Diagnostic Assessment With Ordered Multiple-Choice Items

Briggs, Derek C.; Alonzo, Alicia C.; Schwab, Cheryl; Wilson, Mark

doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_2

Cited by 221 publications

(199 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…is was essentially a call for the development of learning progressions. Work along these lines was undertaken by Mark Wilson and his colleagues at the Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research (BEAR) Center (Briggs, Alonzo, Schwab, & Wilson, 2006;Roberts, Wilson, & Draney, 1997) who approached the development of assessments by developing detailed descriptions of how student understanding of speci c science content might develop over time. ey then measured student progress by focusing on progress variables which they de ned as the critical dimensions of knowledge or skill that were being taught.…”

Section: Improved Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform

Corcoran¹,

Mosher²,

Rogat³

2009

276

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American education policy seems poised to escalate and shift its two decade long commitment to standards and outcome-based reform. That commitment has involved a set of "grand bargains", in which the federal government provides Title I (The "No Child Left Behind Act" or NCLB) disadvantaged education funds in return for the states' agreeing to set ambitious content standards, and define performance or "proficiency" standards associated with them that all students in the states' schools will be expected to meet by the 2013/ 2014 school year. The disadvantaged children targeted by Title I are expected to meet the same standards as all of the rest of the children in each state. In return for agreeing to hold their schools accountable for meeting these expectations, the states are left free to set their standards and their related measures of proficiency as they wish, within some broadly defined parameters. And the local school systems and schools in each state, in return for their share of the Title I/NCLB money are left free, for the most part, to choose their preferred approaches to instruction as long as they agree to be held accountable for ensuring that all their students are making adequate progress towards meeting the state's proficiency goals. So, the general form of each bargain is an agreement to reduce or forgo regulation of inputs in return for a commitment to define, and meet, outcome expectations.But, having agreed to do something they had never before tried to do-to succeed with essentially all students-schools and educators face the problem that they don't know how to meet their side of the bargain. Proponents and observers of reform claim to be shocked that some states are setting their performance standards in ways that minimize or disguise the degree to which their students are likely to fail to meet the hopes of reform. In addition, schools and teachers are resorting to approaches, such as relentless test preparation and focusing on students who are just at the edge of meeting proficiency requirements, that try to meet the letter of the bargains' requirements while leaving the more ambitious spirit of the reforms' hopes well behind, along with all too many children. Established in 1985, CPRE unites researchers from seven of the nation's leading research institutions in e orts to improve elementary and secondary education through practical research on policy, nance, school reform, and school governance. CPRE studies alternative approaches to education reform to determine how state and local policies can promote student learning. e Consortium's member institutions are the

show abstract

Section: Improved Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform

Corcoran¹,

Mosher²,

Rogat³

2009

276

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(King et al, 2008;Libarkin, 2006;Stokes, 2011 Briggs et al, 2006;Alonzo & Steedle, 2009;Maeng et al, 2013, Maeng et al, 2014, 2단계 선다형 문항(two-tiered multiple-choice items, Neumann et al, 2013) …”

Section: -12mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Sectional Item Response Analysis of Geocognition Assessment for the Development of Plate Tectonics Learning Progressions: Rasch Model

Seungho¹,

Lee²

2015

Journal of The Korean Association For Research In Science Educa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, assessment items to examine geocognition on plate tectonics were developed and applied to middle and high school students and college students. Conceptual constructs on plate tectonics are Earth interior structure, specific geomorphology, and geologic phenomena at each plate boundary. Construct for geocognition included temporal reasoning, spatial reasoning, retrospective reasoning, and system thinking. Pictorial data in each item were all obtained from GeoMapApp. Students' responses to the items were analyzed and measured cross-sectionally by Rasch model, which distinguishes persons' ability levels based on their scores for all items and compared them with item difficulty. By Rasch model analysis, Wright maps for middle and high school students and college students were obtained and compared with each other. Differential Item Functioning analysis was also implemented to compare students' item responses across school grades. The results showed: 1) Geocognition on plate tectonics was an assessable construct for middle and high school students in current science curriculum, 2) The most distinguished geocognition factor was spatial reasoning based on cross sectional analysis across school grades, 3) Geocognition on plate tectonics could be developed towards more sophisticated level through scaffolding of relevant instruction and earth science content knowledge, and 4) Geocognition was not a general reasoning separated from a task content but a content-specific reasoning related to the content of an assessment item. We proposed several suggestions for learning progressions for plate tectonics and national curriculum development based on the results of the study.

show abstract

“…Our data come from a larger study [13] of seven experienced physics teachers' interactions with score reports derived from a force and motion (FM) LP [14] and set of 16 associated ordered multiple-choice (OMC) [15] items. The teachers were all recommended as employing high-quality formative assessment practices.…”

Section: A Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Physics Teachers Model Student Thinking and Plan Instructional Responses When Using Learning-Progression-Based Assessment Information

Alonzo¹,

Elby²

2015

2015 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One vision for the classroom use of learning progressions (LPs) involves using diagnostic assessments to determine a student's LP "level" in order to make instructional decisions. However, little is known about how experienced teachers reason about assessment information and thus how LP-based information might support their instructional decision-making. In this paper, we explore five experienced teachers' interactions with the same set of LP-based score reports to address the following questions: (1) What assumptions do teachers make about student thinking as they interact with LP-based assessment information? (2) What instructional reasoning is supported by these assumptions? We find that teachers conceptualize and use the LP levels differently from how the LP designers intended, but that the LP-based diagnostic information can be helpful to them in other, sometimes unanticipated, ways.

show abstract

Diagnostic Assessment With Ordered Multiple-Choice Items

Cited by 221 publications

References 24 publications

Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform

Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform

Cross-Sectional Item Response Analysis of Geocognition Assessment for the Development of Plate Tectonics Learning Progressions: Rasch Model

How Physics Teachers Model Student Thinking and Plan Instructional Responses When Using Learning-Progression-Based Assessment Information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About