Search

States took notice when President Bush on Jan. 8 signed into law the most comprehensive federal education legislation ever, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Bush is calling his plan […]

This article explains the importance of the validity of sociometric measurement tools and describes how the research is skewed when it is not. Topics include social acceptance, learning disability, and methodology.

This article examines the ethical aspects of preparing students specifically to perform well on high-stakes standardized tests. The author argues that teachers should understand the difference between curriculum-teaching and item-teaching, as well as understand when 'teaching to the test' becomes unethical and ultimately harmful to the student's education.

Standardized literacy tests were developed to pinpoint areas in students' learning framework that need improvement. However, these tests fail to reflect vital information as they do not include questions that require critical thinking. The National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, together with the New York State Education Dept, formulated some criteria for developing valid standardized tests. Their primary recommendation is to link these literacy tests to the aims and objectives of learning.

In comparison with the Student t test, the test on the ranks of scores has been shown to be slightly less powerful than the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test conducted on the original scores for real smooth and symmetric data sets because it does not provide a correction for ties or continuity. Here it is demonstrated that the t test on ranks is nonetheless superior to the usual t test for real data that are skewed or otherwise severely nonnormally distributed.

This study investigated the predictive validity of the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test on repetition of a grade and academic performance. 261 children were tested at the end of kindergarten and followed for the next three years through the collection of data on academic performance from school reports and other information on repetition of a grade. Analysis indicated that the global score on the Otis-Lennon test is related (r = -.30) to repetition of a grade and (r = .50) to academic performance. Other factors such as age that may be related to repetition of grades and academic performance are discussed.

The Force Concept Inventory's (FCI) validity is largely untested even though it is the diagnostic tool used to assess physics education. FCI responses do correlate with responses to similar exam problems, but the exam responses reveal student misconceptions even with the right answer. The FCI's multiple-choice format provides students with options they might not have thought of and student interpretations of the questions could influence their answers even when the topic is the same. A better tool is necessary that assesses student views, reasoning and problem-solving skills.

It has been suggested that a Basic Information Processing (BIP) unit be applied as rapid measure of intelligence based on cognitive speed of processing measures that are held to be genus-specific. The results of a series of studies measuring a BIP unit were analyzed. Results indicate that BIP appears to merely be a marker for the mental ability of reading speed rather than being representative of some characteristics of a limited capacity system.

David Hestenes and Ibrahim Halloun charge that the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is a successful measure of students' conceptual understanding of Newtonian physics but students perceive of the test as disjointed. Though the FCI is the most effective test of the value of introductory physics courses' instruction currently available because of its face and content validity, it remains unable to test individual students because it is incoherent from the students' point of view.

Patricia Heller and Douglas Huffman inappropriately question the validity and interpretation of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) when actually their data supports the FCI's value as a course evaluator. They base their opinions on a limited sample composed of students who do not understand Newtonian force concepts without comparing that data to results from people who do understand and therefore their results reflect not the value of the FCI but the students' lack of knowledge. The FCI is a successful evaluator of instruction success and can also be used for student placement.

Students predicted future test performance and assessed past performance on questions tapping important sentences, questions tapping unimportant sentences, and higher order questions that did not explicitly tap specific sentences. In Experiment 1, predictions were accurate only for higher order questions, but posttest confidence judgments were most accurate for the questions directly tapping text sentences. In Experiment 2, student control of reading was removed, and predictions were accurate for both unimportant questions and higher order questions, although predictions for unimportant questions may have been based on prior knowledge. Both experiments show that students can predict their performance on higher order test questions better than on questions tapping specific sentences in a text, suggesting that they use an overall understanding of the text in making such predictions. In addition, posttest confidence judgments were most consistently accurate for questions tapping the details in the text.

The Force Concept Inventory (FCI), a 29 question multiple choice test, does not measure the single force concept or the six conceptual dimensions of the force concept. The FCI, which is now being widely used in schools, colleges and universities, was developed to assess the students' concepts about Newtonian and non-Newtonian force. The application of Factor Analysis method in evaluating the FCI reveals that the FCI fails to measure the understanding of the basic physical concepts possessed by the students. The failure of FCI is attributed to the vague understanding of the forces and other physical concepts by the students.

Grade weighting of students according to the challenging nature of their course does not help prevent the disparity in the grading system. While grade weighting helps students increase their chances in colleges, it may also create a division between students and staff members. The evaluation of students according to the quality of their course, assigning marks for attendance and training teachers to grade papers properly may help avoid the disparity in grading systems.

The current study assessed the factorial structure of the Study Process Questionnaire with 532 American university students. The questionnaire, developed in Australia by J. B. Biggs, measures three approaches to learning and studying identified as Surface, Deep, and Achieving. Each approach is comprised of a motive and a strategy subscale. Factor analysis for the American sample supported Biggs' three primary approaches to learning (accounting for almost 70% of the distributed variance). The motive and strategy subcomponents, however, were not as clearly differentiated. Implications for further research with the questionnaire are discussed.

Unexpected results are obtained from the use of unknown usability tests for information gathering purposes. The usability tests usually possess tight schedules and require human operations with moving targets. The unexpected results during the application of usability tests can be detected by the usability specialist by analyzing existing data on the functioning reliability of usability tests.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to examine the importance of the most salient feature of a performance-assessment approach known as curriculum-based assessment: that testing material be drawn from the students'instructional curricula. First, we review the literature on (a) the match between tests and curricula and (b) comparisons of measurement validity and instructional utility when sampling student performance in and out of the instructional curriculum. Second, we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of sampling performance in the curriculum. After concluding that sampling from the curriculum is not essential, we discuss three critical features to ensure the instructional utility of measurement., During the past decade, traditional, commercial, norm-referenced tests have come under sharp scrutiny and have been criticized for both their lack of authenticity and their lack of utility in helping [...]

Specially designed competency-based testing has been proposed as an alternative to ability testing to eliminate the perceived discriminatory aspects in job selection and training. However, questions regarding the validity of competency assessment and the lack of support from the knowledge testing establishment have hindered the development of competency-based testing.

There is increasing consensus among education researchers regarding the application of the construct validity theory in performance assessment and in analyzing the consequences of evaluation. The adequacy of traditional validity schemes such as the construct-content-criterion is being questioned and a new scheme based on the context of assessment is being proposed. This will not only enable the use of general categories in performance assessment but also prove beneficial in producing reliable and simple educational tests.

The Bush administration's plan for educational reform and national testing neglects to assign a central role to the classroom teacher. But, because diversity is the norm and each student is unique, the teacher must play an essential role.

National testing is one of the proposals of the Bush administration's educational reform policy. Testing can be an effective tool if installed and administered with care. But testing should not be the main thrust of school reform.

The idea of national educational testing is not a new one, but this latest plan seems to have more momentum and popular support than previous efforts. To judge the possible end results, a look at statewide testing programs is presented.

For the past several years standardized tests have come to play an increasingly important role in American education. But the evidence now available suggests that this testing has had a negative effect on students and the educational process.

As a form of national testing draws nearer it would be advisable to stop and evaluate exactly how and why the tests are to be administered. Evidence now suggests that testing is often harmful, especially for minority and poor students.

There have been previous efforts at competency testing in the 1970s and 1980s, and both have been failures. If the current push toward national testing is forced into place without proper preparation, it too is likely to fail.