FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W113259741> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W113259741 abstract "The curriculum-embedded procedures used to construct, validate, and refine assessment tasks for mathematics are described and discussed. Curriculum-embedded assessment places assessment tasks in the day-to-day context of the classroom. The test of a curriculum-embedded task is whether it could be regarded as curriculum material per se. In Australia, as in other countries, national standards for student achievement have been constructed and published. Any set of assessment tasks linked firmly to these standards should provide standardized reporting. Standardization of curriculum-embedded alternative assessments is possible if attention is paid to problems of test administration and scoring during test development. A bank of teacher-selected and teacher-administered tasks standardized to enable system-wide reporting and scored on a partial credit basis would enable formative assessments to be made. To conform to the ground rules of curriculum embedded assessment the Developmental Assessment Resource for Teachers (DART) project of the Australian Council for Educational Research has developed activities for lower and upper grades. Calibration of these activities will be conducted with a national sample of Australian students. Eleven figures provide examples of the DART activities. (Contains 2 references.) (SLD) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATtON Othce of Educatong Research and Imerovimusrit EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) nis document nes Wen rOrOducisd IS r*ceimod Iron, the omson or orgengstion originating Minor crtangia nave Oion feeds to improve reProdgction Quality. points of .4ow of opinions stated intrue dccu. merit do riot necessarily represent Official OERI posit)on or policy Curriculum-embedded assessment in mathematics Brian Doig The Australian Council for Educational Research PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY goemA) TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). The intention of this paper is to outline the procedures used to construct, validate and refine assessment tasks for upper grade oo mathematics which are classified as curriculum-embedded. VP Curriculum-embedded assessment places assessment tasks within the day-to-day context of the classroom, and whilst such tasks are essentially for assessment, they necessarily have strong curriculum roots. The test of a curriculum-embedded task is whether it could be regarded as curriculum material per se. While school administrators need reliable summative data on student performance, teachers need formative information. In many cases these two needs are at odds with one another. However tasks that provide formative information for teachers can also provide 'standards' information for administrators. Typical characteristics of existing assessment materials are that they are pencil-andpaper, usually with a single correct response within a multiple choice format. Assessment are conducted in silence with individuals working alone for a specified time. In contrast with this day-to-day classroom activities usually employ manipulative materials, verbal responses, discussion, and group work. The time allotted to these activities varies, and there may be more than one correct answer; indeed there may be a focus on the methods used to solve the problem rather than an answer to the problem itself. Curriculum-embedded assessment must attempt to reflect these latter, classroom characteristics, and be as un-intrusive as possible. It is suggested then that curriculumembedded assessment must incorporate; more than pencil-and-gaper tasks; a range of answers to be scored; no all-or-nothing (right/wrong) scoring; matching of the task to the child; providing individual students with their own set of tasks; allowing different tasks to assess the same ability; reporting in a manner similar to traditional assessment forms. A major issue in any assessment practice is management. A definite advantage of traditional assessment practice is that everyone doing the same set of items reduces administration and scoring time; queries about word meanings are easily handled for everyone at once; parents and administrators are satisfied that results are reliable due to the common items and standardised scoring. Any alternative assessment must attempt to provide as few new management problems as possible. Two main IN 3blems of management of the type of assessment being suggested both stem from providing students with different sets of tasks to complete. Managing twenty students who are involved in several different tasks would be a nightmare unless the tasks do not have some standard form. The classroom activities described above do use a recipe format and it seems sensible to follow this pattern. Once one assessment task has been completed, sufficient knowledge of the format should be gained to enable students to be Iindependent of the teacher., so minimising teacher's management problems. 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE The second aspect of management that is problematic with alternative assessments of the type envisaged is their face validity with respect to acceptance as being fair to students. That is, if differem tasks are set for different students, how can comparisons be made or grades given? Essentially, being fair is both a statistical and reporting problem. As with any assessment item, calibration is essential. Every task must have a known difficulty estimated independently of the students who attempted the item. Item difficulties need to be robust enough to give us confidence that our own students need not reflect identically the group with which these items were calibrated in the first place. In any given domain of interest, an item assessing that domain represents an instance of that domain, and there are an infinity of other instances. A student's ability, estimated from their successes and failures on items, must be independent of the particular tasks they undertook. This is of course true for traditional assessment instrumc.nts as well. Independence tells us that it is feasible for students to attempt different casks and yet be assessed on the same domain. Reporting the performances of students on assessment tasks is straightforward when all students do the same items. In the case of curriculum-embedded assessment, the curriculum upon which the assessment tasks are based provides the beginning of a frame of reference for reporting. In Australia as well as other countries, national standards for student achievement have been constructed and published. The Australian 'Profiles in mathematics' are described as a framework for assessment and reporting (AEC, 1991). This being the case, any set of assessment tasks firmly linked to these profiles should provide standardised reporting. Standardisation of administration and scoring is possible if attention is paid to these aspects during the development stage. In order to provide formative information for teachers, simple right/wrong scoring of children's performance is not useful. Scoring should give information about children who fail to complete fully and successsfully any task. Scores need to be assigned to partial answers and such partial credit scores used for reporting on progress; in this way teachers gain formative information whilst summative assessment is being conducted. In essence the result would be a bank of teacher selected and administered tasks, standardised to enable system-wide reporting, and scored on a partial credit basis for formative assessments to be made. Teachers can further gain because tasks may be matched to individual student needs whilst administrators gain because the information gathered is standardized and the reporting of results is within a fixed framework. The primary aim then is to create valid, reliable, standardised assessment tasks in a format that embedded the tasks in day-to-day classroom practice, which allow teachers to select any set of such tasks for administration to any single child or group of children. The necessity for whole class testing has to be removed and assessment tasks must look and feel like normal classroom activities. The ground rules adopted for creating a usable collection of curriculum-embedded tasks were: normal classroom look and feel; user-friendly style to encourage children; teacher choice of appropriate tasks; any set of tasks could be used for a standardised assessment; formative information to be provided from task performance; standardisation of results from specified scoring criteria; tied to a standard reporting framework; 3" @default.
• W113259741 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W113259741 creator A5047298760 @default.
• W113259741 date "1994-04-01" @default.
• W113259741 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W113259741 title "Curriculum-Embedded Assessment in Mathematics." @default.
• W113259741 cites W1558824996 @default.
• W113259741 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W113259741 type Work @default.
• W113259741 sameAs 113259741 @default.
• W113259741 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W113259741 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W113259741 hasAuthorship W113259741A5047298760 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C118840557 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C2777686260 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W113259741 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C118840557 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C144024400 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C145420912 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C19417346 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C199343813 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C2777686260 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C33923547 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C41008148 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C47177190 @default.
• W113259741 hasConceptScore W113259741C71924100 @default.
• W113259741 hasLocation W1132597411 @default.
• W113259741 hasOpenAccess W113259741 @default.
• W113259741 hasPrimaryLocation W1132597411 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W105089055 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W1488873815 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W1552558410 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W1592336098 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W1600642541 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W1838387486 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W1855323143 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W1993620533 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W2069479750 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W2083746037 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W2109958038 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W25613818 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W271389512 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W2728650522 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W2893610789 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W2951176507 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W2971685259 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W3006282792 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W3166820616 @default.
• W113259741 hasRelatedWork W600259201 @default.
• W113259741 isParatext "false" @default.
• W113259741 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W113259741 magId "113259741" @default.
• W113259741 workType "article" @default.