining DIF. While the level of DIF detection differed among the four methods examined, the pattern in which the intersectional approach yielded a substantially larger percentage of flagged comparisons compared to the traditional approach was consistent across three of the four methods. The study explores implications that an intersectional approach to examining differential item functioning has for use by large-scale test development programs and identifies further research needed to support the adoption of an intersectional approach to DIF analyses.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43519599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2087622
J. Soland, A. McGinty, A. Gray, E. Solari, Walter A. Herring, Rujun Xu
ABSTRACT Kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs) are frequently used to understand students’ early literacy skills. Amidst COVID-19, such assessments will be vital in understanding how the pandemic has affected early literacy, including how it has contributed to inequities in the educational system. However, the pandemic has also created challenges for comparing scores from KEAs across years and modes of administration. In this study, we examine these issues using a KEA administered to most Kindergarten students in Virginia. This screener was rapidly converted to an online platform to ensure students could continue taking it during the pandemic. Results indicate that the sample of students taking the test shifted substantially pre- and post-pandemic, complicating comparisons of performance. While we do not find evidence of noninvariance by mode at the test level, we do see signs that more subtle forms of item-level bias may be at play. Implications for equity, fairness, and inclusion are discussed.
{"title":"Early Literacy, Equity, and Test Score Comparability during the Pandemic","authors":"J. Soland, A. McGinty, A. Gray, E. Solari, Walter A. Herring, Rujun Xu","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2087622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2087622","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs) are frequently used to understand students’ early literacy skills. Amidst COVID-19, such assessments will be vital in understanding how the pandemic has affected early literacy, including how it has contributed to inequities in the educational system. However, the pandemic has also created challenges for comparing scores from KEAs across years and modes of administration. In this study, we examine these issues using a KEA administered to most Kindergarten students in Virginia. This screener was rapidly converted to an online platform to ensure students could continue taking it during the pandemic. Results indicate that the sample of students taking the test shifted substantially pre- and post-pandemic, complicating comparisons of performance. While we do not find evidence of noninvariance by mode at the test level, we do see signs that more subtle forms of item-level bias may be at play. Implications for equity, fairness, and inclusion are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48069327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2087626
J. Schweig, A. McEachin, Megan Kuhfeld, Louis T. Mariano, M. Diliberti
ABSTRACT As students return to in-person instruction in the 2021–2022 school year, local education agencies (LEAs) must develop resource allocation strategies to support schools in need. Federal programs have provided resources to support restart and recovery. However, there is little consensus on how LEAs can target resources to support those schools most in need. This study investigates the relationship between three school need indicators (i.e., pre-COVID student performance and progress, school and community poverty, and pandemic vulnerability) and measures of student performance and progress throughout the pandemic to determine which indicators support valid school need inferences. We find that school poverty more strongly predicts performance and progress during the pandemic than pre-COVID academic measures. In elementary schools, we find that pandemic vulnerability independently predicts achievement even when conditioning on poverty and pre-pandemic achievement. Of the indicators of poverty we investigated, the percentage of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students is the strongest predictor.
{"title":"Allocating Resources for COVID-19 Recovery: A Comparison of Three Indicators of School Need","authors":"J. Schweig, A. McEachin, Megan Kuhfeld, Louis T. Mariano, M. Diliberti","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2087626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2087626","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As students return to in-person instruction in the 2021–2022 school year, local education agencies (LEAs) must develop resource allocation strategies to support schools in need. Federal programs have provided resources to support restart and recovery. However, there is little consensus on how LEAs can target resources to support those schools most in need. This study investigates the relationship between three school need indicators (i.e., pre-COVID student performance and progress, school and community poverty, and pandemic vulnerability) and measures of student performance and progress throughout the pandemic to determine which indicators support valid school need inferences. We find that school poverty more strongly predicts performance and progress during the pandemic than pre-COVID academic measures. In elementary schools, we find that pandemic vulnerability independently predicts achievement even when conditioning on poverty and pre-pandemic achievement. Of the indicators of poverty we investigated, the percentage of free and reduced-price lunch-eligible students is the strongest predictor.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43224441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-17DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2052723
Chad M. Gotch, M. Roduta Roberts
ABSTRACT Individual-level score reports represent a common artifact in teacher-parent communication about standardized tests. Previous research has documented challenges in communicating student achievement. Researchers have also leveraged teachers in the process of score report design. Little is known, however, about teachers’ experiences with using score reports in authentic settings. In this study, we used a participatory action research approach in a year-long clinical partnership with four elementary teachers to iteratively propose and assess tools and strategies to support the communication of student test performance. Teachers achieved some success in their efforts, but experienced challenges of sustainability and anticipated peer buy-in. Findings from this study also illustrated a strong presence of tensions in the teachers’ work related to testing and communicating test performance. Overall, involving teachers in participatory research inquiry yielded novel insights for extending score report research and improving operational practice in test companies.
{"title":"Developing Test Performance Communication Solutions in a Teacher-Researcher Partnership","authors":"Chad M. Gotch, M. Roduta Roberts","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2052723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2052723","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Individual-level score reports represent a common artifact in teacher-parent communication about standardized tests. Previous research has documented challenges in communicating student achievement. Researchers have also leveraged teachers in the process of score report design. Little is known, however, about teachers’ experiences with using score reports in authentic settings. In this study, we used a participatory action research approach in a year-long clinical partnership with four elementary teachers to iteratively propose and assess tools and strategies to support the communication of student test performance. Teachers achieved some success in their efforts, but experienced challenges of sustainability and anticipated peer buy-in. Findings from this study also illustrated a strong presence of tensions in the teachers’ work related to testing and communicating test performance. Overall, involving teachers in participatory research inquiry yielded novel insights for extending score report research and improving operational practice in test companies.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41919491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-06DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2043151
Allison J. LaFave, Josephine Taylor, Amelia M. Barter, Arielle Jacobs
ABSTRACT This systematic review examines empirical research about students’ motivation for NAEP in grades 4, 8, and 12 using multiple motivation constructs, including effort, value, and expectancy. Analyses yielded several findings. First, there are stark differences in the perceived importance of doing well on NAEP among students in grades 4 (86%), 8 (59%), and 12 (35%). Second, meta-analyses of descriptive data on the percentage of students who agreed with various expectancy statements (e.g., “I am good at mathematics”) revealed minimal variations across grade level. However, similar meta-analyses of data on the percentage of students who agreed with various value statements (e.g., “I like mathematics”) exposed notable variation across grade levels. Third, domain-specific motivation has a positive, statistically significant relationship with NAEP achievement. Finally, some interventions – particularly financial incentives – may have a modest, positive effect on NAEP achievement.
{"title":"Student Engagement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Extant Research","authors":"Allison J. LaFave, Josephine Taylor, Amelia M. Barter, Arielle Jacobs","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2043151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2043151","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This systematic review examines empirical research about students’ motivation for NAEP in grades 4, 8, and 12 using multiple motivation constructs, including effort, value, and expectancy. Analyses yielded several findings. First, there are stark differences in the perceived importance of doing well on NAEP among students in grades 4 (86%), 8 (59%), and 12 (35%). Second, meta-analyses of descriptive data on the percentage of students who agreed with various expectancy statements (e.g., “I am good at mathematics”) revealed minimal variations across grade level. However, similar meta-analyses of data on the percentage of students who agreed with various value statements (e.g., “I like mathematics”) exposed notable variation across grade levels. Third, domain-specific motivation has a positive, statistically significant relationship with NAEP achievement. Finally, some interventions – particularly financial incentives – may have a modest, positive effect on NAEP achievement.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45663142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-02DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2043742
david. rutkowski, Leslie Rutkowski, C. Flores
ABSTRACT As more states move to universal computer-based assessments, an emergent issue concerns the effect that device type might have on student results. Although, several research studies have explored device effects, most of these studies focused on the differences between tablets and desktops/laptops. In the current study, we distinguish between different types of devices to better examine the differences. Specifically, we used Indiana state assessment results from grades 3 and 8 and a propensity score weighting method to see if a student took the assessment on another device, would they have received the same score? Our findings suggest that there are significant differences by device type in both grades. In particular, iPad and Chromebook devices produced higher achievement when compared to Mac and PC devices. At the extreme, these differences amounted to close to a third of a standard deviation on the achievement scale.
{"title":"The Effect of Device Type on Achievement: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Design","authors":"david. rutkowski, Leslie Rutkowski, C. Flores","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2043742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2043742","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As more states move to universal computer-based assessments, an emergent issue concerns the effect that device type might have on student results. Although, several research studies have explored device effects, most of these studies focused on the differences between tablets and desktops/laptops. In the current study, we distinguish between different types of devices to better examine the differences. Specifically, we used Indiana state assessment results from grades 3 and 8 and a propensity score weighting method to see if a student took the assessment on another device, would they have received the same score? Our findings suggest that there are significant differences by device type in both grades. In particular, iPad and Chromebook devices produced higher achievement when compared to Mac and PC devices. At the extreme, these differences amounted to close to a third of a standard deviation on the achievement scale.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43376651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-17DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682
Jennifer Randall, David Slomp, Mya Poe, M. Oliveri
ABSTRACT In this article, we propose a justice-oriented, antiracist validity framework designed to disrupt assessment practices that continue to (re)produce racism through the uncritical promotion of white supremist hegemonic practices. Using anti-Blackness as illustration, we highlight the ways in which racism is introduced, or ignored, in current assessment and validation processes and how an antiracist approach can be enacted. To start our description of the framework, we outline the foundational theories and practices (e.g., critical race theory & antiracist assessment) and justice-based framings, which serve as the base for our framework. We then focus on Kane’s interpretive use argument and Mislevy’s sociocognitive approach and suggest extending them to include an antiracist perspective. To this end, we propose a set of heuristics organized around a validity argument that holds justice-oriented, antiracist theories and practices at its core.
{"title":"Disrupting White Supremacy in Assessment: Toward a Justice-Oriented, Antiracist Validity Framework","authors":"Jennifer Randall, David Slomp, Mya Poe, M. Oliveri","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we propose a justice-oriented, antiracist validity framework designed to disrupt assessment practices that continue to (re)produce racism through the uncritical promotion of white supremist hegemonic practices. Using anti-Blackness as illustration, we highlight the ways in which racism is introduced, or ignored, in current assessment and validation processes and how an antiracist approach can be enacted. To start our description of the framework, we outline the foundational theories and practices (e.g., critical race theory & antiracist assessment) and justice-based framings, which serve as the base for our framework. We then focus on Kane’s interpretive use argument and Mislevy’s sociocognitive approach and suggest extending them to include an antiracist perspective. To this end, we propose a set of heuristics organized around a validity argument that holds justice-oriented, antiracist theories and practices at its core.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59626287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2028139
Scott E. Grapin, Lorena Llosa
ABSTRACT Traditionally, content assessments have been carried out through written language. However, the latest standards in U.S. K-12 education expect all students, including English learners (ELs), to demonstrate their content learning using multiple modalities. This study examined the performance of fifth-grade students at varying levels of English proficiency on four science tasks that elicited responses in visual, written, and oral modalities. Findings revealed that approximately half of students performed differently in visual versus written modalities on each task. However, performance did not consistently favor the visual modality for ELs, likely due to challenges related to visual representation in some areas of science. Additionally, triangulating students’ visual and written responses with their oral responses yielded more accurate interpretations of their science understanding. Collectively, these findings indicate the potential of multimodal assessment for providing more complete and accurate information about what ELs and their peers know and can do in the content areas.
{"title":"Multimodal Tasks to Assess English Learners and Their Peers in Science","authors":"Scott E. Grapin, Lorena Llosa","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2028139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2028139","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Traditionally, content assessments have been carried out through written language. However, the latest standards in U.S. K-12 education expect all students, including English learners (ELs), to demonstrate their content learning using multiple modalities. This study examined the performance of fifth-grade students at varying levels of English proficiency on four science tasks that elicited responses in visual, written, and oral modalities. Findings revealed that approximately half of students performed differently in visual versus written modalities on each task. However, performance did not consistently favor the visual modality for ELs, likely due to challenges related to visual representation in some areas of science. Additionally, triangulating students’ visual and written responses with their oral responses yielded more accurate interpretations of their science understanding. Collectively, these findings indicate the potential of multimodal assessment for providing more complete and accurate information about what ELs and their peers know and can do in the content areas.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48582048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2022.2027753
Diana Pereira, I. Cadime, M. Flores, C. Pinheiro, Patrícia Santos
ABSTRACT This study focuses on the effect of the programme variable on the purposes and effects that students associate with assessment, on the assessment methods used and on the perceived use of assessment. Data were collected in five Portuguese Public Universities through a survey (n = 4144) and focus group (n = 250) with students enrolled in different programmes. Findings point to statistically significant differences in relation to the purpose of assessment, assessment methods most used and perceived use of assessment. The main differences were found in the kinds of methods used in different programmes: Law reported the lowest frequency of the use of collective assessment methods and portfolios, whereas Psychology, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering were the programmes that reported the lowest frequency of use of individual methods. Educational sciences reported more frequency of all types of methods and reported significantly more preference for the use of alternative methods than the remaining programmes. Negative emotions were most associated with assessment by Nursing students and Educational Sciences’ students reported more participation in the assessment process than students from all other programmes. Implications of the findings are discussed.
{"title":"Investigating the Effect of the Programme of Study on University Students’ Perceptions about Assessment","authors":"Diana Pereira, I. Cadime, M. Flores, C. Pinheiro, Patrícia Santos","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2022.2027753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2027753","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study focuses on the effect of the programme variable on the purposes and effects that students associate with assessment, on the assessment methods used and on the perceived use of assessment. Data were collected in five Portuguese Public Universities through a survey (n = 4144) and focus group (n = 250) with students enrolled in different programmes. Findings point to statistically significant differences in relation to the purpose of assessment, assessment methods most used and perceived use of assessment. The main differences were found in the kinds of methods used in different programmes: Law reported the lowest frequency of the use of collective assessment methods and portfolios, whereas Psychology, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering were the programmes that reported the lowest frequency of use of individual methods. Educational sciences reported more frequency of all types of methods and reported significantly more preference for the use of alternative methods than the remaining programmes. Negative emotions were most associated with assessment by Nursing students and Educational Sciences’ students reported more participation in the assessment process than students from all other programmes. Implications of the findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48672623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-29DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2021.2016388
Francis O’Donnell, S. Sireci
ABSTRACT Since the standards-based assessment practices required by the No Child Left Behind legislation, almost all students in the United States are “labeled” according to their performance on educational achievement tests. In spite of their widespread use in reporting test results, research on how achievement level labels are perceived by teachers, parents, and students is minimal. In this study, we surveyed teachers (N = 51) and parents (N = 50) regarding their perceptions of 73 achievement labels (e.g., inadequate, level 2, proficient) used in statewide testing programs. These teachers and parents also sorted the labels according to their similarity. Using multidimensional scaling, we found labels used to denote the same level of performance (e.g., basic and below proficient) were perceived to differ in important ways, including in their tone and how much achievement they convey. Additionally, some labels were perceived as more encouraging or clear than others. Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions were similar, with a few exceptions. The results have important implications for reporting results that encourage, rather than discourage, student learning.
摘要:由于《不让一个孩子掉队法》(No Child Left Behind)所要求的基于标准的评估实践，美国几乎所有学生都根据他们在教育成就测试中的表现被“贴上标签”。尽管成绩等级标签广泛用于报告测试结果，但关于教师、家长和学生如何看待成绩等级标签的研究却很少。在这项研究中，我们调查了教师(N = 51)和家长(N = 50)对全州测试项目中使用的73个成就标签(例如，不足，2级，熟练)的看法。这些老师和家长还根据他们的相似度对标签进行分类。使用多维尺度，我们发现用于表示相同表现水平的标签(例如，基本和精通以下)在重要方面被认为是不同的，包括他们的语气和他们传达了多少成就。此外，一些标签被认为比其他标签更令人鼓舞或更清晰。除了少数例外，老师和家长的看法是相似的。这些结果对于报告鼓励而不是阻碍学生学习的结果具有重要意义。
{"title":"Language Matters: Teacher and Parent Perceptions of Achievement Labels from Educational Tests","authors":"Francis O’Donnell, S. Sireci","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2021.2016388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2021.2016388","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since the standards-based assessment practices required by the No Child Left Behind legislation, almost all students in the United States are “labeled” according to their performance on educational achievement tests. In spite of their widespread use in reporting test results, research on how achievement level labels are perceived by teachers, parents, and students is minimal. In this study, we surveyed teachers (N = 51) and parents (N = 50) regarding their perceptions of 73 achievement labels (e.g., inadequate, level 2, proficient) used in statewide testing programs. These teachers and parents also sorted the labels according to their similarity. Using multidimensional scaling, we found labels used to denote the same level of performance (e.g., basic and below proficient) were perceived to differ in important ways, including in their tone and how much achievement they convey. Additionally, some labels were perceived as more encouraging or clear than others. Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions were similar, with a few exceptions. The results have important implications for reporting results that encourage, rather than discourage, student learning.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46569614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：