Table of Contents
Task 1
1.1. Assess the impact of potential threats to the validity and reliability of an assessment.
Validity
Validity is the
nature of being legitimately or verifiably sound; soundness or cogency. Or
Validity is the
condition of being legitimately or authoritatively tying or adequate. Baker, E. (L., & Linn, 2004).
Construct validity
Construct validity is the suitability of surmising mentioned on the premise of objective facts or assessments, particularly whether a test measures the proposed construct. (Cronin, Gage Kingsbury, McCall, & Bowe, 2005)
Content validity
In
psychometrics, content validity (otherwise called legitimate validity) alludes
to the degree to which a measure speaks to all aspects of a given social
construct. (Herman,
smundson, Ayala, Schneider, & Timms, 2006)
Reliability
Reliability is a property of any segment that reliably performs as indicated by its details. It has long been viewed as one of three related characteristics that must be considered when making assessment. (Marsh, 2007)
Threats to validity and reliability of assessment
Threats to validity
and reliability are those elements that cause or are wellsprings of mistake.
All things considered, the flimsiness or conflict in the assessment you are
utilizing originates from such mistake. Two of the principle wellsprings of
blunder are given underneath;
ü assessor's lapse
There are
numerous circumstances amid the assessment process where you are in charge of
taking assessments. Amid this assessment process, as the assessor, you can
present mistake when convey our assessments. This is known as assessor mistake.
ü environmental changes
Amid the time
between assessments, there may be little ecological changes that impact the
assessment being taken, making mistake. These progressions in the nature make
it difficult to guarantee that the same individual is surveyed with the same
technique.
(Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005)
1.2. Discuss measures that can minimise threats to
validity and reliability. You should relate your discussion to the potential
threats identified during your discussion of 1.1 and analyse critically measures
that are application in the organisation you are familiar with.
Measures that can minimize threats to validity and reliability
These are the a portion of the strategies which
are utilization to minimize threats to validity and reliability;
·
successive assessments
·
A single assessment point.
Successive
assessments
It is regular in assessment for successive
assessments to be taken. In this strategy we need to verify that the assessment
systems that are utilized produce assessments that are dependable. Off and on
again the assessment techniques are the same for the pretest and the post-test,
whilst on different events an alternate assessment method is utilized as a part
of the post-test. In both cases, we have to verify that the assessment methodologies
that are utilized are dependable. Then again, we utilize diverse tests of reliability
to accomplish this: (a) test-retest reliability on partitioned days; and (b)
parallel-structures reliability. (Freedman S. W., 2007)
Single
assessment point
Not at all like the test-retest reliability,
parallel-structures reliability and between rater reliability, has testing for
validity and reliability just required the assessment technique to be finished
once. At the point when confronted with such a situation (i.e., where the
assessment methodology is just finished once), we analyze the validity and
reliability of the assessment strategy that has been made regarding its
consistency; that is, the conflict of the distinctive things that make up the
assessment instrument. (Guénette, 2007)
Measures
that are application in the association
Part half
reliability
There are diverse measures that are application
in the association, we are examining on e of them because of the lack of space.
It is part half reliability.
Part half reliability is predominantly utilized
for composed tests, however it is here and there utilized as a part of
physical/human execution tests. Nonetheless, it is focused around the
supposition that the assessment method can be separated into two matched parts.
Part half reliability is surveyed by part the
measures/things from the assessment
method into equal parts, and afterward figuring the scores for every
half independently. Before figuring the part half reliability of the scores,
you need to choose how to part the measures/things from the assessment methods.
(Hagège, 2005)
1.3. Evaluate processes used by awarding bodies and in organisations to ensure validity and reliability.
Taking after are the processes use by
awarding bodies and in organizations to guarantee validity and reliability.
Coaches and learners are ceaselessly
occupied with the process of assessment, which now and again may be casual or
unplanned. Assessment may be beginning, developmental or summative.
Starting
Assessment
Generally arranged and executed
introductory assessment is basic to the impelling process. This begins at the
enrolment stage with a precourse poll to build learners' premiums, experience
and inspiration. It might be a piece of the 'getting to know you' movement in
affectation. It is paramount that there is additionally some type of
aptitude/information assessment which can be accepted by the guide's discourse
with individual learners about what they can would and like to have the
capacity to do. Introductory assessment:
·
establishes
the current level of expertise and information of learners
·
establishes
how every learner learns
·
introduces
learners to a portion of the aptitudes and learning they will need to secure on
the system
·
provides
data to help guides arrange the project
·
can
give a supportive prologue to assessment methods
(Hamp-Lyons, 2003)
Developmental
Assessment
This happens all through the course and
includes guaranteeing that learning is occurring including:
·
Finding
out what learning and abilities the learners have gained
·
assisting
to arrange the following steps
·
enabling
the guide to give input
·
encouraging
and rousing the learners
·
helping
the guide to alter the course if fundamental
·
enabling
learners to distinguish what they have realized and what they need to realize
next
Summative
Assessment
This is utilized toward the end of a
course to:
·
enable
learners to perceive their accomplishments
·
justify
awarding a capability or other distinguishment of accomplishment
·
assist
the coach plan future courses
·
guide
learners through their next steps (Han,
2001)
Feedback
Inputs are an essential piece of
learning. The assessors are obliged to give input after every assessment paying
little heed to the method(s) used to empower the learners and give backing
concentrated on the particular needed of the candidates.
Task 2
2.1 Critically review the sources and implications of inaccuracy and inconsistency in assessments.
While assessment has the potential to improve
learning for all students, historically inaccuracy and inconsistency has acted
as a barrier rather than a bridge to educational opportunity. Assessments have
been used to label students and inaccuracy and inconsistency put them in dead
end tracks.
Main sources and implication of
inaccuracy and inconsistency in assessments are given below;
- central tendency – error in which an individual rates people or objects by using the middle of the scale
- leniency – error in which an individual rates people or objects by using the positive end of the scale
- severity – error in which an individual rates people or objects by using the negative end of the scale
- halo error – when a rater’s evaluation on one dimension of a scale (such as work quality) is influenced by his or her perceptions from another dimension (such as punctuality)
The assessments are not
aligned with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions being assessed. Accuracy
is closely related to the statistical term “validity.” However, establishing validity requires
statistical analysis. Accuracy can also be supported by documenting the
relationship between assessment results and candidate performance on related
assessments, grades, and program completion. (Knoblauch, and Brannon,2011)
Few recommendations are given below;
Information
about a test’s reliability and validity would be only of academic interest if we
were unable to improve a test we are not satisfied with. The first hurdle to
get across is one of interpretation. How large or small can a coefficient be
and still be useful? The answer depends on the use to which the test will be
put. For group decisions, the measure can indeed be rough, but where individual
students are concerned, we need more precision. Let’s assume that our principal
purpose is to assign letter grades, A through D, say. Reliability of the data
will affect the precision and repeatability of our grade assignments. (Kroll, 2010)
Organization
should identify and publicize processes and procedures that are used to ensure
consistency and accuracy of moderation of marking. The processes may include
double marking, blind double marking, second marking, moderation and other
relevant processes.
Which pieces of
work are subject to specific processes e.g. those contributing to the degree classification,
summative assessment, written, oral, practical work; What proportion of the
cohort’s work is subject to the processes e.g. all, a stated percentage,
borderlines, fails, 1sts, distinctions; Marking of work from deaf or dyslexic
students; Processes for assuring comparability of marks for alternative
assessments, for instance, those agreed as reasonable adjustments for disabled
students; Prioritizing causes of low inter- and intra-marker reliability;
determining preventive measures; determining contingency measures; selection
and justification of the suitable measures; implementation of measures selected
organization of procedure to ensure reliable and consistent moderation of marks
using second marking. For assessments which do not require the exercise of a
substantial element of academic judgment by markers, second marking shall be at
the discretion of the module leader. For assessed work NOT contributing to the
final award, second marking by sampling should be carried out at the discretion
of the module leader. All student work assessed by members of staff who have
not undergone specific assessment training shall be second marked. Where
alternative assessment is used, the module leader will moderate across assessments
to ensure consistency of standards.
(Kroll, 2005)
2.3. Examine quality assurance processes to improve marking reliability. You should consider examining awarding body processes and organizational processes.
To
improve marking reliability;
An
assessor must:
- have relevant qualifications, knowledge and/or experience in the subject area being assessed
- have relevant qualifications, training and experience in the assessment process
- ensure that learners are fully briefed on assessment procedures and methods, including appeals procedures
- involve learners in the assessment planning process
- provide constructive feedback to learners on assessments, discuss targets and areas for development on an individual basis
- adhere to the awarding body’s assessment specification in the judgment of evidence towards an award
- record outcomes of assessment using appropriate documentation (Leki, 2005)
An
assessor has responsibility for the following:
- developing plans for assessing competence with learners
- Provide feedback to the administrator in relation to registration with the relevant Awarding body once learner commitment is established for courses; otherwise provide feedback after the first scheduled review.
- judging evidence criteria to make assessment decisions
- providing feedback and support to learners on assessment decisions
- contributing to the internal quality assurance process (Norris, and Ortega, 2006)
It
is the assessor’s responsibility to choose the best methods of assessing a
candidate in relation to their individual circumstances. The methods chosen
must be valid, reliable, safe and manageable and suitable to the needs of the
candidate.
Task 3
3.1 Identify different forms of evidence that can be collected in assessments. You may base your evidence on a specific form of assessment such as formative or summative).
Formative
assessment is purposefully directed toward the student. It does not emphasize
how teachers deliver information but, rather, how students receive that
information, how well they understand it, and how they can apply it. With formative
assessment, teachers gather information about their students' progress and
learning needs and use this information to make instructional adjustments. They
also show students how to accurately and honestly use self-assessments to
improve their own learning. Instructional flexibility and student-focused
feedback work together to build confident and motivated learners.
Through formative assessment we collect evidence for
the following matters;
- Emphasizes learning outcomes
- Makes goals and standards transparent to students
- Provides clear assessment criteria
- Closes the gap between what students know and desired outcomes
- Provides feedback that is comprehensible, actionable, and relevant
- Provides valuable diagnostic information by generating informative data
- each student's learning needs and styles and adapted instruction accordingly
- Individual student achievement is tracked
- Provided appropriate challenging and motivational instructional activities
- Designed intentional and objective student self-assessments
- Offered all students opportunities for improvement
- Provides a way to align standards, content, and assessment
- Allows for the purposeful selection of strategies
- Embeds assessment in instruction
- Guides instructional decisions
3.2. Critically evaluate methods and systems available for collecting and recording evidence.
We will analyze
the formative assessment’s methods and system available for collecting and
recording evidence.
Formative
assessments are more informal in nature but must also serve as valid indicators
of student performance if they are to be useful in informing the teaching
process. Curriculum-based assessment represents a standardized process of
formative assessment that relies on the use of valid measures of student
progress in a given academic area. Additionally, a strong evidence base
supports the use of interactive feedback to increase student achievement. (Nott, 2005)
The most common methods and systems available for
collecting and recording in formative assessment include the following;
Curriculum-based
assessment (CBM): This set of standardized measures is used to determine student
progress and performance. An example is the use of oral reading fluency (the number
of words a student can read correctly during a timed reading of a passage) as
an indicator of a student's overall reading ability.
Feedback:
A teacher provides oral or written feedback to student discussion or work. For
example, a teacher responds orally to a question asked in class; provides a
written comment in a response or reflective journal; or provides feedback on
student work. (Nott, 2006)
Self-assessment:
Students reflect on and monitor their progress. This activity may be performed
in conjunction with a CBM, in relation to predetermined academic and behavioral
goals, or with learning contracts.
Observation:
A teacher observes and records a student's level of engagement, academic and/or
affective behavior; develops a plan of action to support that student;
implements the plan; and continues to record observations to determine its
effectiveness. (Nott, 2005)
Portfolios:
A growth portfolio can be used to create a record of student growth in a number
of areas. For example, a teacher may use writing portfolios to collect evidence
of a student's progress in developing writing skills.
3.3 Evaluate the quality and integrity of assessment evidence collected during an assessment you are familiar with.
Firs I am going
to narrate an assessment of tutor of the organization then I will analyze it.
Service Learning
Project
In a course on
labor economics, students investigated the role of labor in the economy.
The instructor
was extremely explicit in outlining his goals and objectives for the service
learning project and describing the assignment itself:
Goal: To increase students’ understanding of
and concern for outcomes of labor markets which are harmful to individuals and
families, such as long-term unemployment, underemployment, and discrimination,
and ways to alleviate these harmful outcomes?
The instructor
then identified several related knowledge, skills, attitude and values, and service
objectives that he hoped students will meet through the project. These included
to:
• learn about an
organization which is working to help those who are having difficulty in the
labor market
• learn about at
least three individual cases of unemployment or underemployment
• improve
ability to apply economic theories to actual situations
• improve
ability to use actual experiences to evaluate the adequacy of economic theories
• form or deepen
a concern for those who are unemployed or underemployed (Russell, and Spada, 2006)
The project
asked students to spend 15-20 hours over the course of 8-10 weeks working for
an organization that helped the unemployed or underemployed to find appropriate
jobs. Students submitted two assignments associated with this experience:
1. An
organizational profile including the mission, structure, personnel, and
finances of the organization as well as the manner in which the organization
measures its effectiveness
2. A journal in
which students reflect upon and analyze their experience. Each entry includes a
description of the day’s activities and how the experience contributed to the
student’s learning and/or personal growth
In the source I
consulted, the instructor does not give explicit criteria for evaluating each
assignment. However, these would be relatively simple to develop, because the
instructor has defined explicitly the form of students’ reflection on their
experience in terms of relatively traditional assignments.
For example,
criteria for the organizational profile, a very straightforward assignment,
might include coverage of all aspects of the organization noted (e.g., mission,
finances) and clarity of explanation; within each criteria the instructor would
also establish minimal standards of performance for an “A,” “B,” etc. For the
journal entries, the criteria might be similar to those presented in Example 1
with some modifications. In addition to criteria concerning the paper’s general
organization and quality of writing, others might include choice of appropriate
theory, use of specific examples from the service learning experience to
illustrate theory, and depth of analysis. (Truscott,
2007)
3.4 Critically evaluate the methods currently used to store and handle personal information and assessment evidence.
Operation Critical Data: Data
determined to be critical and essential to the successful operation of the organization
as a whole, and whose loss or corruption would cause a severe detrimental
impact to continued operations.
Evaluation of the methods currently used
to store and handle personal information and assessment evidence is given
below;
1. Data Stewardship
Data Stewards
create, communicate and enforce Data Maintenance and Control Methods. Data
Stewards have knowledge of functions in their areas and the data and
information used in support of those functions.
2. Data Maintenance and Control
Method
Data Stewards
develop and maintain Data Maintenance and Control Methods for their assigned
systems.
When authorizing and assigning access controls are defined in the Data Maintenance and Control Methods involving Confidential Data, Data Stewards restrict user privileges to the least access necessary to perform job functions based on job role and responsibility.
When authorizing and assigning access controls are defined in the Data Maintenance and Control Methods involving Confidential Data, Data Stewards restrict user privileges to the least access necessary to perform job functions based on job role and responsibility.
3. Data Custodianship
Data Custodians
use data in compliance with the established Data Maintenance and Control
Method. Failure to process or handle Data in compliance with the established
method for a system is considered a violation of the rules of the
organizations and sanctions are applied.
4. Data Usage
In all cases, Data provided to the organization
is used in accordance with the Privacy Statement accessed from the organization.
5. Storing data
Data cannot be stored on a system other than a
University Provided Data System without the advance permission of the Data
Steward and demonstrated legitimate need.
Organization’s standard procedures for the
protection and safeguarding of Confidential Data and Operation Critical Data are
applied equally and without exception to the organization’s Provided Data
Systems, Mobile Computing Devices and systems other than organization’s Provided
Data Systems, such as Hosted Solutions.
6. Systems and network data
Systems and
network Data, generated through systems or network administration, logs or
other system recording activities, cannot be used, or captured, gathered,
analyzed or disseminated, without the advance permission of the Chief
Information Officer, organization Technology Services.
7. Value of data
In all cases where Data are processed through a
Hosted Solution, the following assessment is done:
- The value of the Data is determined in some tangible way.
- Signature approval from the Data Steward’s division vice president or appropriate party with the ability to authorize activity at the level of the value of the Data is obtained.
References
1.
Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2004). Validity issues
for accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education (pp. 47–72). New York: Teachers
College Press
2.
Cronin, J., Gage Kingsbury, G., McCall, M. S., &
Bowe, B. (2005). The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on student
achievement and growth: 2005 edition. Technical Report. Northwest
Evaluation Association.
3.
Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., Ayala, C., Schneider, S.,
& Timms, M. (2006). The nature and impact of teachers' formative assessment
practices. CSE Technical Report #703. National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
4.
Marsh, C. J. (2007). A critical analysis of the use of
formative assessment in schools. Educational Research and Policy Practice, 6,
25–29.
5.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005).
Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of
research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
6.
Freedman S. W. (1987) Response to
student writing. Urbana, Ill. National Council of Teachers of English.
7.
Guénette, D. (2007) Is feedback
pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (1), pp.40-53.
8.
Hagège, C. (2005) L’enfant aux deux
langues. Paris. Poches Odile Jacob.
9.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003) Writing teachers as
assessors of writing. In: Kroll, B (ed.) Exploring the dynamics of second
language writing. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, pp.162-89.
10. Han, Z. H. (2011)
Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, pp.582-95.
11. Knoblauch, C. H. and Brannon, L. (2011) Teacher commentary
on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10, pp. 1-4.
12. Kroll, B. (ed.) (2010) Second language writing: research
insights for the classroom. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
13. Kroll, B. (ed.) (2013) Exploring the dynamics of second
language writing. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
14. Leki, I. (2005) Coaching from the margins: issues in written
response. In: Kroll, B. (ed.) Second language writing: research insights for
the classroom. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-68.
15. Norris, J M and Ortega, L (eds.) (2006) Synthesizing
research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.
16. Nott, D. (2005) Points de départ. Manuel de l’étudiant.
London. Hodder & Stoughton.
17. Nott, D. (2006) What language should we aim to teach, how,
and why? In: Guillot, M.-N. and M.-M. Kenning (eds.) Changing landscapes in
language and language pedagogy: Text, orality and voice. London. Association
for French Language Studies in association with the Centre for Information on
Language Teaching and Research, pp. 227-248.
18. Nott, D. (2005) Translation from and into the foreign
language. LLAS Good Practice Guide. Available from:
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/427 [Accessed 26 February 2008].
19. Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006) The effectiveness of
corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In: J M Norris and L
Ortega (eds.) Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching.
Amsterdam. John Benjamins, pp.133-164.
20. Truscott, J. (2007) The effect of error correction on
learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16
(4), pp.255-272.