Assessing Source Evaluation Skills of Middle School Students Using Learning Progressions

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2021.1966299

Jesse R. Sparks, P. V. van Rijn, P. Deane

引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT Effectively evaluating the credibility and accuracy of multiple sources is critical for college readiness. We developed 24 source evaluation tasks spanning four predicted difficulty levels of a hypothesized learning progression (LP) and piloted these tasks to evaluate the utility of an LP-based approach to designing formative literacy assessments. Sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students (N = 360, 120 per grade) completed 12 of the 24 tasks in an online testing session. Analyses examined the tasks’ reliability and validity and whether patterns of performance aligned to predicted LP levels (i.e., recovery of the LP) using task progression maps derived from item response theory (IRT). Results suggested that the LP tasks were reliable and correlated with external measures; however, some lower level tasks proved unexpectedly difficult. Possible explanations for low performance are discussed, followed by implications for future LP and task revisions. This work provides a model for designing and evaluating LP-based literacy assessments.

查看原文本刊更多论文

利用学习进展评估中学生源评价技能

摘要有效评估多种来源的可信度和准确性对大学入学准备至关重要。我们开发了24个来源评估任务，涵盖假设学习进展（LP）的四个预测难度水平，并对这些任务进行了试点，以评估基于LP的方法在设计形成性识字评估中的效用。六年级、七年级和八年级的学生（每个年级360120名）在一次在线测试中完成了24项任务中的12项。分析使用从项目反应理论（IRT）得出的任务进展图检查了任务的可靠性和有效性，以及表现模式是否与预测的LP水平一致（即LP的恢复）。结果表明，LP任务是可靠的，并且与外部测量相关；然而，一些较低级别的任务却出乎意料地困难。讨论了低性能的可能解释，然后讨论了对未来LP和任务修订的影响。这项工作为设计和评估基于LP的识字评估提供了一个模型。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.