No abstract

This paper reports on a pilot study that used eye tracking techniques to make detailed observations of item response processes in the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). The lab-based study also recorded physiological responses using measures of pupil diameter and electrodermal activity. The study tested 14 adult respondents as they individually completed the PIAAC computer-based assessment. The eye tracking observations help to fill an 'explanatory gap' by providing data on variation in item response processes that are not captured by other sources of process data such as think aloud protocols or computer-generated log files. The data on fixations and saccades provided detailed information on test item response strategies, enabling profiling of respondent engagement and response processes associated with successful performance. Much of that activity does not include the use of the keyboard and mouse, and involves 'off-screen' use of pen and paper (and calculator) that are not captured by assessment log-files. In conclusion, this paper points toward an important application of eye tracking in large-scale assessments. This includes insights into response processes in new domains such as adaptive problem-solving that aim to identify individuals' ability to select and combine resources from the digital and physical environment.

Informed by Goffman's influential essay on 'The neglected situation' this paper examines the contextual and interactive dimensions of performance in large-scale educational assessments. The paper applies Goffman's participation framework and associated theory in linguistic anthropology to examine how testing situations are framed and enacted as social occasions. It considers assessment as a shared focus of social activity, located in time and space, involving an assemblage of artefacts and actors. The paper presents ethnographic examples of adult literacy and numeracy assessment in Mongolia. The first part provides ethnographic description of a testing situation. The second part looks in detail at how linguistic interaction influences assessment performance.

No abstract

There is no consensus among assessment researchers about many of the central problems of response process data, including what is it and what is it comprised of. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing ( American Educational Research Association et al., 2014 ) locate process data within their five sources of validity evidence. However, we rarely see a conceptualization of response processes; rather, the focus is on the techniques and methods of assembling response process indices or statistical models. The method often overrides clear definitions, and, as a field, we may therefore conflate method and methodology – much like we have conflated validity and validation ( Zumbo, 2007 ). In this paper, we aim to clear the conceptual ground to explore the scope of a holistic framework for the validation of process and product. We review prominent conceptualizations of response processes and their sources and explore some fundamental questions: Should we make a theoretical and practical distinction between response processes and response data? To what extent do the uses of process data reflect the principles of deliberate, educational, and psychological measurement? To answer these questions, we consider the case of item response times and the potential for variation associated with disability and neurodiversity.