Construct Validity in Formative Assessment: Purpose and Practices

Abstract

Teacher judgments have always been the foundation for assessing the quality of student work. More often than not, teachers use their own personal knowledge of the subject area, their understanding and feelings toward the student, and the years of experience in teaching to assess students' academic capabilities. Today, teaching methodology has taken a leap toward integration, by which the fields of psychology, education, and the sciences have coalesced to better fit the needs and strengths of all learners. st Technology in the 21 century has also taken a leap, and with it the availability of standardised testing. While standardised testing can be a convenient tool for teachers as it is less time consuming, it doesn't always fit the needs of students. For teachers, standardised testing can also have an ambiguous element for, once the test has been given, many teachers are hesitant as how to interpret these results. This paper will delve into the idea of teacher hesitancy and the judgments they bring with them about the test and their students. As well as looking specifically at formative assessment, a common testing form in many schools, construct validity can be elucidated to help educators interpret the results. Validity The origin of the word validity comes from Latin, validus, By meaning strong. Validity requires strong evidence in order to be able to support a claim or an idea. For the purpose of this paper, validity will be linked with the idea that wellfounded evidence will be interpreted through test scores. Kane (2001) stated that "the process of validation involves accumulating evidence to provide a sound scientific basis for the proposed score interpretations (p. 328, as cited by the 1999 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing). Kane (1992) stressed that these scores also need to have a level of appropriateness, wherein the process itself and the conclusions of the analysis correlate with other factors, such as student variables and teacher judgments. Consequently, the General Validity Theory implies that the actual interpretation of the test scores and how it is utilised is more important than the actual grade or numerical value the test displayed (Nichols, Meyers & Burling, 2009). The framework of this theory has two parts: actions and structures (Nichols, Meyers & Burling, 2009). The action part conveys the instructional practices of the teacher, for example, how lesson plans are presented and how subsequent testing should cover "a student's current understanding of the subject matter" as presented by the teacher (Nichols, Meyers & Burling, 2009, p. 15). The structures portion implies that the material is taught in a manner that is conducive for student learning (Nichols, Meyers & Burling, 2009). For example, teaching should

Argumentation Surrounding Argument‐Based Validation: A Systematic Review of Validation Methodology in Peer‐Reviewed Articles

“…(2015) examined the validation of concept inventories often used in engineering education. Rix (2012) attempted to explain validation for English teachers in the context of formative assessment. Wallace (2011) discussed validation in the context of program evaluations.…”