Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2023 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Classroom assessment that tailor instruction and direct learning: A validation study

Pages
376–394
Publication Date
2023-06-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We conclude that the conceptualizations of such formative assessments provide meaningful information for teachers to support learning and tailoring instruction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We report the validity of a test instrument that assesses the arithmetic ability of primary students by (a) describing the theoretical model of arithmetic ability assessment using Wilson’s (2004) four building blocks of constructing measures and (b) providing empirical evidence for the validation study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The instrument consists of 21 multiple-choice questions that hierarchically evaluate arithmetic intended learning outcomes (ILOs) on arithmetic ability, hierarchically, based on Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy for 138 primary three grade students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We conclude that the conceptualizations of such formative assessments provide meaningful information for teachers to support learning and tailoring instruction.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Classroom assessment · Constructing measures · Tailor instruction

Abstract

We report the validity of a test instrument that assesses the arithmetic ability of primary students by (a) describing the theoretical model of arithmetic ability assessment using Wilson’s (2004) four building blocks of constructing measures and (b) providing empirical evidence for the validation study. The instrument consists of 21 multiple-choice questions that hierarchically evaluate arithmetic intended learning outcomes (ILOs) on arithmetic ability, hierarchically, based on Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy for 138 primary three grade students. The theoretical model describes students’ arithmetic ability on three distinct levels: solid, developing, and basic. At each level, the model describes the characteristics of the tasks that the students can answer correctly. The analysis shows that the difficulty of the items followed the expected order in the theoretical construct map, where the difficulty of each designed item aligned with the cognitive level of the student, the item difficulty distribution aligned with the structure of the person construct map, and word problems required higher cognitive abilities than the calculation problems did. The findings, however, pointed out that more difficult items can be added to better differentiate students with different ability levels, and an item should be revised to enhance the reliability and validity of the research. We conclude that the conceptualizations of such formative assessments provide meaningful information for teachers to support learning and tailoring instruction.

Özet

We report the validity of a test instrument that assesses the arithmetic ability of primary students by (a) describing the theoretical model of arithmetic ability assessment using Wilson’s (2004) four building blocks of constructing measures and (b) providing empirical evidence for the validation study. The instrument consists of 21 multiple-choice questions that hierarchically evaluate arithmetic intended learning outcomes (ILOs) on arithmetic ability, hierarchically, based on Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy for 138 primary three grade students. The theoretical model describes students’ arithmetic ability on three distinct levels: solid, developing, and basic. At each level, the model describes the characteristics of the tasks that the students can answer correctly. The analysis shows that the difficulty of the items followed the expected order in the theoretical construct map, where the difficulty of each designed item aligned with the cognitive level of the student, the item difficulty distribution aligned with the structure of the person construct map, and word problems required higher cognitive abilities than the calculation problems did. The findings, however, pointed out that more difficult items can be added to better differentiate students with different ability levels, and an item should be revised to enhance the reliability and validity of the research. We conclude that the conceptualizations of such formative assessments provide meaningful information for teachers to support learning and tailoring instruction.

🔖

Cite This Article

CHAN, W. K., ZHANG, L., OON, E. (2023). Classroom assessment that tailor instruction and direct learning: A validation study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 376–394. https://ajindex.com/articles/951361

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Adillah, G., Ridwan, A., & Rahayu, W. (2022). Content validation through expert judgement of an instrument on the self-assessment of mathematics education student competency. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 9(3), 780-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v9i3.3738
  2. Alderson, J.C. (1990). Testing reading comprehension skills. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6(2), 425-438.
  3. Alonzo, A.C., & Steedle, J.T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421.
  4. Baird, J.-A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T.N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317-350.
  5. Baroody, A.J., & Dowker, A. (Eds.). (2003). The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  6. Beck, K. (2020). Ensuring content validity of psychological and educational tests – the role of experts. Frontline Learning Research, 8(6), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i6.517
  7. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536-553.
  8. Björklund, C., Marton, F., & Kullberyg, A. (2021). What is to be learnt? Critical aspects of elementary skills. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107, 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10045-0
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
  10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). In praise of educational research’: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623-637.
  11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
  12. Black, P., Wilson, M., & Yao, S. (2011). Road maps for learning: A guide to the navigation of learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 9, 1-52.
  13. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay. Bond, T., & Fox, C.M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. Brookhart, S.M., Moss, C.M., & Long, B.A. (2010). Teacher inquiry into formative assessment practices in remedial reading classrooms. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 41-58. Cardine