K-12数学问责性评估中技术增强和多项选择项目的测量效率

IF 2.7 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice Pub Date : 2023-08-25 DOI:10.1111/emip.12580
Ozge Ersan, Yufeng Berry
{"title":"K-12数学问责性评估中技术增强和多项选择项目的测量效率","authors":"Ozge Ersan,&nbsp;Yufeng Berry","doi":"10.1111/emip.12580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The increasing use of computerization in the testing industry and the need for items potentially measuring higher-order skills have led educational measurement communities to develop technology-enhanced (TE) items and conduct validity studies on the use of TE items. Parallel to this goal, the purpose of this study was to collect validity evidence comparing item information functions, expected information values, and measurement efficiencies (item information per time unit) between multiple-choice (MC) and technology-enhanced (TE) items. The data came from K–12 mathematics large-scale accountability assessments. The study results were mainly interpreted descriptively, and the presence of specific patterns between MC and TE items was examined across grades and depth of knowledge levels. Although many earlier researchers pointed out that TE items were not as efficient as MC items, the results from the study point to ways that TE items might provide more information and were more than or equally efficient as MC items overall.</p>","PeriodicalId":47345,"journal":{"name":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","volume":"42 4","pages":"19-32"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement Efficiency for Technology-Enhanced and Multiple-Choice Items in a K–12 Mathematics Accountability Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Ozge Ersan,&nbsp;Yufeng Berry\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/emip.12580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The increasing use of computerization in the testing industry and the need for items potentially measuring higher-order skills have led educational measurement communities to develop technology-enhanced (TE) items and conduct validity studies on the use of TE items. Parallel to this goal, the purpose of this study was to collect validity evidence comparing item information functions, expected information values, and measurement efficiencies (item information per time unit) between multiple-choice (MC) and technology-enhanced (TE) items. The data came from K–12 mathematics large-scale accountability assessments. The study results were mainly interpreted descriptively, and the presence of specific patterns between MC and TE items was examined across grades and depth of knowledge levels. Although many earlier researchers pointed out that TE items were not as efficient as MC items, the results from the study point to ways that TE items might provide more information and were more than or equally efficient as MC items overall.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"volume\":\"42 4\",\"pages\":\"19-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12580\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12580","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着测试行业越来越多地使用计算机,以及对可能测量高阶技能的项目的需求,教育测量社区开发了技术增强(TE)项目,并对TE项目的使用进行了有效性研究。与此目标平行,本研究的目的是收集有效性证据,比较多项选择题(MC)和技术增强题(TE)之间的项目信息功能、预期信息值和测量效率(每时间单位的项目信息)。数据来自K-12数学大规模问责评估。研究结果主要以描述性解释为主,并在不同年级和不同知识深度的学生中考察了MC和TE项目之间存在的特定模式。尽管许多早期的研究者指出,电子教学项目不如MC项目有效,但研究结果表明,电子教学项目可能提供更多的信息,并且总体上比MC项目更有效或同样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measurement Efficiency for Technology-Enhanced and Multiple-Choice Items in a K–12 Mathematics Accountability Assessment

The increasing use of computerization in the testing industry and the need for items potentially measuring higher-order skills have led educational measurement communities to develop technology-enhanced (TE) items and conduct validity studies on the use of TE items. Parallel to this goal, the purpose of this study was to collect validity evidence comparing item information functions, expected information values, and measurement efficiencies (item information per time unit) between multiple-choice (MC) and technology-enhanced (TE) items. The data came from K–12 mathematics large-scale accountability assessments. The study results were mainly interpreted descriptively, and the presence of specific patterns between MC and TE items was examined across grades and depth of knowledge levels. Although many earlier researchers pointed out that TE items were not as efficient as MC items, the results from the study point to ways that TE items might provide more information and were more than or equally efficient as MC items overall.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
47
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Editorial Issue Cover On the Cover: Gendered Trajectories of Digital Literacy Development: Insights from a Longitudinal Cohort Study Digital Module 36: Applying Intersectionality Theory to Educational Measurement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1