关于国家评估管理委员会标准的争论

M. Reckase
{"title":"关于国家评估管理委员会标准的争论","authors":"M. Reckase","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2001.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides an analysis of the controversy surround ing the stan ard setting process conducted by ACT Inc. for the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).1 This process is the most thoroughly planned, carefully executed, exhaustively evaluated, completely documented, and most visible of any standard setting process of which I am aware. Extensive research was conducted to determine how best to develop each step in the process.2 A distinguished team of experts guided the process through its development and implementation.3 And, the process has been open to scrutiny with evaluators observing the design and implementation of every step. Any process can be improved with experience and with continuing research and development. Better methods for setting standards likely will be created in the future. Until such developments occur, however, this process?called the achievement levels setting (ALS) process by NAGB?is the model for how standard setting should be done. The question I attempt to answer here is: If the standard setting process is of such high quality, why are the standards set by the process so controversial? Although I think extremely well of the NAGB standard setting process, interpreting the results of the ALS process is a very complex undertaking. A difference has become evident between the technical accuracy of the stan dards and the clarity of meaning for the standards that were set. The techni cal quality of the standards is very high. Statistical analyses have shown that the standards are well within the accepted bounds for amount of error in the estimated cutscores, and follow-up validity studies have provided supportive 231","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Controversy over the National Assessment Governing Board Standards\",\"authors\":\"M. Reckase\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/PEP.2001.0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper provides an analysis of the controversy surround ing the stan ard setting process conducted by ACT Inc. for the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).1 This process is the most thoroughly planned, carefully executed, exhaustively evaluated, completely documented, and most visible of any standard setting process of which I am aware. Extensive research was conducted to determine how best to develop each step in the process.2 A distinguished team of experts guided the process through its development and implementation.3 And, the process has been open to scrutiny with evaluators observing the design and implementation of every step. Any process can be improved with experience and with continuing research and development. Better methods for setting standards likely will be created in the future. Until such developments occur, however, this process?called the achievement levels setting (ALS) process by NAGB?is the model for how standard setting should be done. The question I attempt to answer here is: If the standard setting process is of such high quality, why are the standards set by the process so controversial? Although I think extremely well of the NAGB standard setting process, interpreting the results of the ALS process is a very complex undertaking. A difference has become evident between the technical accuracy of the stan dards and the clarity of meaning for the standards that were set. The techni cal quality of the standards is very high. Statistical analyses have shown that the standards are well within the accepted bounds for amount of error in the estimated cutscores, and follow-up validity studies have provided supportive 231\",\"PeriodicalId\":9272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brookings Papers on Education Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brookings Papers on Education Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2001.0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2001.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文分析了围绕ACT公司为国家评估管理委员会(NAGB)制定标准过程的争议这个过程是我所知道的所有标准制定过程中最彻底的计划,最仔细的执行,最详尽的评估,最完整的文件,最明显的。进行了广泛的研究,以确定如何最好地发展过程中的每一步一个杰出的专家小组指导了整个过程的发展和实施而且,评估人员对每一步的设计和实施都进行了公开审查。任何过程都可以通过经验和持续的研究和开发来改进。未来可能会出现更好的制定标准的方法。然而,在这些进展发生之前,这一进程?被NAGB称为成就水平设定(ALS)过程?是如何制定标准的典范。我在这里试图回答的问题是:如果标准制定过程具有如此高的质量,为什么该过程制定的标准如此有争议?虽然我认为NAGB的标准制定过程非常好,但解释ALS过程的结果是一项非常复杂的工作。标准在技术上的准确性和所制定标准的含义的明确性之间的差别已经变得很明显。标准的技术质量非常高。统计分析表明,该标准完全在可接受的范围内,估计的临界值的误差量,后续有效性研究提供了支持231
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Controversy over the National Assessment Governing Board Standards
This paper provides an analysis of the controversy surround ing the stan ard setting process conducted by ACT Inc. for the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).1 This process is the most thoroughly planned, carefully executed, exhaustively evaluated, completely documented, and most visible of any standard setting process of which I am aware. Extensive research was conducted to determine how best to develop each step in the process.2 A distinguished team of experts guided the process through its development and implementation.3 And, the process has been open to scrutiny with evaluators observing the design and implementation of every step. Any process can be improved with experience and with continuing research and development. Better methods for setting standards likely will be created in the future. Until such developments occur, however, this process?called the achievement levels setting (ALS) process by NAGB?is the model for how standard setting should be done. The question I attempt to answer here is: If the standard setting process is of such high quality, why are the standards set by the process so controversial? Although I think extremely well of the NAGB standard setting process, interpreting the results of the ALS process is a very complex undertaking. A difference has become evident between the technical accuracy of the stan dards and the clarity of meaning for the standards that were set. The techni cal quality of the standards is very high. Statistical analyses have shown that the standards are well within the accepted bounds for amount of error in the estimated cutscores, and follow-up validity studies have provided supportive 231
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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