NAPLAN versus In-School Assessment: How Similar or Different are Students’ Results?

Q4 Social Sciences
Jihyun Lee, W. McArthur, N. Ellis
{"title":"NAPLAN versus In-School Assessment: How Similar or Different are Students’ Results?","authors":"Jihyun Lee, W. McArthur, N. Ellis","doi":"10.7459/ct/34.2.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to compare students’ results in mathematics from a large-scale standardized assessment, the National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), with a set of teacher-developed, school-based assessments. A case study of an all-boys secondary\n school in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, was conducted over three years with a total 1,456 student-participants. We found strong positive correlations existed between the NAPLAN data and certain school-based assessment data, such as monthly tests, but such results were not consistent\n across all classes. We conclude that NAPLAN data when considered in isolation, might be of limited benefit to teachers and students for diagnostic purposes. We therefore offer practical suggestions as to how student performance data generated from a large-scale assessment like NAPLAN might\n be best utilized and interpreted for formative assessment purposes in the school to optimally benefit individual students’ learning.","PeriodicalId":35186,"journal":{"name":"Curriculum and Teaching","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Curriculum and Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/34.2.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare students’ results in mathematics from a large-scale standardized assessment, the National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), with a set of teacher-developed, school-based assessments. A case study of an all-boys secondary school in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, was conducted over three years with a total 1,456 student-participants. We found strong positive correlations existed between the NAPLAN data and certain school-based assessment data, such as monthly tests, but such results were not consistent across all classes. We conclude that NAPLAN data when considered in isolation, might be of limited benefit to teachers and students for diagnostic purposes. We therefore offer practical suggestions as to how student performance data generated from a large-scale assessment like NAPLAN might be best utilized and interpreted for formative assessment purposes in the school to optimally benefit individual students’ learning.
NAPLAN与校内评估:学生成绩有多相似或不同?
本研究的目的是比较学生在大规模标准化评估中的数学成绩,即国家评估计划:读写和计算能力(NAPLAN),以及一套由教师开发的基于学校的评估。在澳大利亚新南威尔士州悉尼的一所男校进行了为期三年的案例研究,共有1456名学生参与。我们发现,NAPLAN数据与某些校本评估数据(如每月测试)之间存在很强的正相关关系,但这种结果在所有班级中并不一致。我们的结论是,单独考虑NAPLAN数据时,可能对教师和学生的诊断目的有有限的益处。因此,我们就如何最好地利用和解释像NAPLAN这样的大规模评估产生的学生表现数据,为学校的形成性评估提供实用的建议,以最大限度地造福个别学生的学习。
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
Curriculum and Teaching
Curriculum and Teaching Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Curriculum and Teaching, first published in 1985, is an established, refereed international journal publishing original research from throughout the world which deals with major up-to-date issues and trends in curriculum theory and practice. The journal uses a balanced and comparative perspective to consider curriculum design and development, evaluation, curriculum models, comparative studies in curriculum, innovation and policy, planning, and educational administration. The journal’s object is to advance the study and development of curriculum and teaching, with a view to improving teaching and pedagogy. Curriculum and Teaching provides an impartial forum for scholars throughout the world, working in the area of curriculum studies. Curriculum and Teaching is double blind peer reviewed. The journal has no publication fees.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信