MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2079834841 · doi:10.1177/003172170808900811

Enduring Issues in Educational Assessment

2008· article· en· W2079834841 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhi Delta Kappan · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueEducational Assessment and Improvement
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRemedial educationVirtueStandardized testPreamblePsychologyEducational assessmentPublic relationsQuarter (Canadian coin)Class (philosophy)PedagogyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMathematics educationLawComputer scienceEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IT IS common to look backward periodically to understand what happened, to generalize about what happens under such conditions, and to learn how to adapt to new possibilities. A quarter century after A Nation Risk appeared, various issues in assessment, the focus of some of the report's recommendations, endure. Despite its title, A Nation Risk was always intended to be a forward-looking document. Its graphically enhanced preamble reads: All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children by virtue virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society itself. (1) Student assessment was regarded as one tool toward this end. The key recommendations relevant to assessment were in part a reaction to the low standards in then-current implementations of minimum competency examinations. The report called for standardized tests of achievement to be administered at major transition points between the levels of schooling in order to certify the student's credentials; identify the need for remedial intervention, and identify the opportunity for advanced or accelerated work. Moreover, the report called for a national system of state and local tests that should include other diagnostic procedures to help teachers and students evaluate student progress (p. 28). This was a modest set of recommendations for achievement tests, and much of what was called for is part of current practice. However, we now face a new set of challenges. Readers interested in a historical sketch of the developments and challenges prior to 1983 and into the 21st century will want to read a number of works by Lorrie Shepard. (2) My aim here is to offer brief reflections on three somewhat overlapping but enduring issues in educational assessment: validity, underrepresentation in outcome measures in intervention studies, and the burdens on the teacher of appropriate classroom VALIDITY is the most important issue in educational assessment, and if we are to have the national system of assessments called for in A Nation Risk, it is clearly a prime concern. Shortly after the report appeared, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (hereafter Standards) in 1985 and Samuel Messick's chapter on validity in Robert Linn's Educational Measurement in 1989 clearly distinguished the concept of validity from earlier conceptions that a test was valid to the extent that it measured what it purported to measure. (3) The shift in thinking was toward the validity of inferences inferences made from test scores and the uses and consequences of testing. As defined by Messick, Validity is an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores and other modes of assessment. (4) The 1999 edition of the Standards continued to support a unified concept of validity in which all validity is validity (a is the characteristic or concept that the test is designed to measure), the test professionals (jointly the developer and the user) are expected to specify what construct interpretation will be made based on the test score or score patterns, and the process of validation is the marshaling of evidence from multiple sources related to each of the intended inferences to be made from the test scores and patterns and the uses to which they will be put. The approved sources of evidence in the 1999 version reflect developments in research and test use since 1985. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,027
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,194
Tête enseignante GPT0,475
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle