有效教师创建终结性评估的质量指标

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Nicole Brownlie, Katie M. Burke, Luke van der Laan
{"title":"有效教师创建终结性评估的质量指标","authors":"Nicole Brownlie, Katie M. Burke, Luke van der Laan","doi":"10.1108/qae-04-2023-0062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe current literature on school teacher-created summative assessment lacks a clear consensus regarding its definition and key principles. The purpose of this research was therefore to arrive at a cohesive understanding of what constitutes effective summative assessment.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nConducting a systematic literature review of 95 studies, this research adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The objective was to identify the core principles governing effective teacher-created summative assessments.\n\n\nFindings\nThe study identified five key principles defining effective summative assessment creation: validity, reliability, fairness, authenticity and flexibility.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe expansiveness of education research is such that not all relevant studies may have been identified, particularly outside of mainstream databases. This study considered only the school environment, so contextual limitations will exist.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study contributes original insights by proposing a holistic definition that can facilitate consensus-building in further research. The assimilation of core principles guided the development of quality indicators beneficial for teacher practice. The comprehensive definition, key principles and quality indicators offer a unique perspective on summative assessment discourse.\n","PeriodicalId":46734,"journal":{"name":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality indicators of effective teacher-created summative assessment\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Brownlie, Katie M. Burke, Luke van der Laan\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qae-04-2023-0062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe current literature on school teacher-created summative assessment lacks a clear consensus regarding its definition and key principles. The purpose of this research was therefore to arrive at a cohesive understanding of what constitutes effective summative assessment.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nConducting a systematic literature review of 95 studies, this research adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The objective was to identify the core principles governing effective teacher-created summative assessments.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe study identified five key principles defining effective summative assessment creation: validity, reliability, fairness, authenticity and flexibility.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe expansiveness of education research is such that not all relevant studies may have been identified, particularly outside of mainstream databases. This study considered only the school environment, so contextual limitations will exist.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study contributes original insights by proposing a holistic definition that can facilitate consensus-building in further research. The assimilation of core principles guided the development of quality indicators beneficial for teacher practice. The comprehensive definition, key principles and quality indicators offer a unique perspective on summative assessment discourse.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":46734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-04-2023-0062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-04-2023-0062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的目前关于学校教师自创总结性评价的文献对其定义和关键原则缺乏明确的共识。因此,这项研究的目的是对什么构成有效的总结性评估有一个连贯的理解。设计/方法/方法对95项研究进行了系统的文献综述,本研究遵循了系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目。目的是确定指导教师创设的有效总结性评估的核心原则。该研究确定了定义有效总结性评估的五个关键原则:有效性、可靠性、公平性、真实性和灵活性。研究的局限性/意义教育研究的广泛性使得并非所有相关的研究都能被确定,特别是在主流数据库之外。本研究只考虑了学校环境,因此存在语境局限性。原创性/价值据作者所知,本研究提出了一个整体的定义,有助于在进一步的研究中建立共识,从而提供了原创性的见解。核心原则的同化指导了有利于教师实践的质量指标的发展。综合的定义、关键原则和质量指标为总结性评估话语提供了独特的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality indicators of effective teacher-created summative assessment
Purpose The current literature on school teacher-created summative assessment lacks a clear consensus regarding its definition and key principles. The purpose of this research was therefore to arrive at a cohesive understanding of what constitutes effective summative assessment. Design/methodology/approach Conducting a systematic literature review of 95 studies, this research adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The objective was to identify the core principles governing effective teacher-created summative assessments. Findings The study identified five key principles defining effective summative assessment creation: validity, reliability, fairness, authenticity and flexibility. Research limitations/implications The expansiveness of education research is such that not all relevant studies may have been identified, particularly outside of mainstream databases. This study considered only the school environment, so contextual limitations will exist. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study contributes original insights by proposing a holistic definition that can facilitate consensus-building in further research. The assimilation of core principles guided the development of quality indicators beneficial for teacher practice. The comprehensive definition, key principles and quality indicators offer a unique perspective on summative assessment discourse.
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
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: QAE publishes original empirical or theoretical articles on Quality Assurance issues, including dimensions and indicators of Quality and Quality Improvement, as applicable to education at all levels, including pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher and professional education. Periodically, QAE also publishes systematic reviews, research syntheses and assessment policy articles on topics of current significance. As an international journal, QAE seeks submissions on topics that have global relevance. Article submissions could pertain to the following areas integral to QAE''s mission: -organizational or program development, change and improvement -educational testing or assessment programs -evaluation of educational innovations, programs and projects -school efficiency assessments -standards, reforms, accountability, accreditation, and audits in education -tools, criteria and methods for examining or assuring quality
×
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