FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W224748290> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W224748290 abstract "Classrooms are a primary site of evidence about learning. Yet classroom proceedings often occur behind closed doors and hence evidence of student learning is observable only to the classroom teacher. The informal and undocumented nature of this information means that it is rarely included in statistical models or quantifiable analyses. This research investigated whether or not whole-class discussions, focused on a single articulated learning trajectory, contained information that could be used as quantifiable evidence of student knowledge to better understand learning processes. Specifically, the research considered what evidence of student knowledge was observable from three modes: whole-class discussions during instruction, cognitive interviews, and written quiz assessments.The theoretical framework of this study relied on the concept of learning progressions to integrate strengths of what are usually thought to be divergent approaches to educational research. Specifically, this framework included key aspects of formative and summative assessments, used qualitative and quantitative methods, and capitalized on both teachers' and education measurement researchers' notions of validity, to investigate consistency of multiple forms of evidence of student learning. The methods used in this study systematically connected instruction, learning, and assessment through a shared model of learning. This study focused on a model of learning in the domain of statistics in middle school mathematics. A trajectory of student learning was described in the Data Modeling and Statistical Reasoning learning progression, and the focus of this study was one dimension of the learning progression, the Conceptions of Statistics construct.Items, item archetypes, item sets, and parallel item sets were designed to elicit particular ranges of performances described in the construct map. In order to study the degree to which consistency between student responses could be found, administration of the three instruments was tightly controlled to limit learning gains and losses over time. Decision rules were created to systematically establish units of analysis from discussion and interview responses that were comparable with quiz responses. Parallel interpretation guides were designed so that raters could score response units consistently across the assessment modes. Raters' scores were examined to investigate the reliability of response interpretations, and multimodal scoring was used to investigate the relationship between the three sources of evidence.Results suggest that evidence of knowledge observed in the three modes, while distinct in their levels of detail, consistently validated one other, and the learning construct itself. Interrater score differences, kappa coefficients, correlations, and percent agreements were moderate to strong at every level of analysis, indicating that, when aligned in this way, interpretations of responses resulted in reliable scoring. Rater reflections noted that there were six factors that may influence the quality of evidence observed. Specifically, they were: the level of verbosity, interpretability, responsiveness to topic, uniqueness of contribution, and frequency and density of evidence affected the degree to which raters were confident in their determination of scores.Analyses comparing interview and quiz scores, discussion and quiz scores, and discussion, interview, and quiz scores found that the mean score differences were low and percent agreement was moderate to strong. The analyses found that scores in the discussion and quiz had stronger consistency than either mode had with the interview. Similarly, correlations between the discussions, interviews, and quizzes across all students and all items indicated that a statistically significant correlation was found between discussions and quizzes, and discussions and interviews but not between interviews and quizzes. Those correlations were modest suggesting that although a positive relationship was found, they were not so highly correlated as to be considered equivalent. Overall, results from the study found that student responses in discussions, interviews, and quizzes could be consistently scored to determine students' levels of understanding.This work is a significant contribution to the field for a number of reasons. This study is the first of its kind to apply the construct map as a tool for coordinating classroom discussions, assessment design, evidence interpretation, and analytical decisions. Further, this study relied on the use of assessments in classroom discussions as one of the three sources of evidence of student knowledge, and established a systematic process for collecting and analyzing both text and numerical data for quantitative analysis. Specifically, this study took a systematic approach to the interpretation and scoring of evidence so that nuanced scoring of evidence from interviews and discussions could be summarized into units of analysis comparable with quiz scores. Finally, this work is a significant contribution to the field because it supports making a shift in the means by which teachers and researchers look for and identify changes in student knowledge." @default.
• W224748290 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W224748290 creator A5010889780 @default.
• W224748290 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W224748290 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W224748290 title "Triangulating Evidence to Investigate the Validity of Measures: Evidence from Discussion during Instruction, Cognitive Interviews, and Written Assessments" @default.
• W224748290 cites W1487417812 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1493628934 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1539946053 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1554391439 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1587881329 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1700899536 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1967555382 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1983811012 @default.
• W224748290 cites W1993407975 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2013477260 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2016295847 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2027215481 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2028829385 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2034670831 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2041281182 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2048380445 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2056568504 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2057671577 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2096068740 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2113028118 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2114433744 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2119846567 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2132343215 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2135302113 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2171955724 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2576446832 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2590226783 @default.
• W224748290 cites W269382709 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2796537024 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2805642349 @default.
• W224748290 cites W281417399 @default.
• W224748290 cites W2989799786 @default.
• W224748290 cites W3108832526 @default.
• W224748290 cites W3210169901 @default.
• W224748290 cites W325314667 @default.
• W224748290 cites W628882727 @default.
• W224748290 cites W634095089 @default.
• W224748290 cites W75009871 @default.
• W224748290 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W224748290 type Work @default.
• W224748290 sameAs 224748290 @default.
• W224748290 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W224748290 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W224748290 hasAuthorship W224748290A5010889780 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C152747807 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C37228920 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C42525527 @default.
• W224748290 hasConcept C77967617 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C145420912 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C152747807 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C154945302 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C15744967 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C2777212361 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C37228920 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C41008148 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C42525527 @default.
• W224748290 hasConceptScore W224748290C77967617 @default.
• W224748290 hasLocation W2247482901 @default.
• W224748290 hasOpenAccess W224748290 @default.
• W224748290 hasPrimaryLocation W2247482901 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W1489067737 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W1940319840 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W1977658207 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W1987900136 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2006318610 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2016931561 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2022002116 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2044894510 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2075650526 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2085806370 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2161953726 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2170603257 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2188538939 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2269620647 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2343970458 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W2964751828 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W3162567570 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W75240444 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W754602129 @default.
• W224748290 hasRelatedWork W767483615 @default.
• W224748290 isParatext "false" @default.
• W224748290 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W224748290 magId "224748290" @default.
• W224748290 workType "book-chapter" @default.