Including Pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disability in National Assessment: Comparison of Three Country Case Studies through an Inclusive Assessment Framework

The assessment of educational progress and outcomes of pupils is important to all concerned with education. This includes testing which is undertaken for accountability and award bearing purposes. This article examines how students with special educational needs and disability (SEND) are included in assessment. An “inclusive assessment” framework is outlined based around three core features: (1) all students are included and benefit from assessment; (2) assessments are accessible and appropriate for the diverse range of children in the education system; and (3) the full breadth of the curriculum is assessed (including curriculum areas of particular relevance to students with SEND). Assessment policies and practice in three countries (England, Ireland and the US) are drawn upon to demonstrate how the framework usefully enables between-country comparisons and within-country analysis. This analysis shows that in comparison to Ireland, the US and England have highly developed system-based approaches to assessment which seek to “include all” (feature 1) and be “accessible and appropriate” (feature 2). However, the analysis highlights that a consequence of such assessment approaches is the narrowing of the curriculum around topics that are assessed (most notably literacy and mathematics). Such approaches therefore may be at the expense of wider curriculum areas that have value for all students, but often of particular value for those with SEND (feature 3). It is argued that within such systems there may be a danger of neglecting the third feature of the inclusive assessment framework, i.e. ensuring that the full breadth of the curriculum is assessed. A consequence of such an omission could be a failure to assess and celebrate progress in relation to educational outcomes that are relevant to a diverse range of students.     

教育测量的未来趋势

本文根据作者于2018年4月在纽约召开的(美国)全国教育测量学会(NCME)年会上的主席演讲稿修改而成。作者首先介绍了未来教育测量发展变化的11个可能特征、每个特征之所以重要的原因,以及应该如何看待这些变化。随后概述了未来教育测量领域不太可能发生变化的几个方面。最后对今后十年的教育发展进行了展望,并就这些发展对教育测量工作者可能产生的影响进行了讨论。     

试论教育行政规定的规范化与科学化

教育界主张教育应当“去行政化”,但学者们从外部寻找的“去行政化”路径,效果不明显,亦不合理。在考查内部的教育行政规定后发现,教育行政化的根源是教育行政规定的非规范化和非科学化。因此,应首先推动教育行政规定规范化与科学化的改革。     

Love as a Language for Educational Justice

Abstract

Schools need to do a better job of recognizing the contributions and gifts students bring with them. Such a community-spirit approach could help everyone, from teachers and parents to district leaders and the Secretary of Education, dissuade the public from individualistic school structures and instead focus on equitable solutions that include the norms and histories of the people schools serve.     

论高校教务管理的规范化

教务管理是高校管理工作的核心,是建立稳定的教学秩序和良好的教学运行机制的保证,教务管理的效率要求教务管理有较高的规范化水平。在教务管理过程中,一方面,要不断规范教务管理工作全过程,形成规范的模式,另一方面,要不断提高教务管理人员素质,增强服务意识,使教务管理的规范化水平得到不断的提高。     

NCME Presidential Address 2020: Valuing Educational Measurement

The community of educational measurement researchers and practitioners has made many positive contributions to education, but has also become complacent and lost the public trust. In this article, reasons for the lack of public trust in educational testing are described, and core values for educational measurement are proposed. Reasons for distrust of educational measurement include hypocritical practices that conflict with our professional standards, a biased and selected presentation of the history of testing, and inattention to social problems associated with educational measurement. The five core values proposed to help educational measurement serve education are: (a) everyone is capable of learning; (b) there are no differences in the capacity to learn across groups defined by race, ethnicity, or sex; (c) all educational tests are fallible to some degree; (d) educational tests can provide valuable information to improve student learning and certify competence; and (e) all uses of educational test scores must be sufficiently justified by validity evidence. The importance of these core values for improving the science and practice of educational measurement to benefit society is discussed.     

教育评价范式变革的“史”与“思”

我国当前教育评价范式的变革过程,正沿着"非此即彼"的变革路向推进,其中呈现出诸多的矛盾与冲突。基于"课程标准"的教育评价范式作为平衡点,可以看出,教育评价范式对变革中产生的矛盾和冲突是从量化测评到质性描述、从情境无涉到情境关联,从独自控制到对话协商、从预设判断到动态生成。这一变革始终遵循着从总结性评价向形成性评价转变的逻辑,对基于课程标准评价范式的反思应注意课程标准的科学性、合理性及课程标准与评价标准的关系。     

Educational Assessment Knowledge and Skills for Teachers

The 1990 Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students ( AFT, NCME, & NEA, 1990 ) made a documentable contribution to the field. However, the Standards have become a bit dated, most notably in two ways: (1) the Standards do not consider current conceptions of formative assessment knowledge and skills, and (2) the Standards do not consider teacher knowledge and skills required to successfully work in the current accountability and “standards‐based reform” context. This article briefly reviews the 1990 Standards and their influence, describes some other lists of assessment knowledge and skills that might be considered in updating them, and then proposes educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers that reflect current teacher assessment needs. This set of competencies should help focus the work of teachers, teacher supervisors, professional developers, teacher educators, and others responsible for teachers’ assessment knowledge and skills.     

Assessment of science learning: Living in interesting times

Beginning with a reference to living in a time of both uncertainty and opportunity, this article presents a discussion of key areas where shared understanding is needed if we are to successfully realize the design and use of high quality, valid assessments of science. The key areas discussed are: (1) assessment purpose and use, (2) the nature of assessment and the importance of research on learning, (3) assessment design processes, (4) validity arguments, (5) measurement and statistical inference, (6) affordances of technology, and (7) systems of assessment. After introducing each vital area, the article discusses how each of the five articles in the special issue is connected to the areas. Concluding comments emphasize the reminder that despite the large amount of work to be done, we are well positioned to realize the high quality, valid science education assessments that we need for K‐16 science education. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 831–841, 2012     

教育测量和评估中多元概化理论的应用

介绍了在教育测量和评估中运用多元概化理论的优势,使用多元概化理轮的过程步骤,以及能够提供给研究者的各种结论和信息。认为可以帮助初学者了解多元概化理论,并为使用者提供了使用方法。     

教育研究评价科学化

教育研究评价是对教育研究的评价,教育研究有基础研究、应用研究和开发研究三种类型,与此相应,教育研究评价应以其理性和实事求是的科学精神使其具有科学性,作为动态发展过程的教育研究评价的科学化,其评价标准应因教育研究类型的不同而有所侧重:基础研究的学术价值和理论价值、应用研究的应用价值、开发研究的实践价值;其价值取向主要关注:教育研究的原创性、教育研究理性的人文关怀。     

浅论教育督导评估与教育评价的关系

教育督导制度和教育评价制度是我国教育法规定的两项基本教育制度。在教育督导工作中明晰教育督导评估与教育评价的关系,有利于教育督导实际工作的开展,提高督导评估工作的效率,促进我国教育督导制度完善和发展,保证我国教育的健康发展。通过对教育督导评估与教育评价的关系进行理论分析,旨在为教育督导实践工作提供点滴决策参考。     

An Evaluative Framework for Reviewing Fairness Standards and Practices in Educational Tests

One of the substantive changes in the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing was the elevation of fairness in testing as a foundational element of practice in addition to validity and reliability. Previous research indicates that testing practices often do not align with professional standards and guidelines. Therefore, to raise awareness of fairness concepts and principles from the 2014 Standards, this study aligned those standards with fairness practices, as documented in test manuals and on websites of 18 intelligence and achievement tests from different test publishers. A content analysis indicated that just under half of the fairness standards are frequently or occasionally practiced and those occurrences differed somewhat across tests but did not differ between intelligence and achievement tests or across publishers. To inform and encourage improvements in the future practice of the fairness standards, an evaluative framework along with example practices and related methodological scholarship is discussed.     

Testing Students with Special Needs: A Model for Understanding the Interaction Between Assessment and Student Characteristics in a Universally Designed Environment

This article presents a model of assessment development integrating student characteristics with the conceptualization, design, and implementation of standardized achievement tests. The model extends the assessment triangle proposed by the National Research Council ( Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001 ) to consider the needs of students with disabilities and English learners on two dimensions: cognitive interaction and observation interaction. Specific steps in the test development cycle for including students with special needs are proposed following the guidelines provided by Downing (2006) . Because this model of test development considers the range of student needs before test development commences, student characteristics are supported by applying the principles of universal design and appropriately aligning accommodations to address student needs. Specific guidelines for test development are presented.     

Alternative Interpretations of Alternative Assessments: Some Validity Issues in Educational Performance Assessments

The use of alternative assessments has led many researchers to reexamine traditional views of test qualities, especially validity. Because alternative assessments generally aim at measuring complex constructs and employ rich assessment tasks, it becomes more difficult to demonstrate (a) the validity of the inferences we make and (b) that these inferences extrapolate to target domains beyond the assessment itself. An approach to addressing these issues from the perspective of language testing is described. It is then argued that in both language testing and educational assessment we must consider the roles of both language and content knowledge, and that our approach to the design and development of performance assessments must be both construct-based and task-based.¹     

教育评价范式转换中的教师评价素养框架

教师的评价素养是指教师应拥有的关于评价活动诸领域的知识、技能、能力以及理念。教育评价的范式转换迫切需要教师的评价素养。教师的评价素养应当包括如下内容:理解评价;明确成就期望;运用适当的评价方式;适当地解释、运用评价结果。     

教育评价范式:变革与冲突

教育评价从常模参照到标准参照、从量化表征到质性描述、从情境无关到情境关联、从限定孤立到支持合作、从静态判断到动态分析预示着评价范式的变革。服务于“教育问责”目的的评价与服务于“支持教学”目的的评价存在着冲突，解决问题的关键是设计出与目的相适应的评价系统。     

教育评价的几大问题及发展方向

本文探讨教育评价必须面对的几大问题,包括教育目标的多重性、教育评价的完整性、教育目标的非兼容性及矛盾性,以及教育目标的个性化等。这些问题是教育评价中不可避免但又必须恰当处理的。因此,教育评价的发展方向应该是更加关注长期的教育性目标,减少对短期的教学性目标评价的依赖;更加注重个性化评价,找出个体学生的价值和发展方向。     

教育测评和学习领域的人工智能技术评估

随着人工智能技术的快速发展,人工智能技术在教育中的应用越来越广泛,很多科技公司投入资金开发人工智能技术应用于教育测评和学习领域,但是这些技术和产品的质量良莠不齐,用户很难辨别,这种情况在某种程度上不利于教育人工智能产业的发展。为帮助用户评估人工智能技术应用于教育测评和学习领域的产品质量,提出自动生成考题或学习材料、自适应学习、自动评分和自动反馈4项技术的评估方法,从决策者和用户的角度对如何评估教育人工智能技术给出建议。     

教育评价中的模糊综合评价方法

本文根据模糊综合评价的基本原理，就如何应用模糊综合评价实现教育评价的量化作一般性的讨论。