Adopting Cut Scores: Post-Standard-Setting Panel Considerations for Decision Makers

Standard-setting studies utilizing procedures such as the Bookmark or Angoff methods are just one component of the complete standard-setting process. Decision makers ultimately must determine what they believe to be the most appropriate standard or cut score to use, employing the input of the standard-setting panelists as one piece of information among multiple sources. However, guidance for weighing the various components is limited. The current article describes considerations about data that are used to make standard-setting decisions, as previously outlined by Geisinger (1991) . The ten points provided by Geisinger have been expanded as they relate to shifts in educational policy and practice in educational measurement. They have been amended with six new components as well. The new considerations addressed are smoothing across grades, raising standards in progression (over grades or over time), opportunity to learn or instructional validity, input from other groups, equating or linking to previous standards, and organizational vision and goals .     

Developing narratives as a pedagogical approach to fostering professional interpersonal competences

The study examined a project aimed at helping students develop professional interpersonal skills. Groups of university students in social work, teacher training, and a student mentoring program for children at-risk participated in seminars where they developed narratives derived from personal experience in interaction with others. The theoretical framework for the project was inspired by the idea of “stories to live by” developed by Clandinin and Connelly. Data for the study were collected from questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. Results indicated that narrative-building activities, when implemented in a structured and consistent manner, can contribute to improving empathy and perspective-taking abilities, developing self-knowledge, and enhancing communication skills.     

Building the BIKE: Development and Testing of the Biotechnology Instrument for Knowledge Elicitation (BIKE)

Identifying students’ conceptual scientific understanding is difficult if the appropriate tools are not available for educators. Concept inventories have become a popular tool to assess student understanding; however, traditionally, they are multiple choice tests. International science education standard documents advocate that assessments should be reform based, contain diverse question types, and should align with instructional approaches. To date, no instrument of this type targeting student conceptions in biotechnology has been developed. We report here the development, testing, and validation of a 35-item Biotechnology Instrument for Knowledge Elicitation (BIKE) that includes a mix of question types. The BIKE was designed to elicit student thinking and a variety of conceptual understandings, as opposed to testing closed-ended responses. The design phase contained nine steps including a literature search for content, student interviews, a pilot test, as well as expert review. Data from 175 students over two semesters, including 16 student interviews and six expert reviewers (professors from six different institutions), were used to validate the instrument. Cronbach’s alpha on the pre/posttest was 0.664 and 0.668, respectively, indicating the BIKE has internal consistency. Cohen’s kappa for inter-rater reliability among the 6,525 total items was 0.684 indicating substantial agreement among scorers. Item analysis demonstrated that the items were challenging, there was discrimination among the individual items, and there was alignment with research-based design principles for construct validity. This study provides a reliable and valid conceptual understanding instrument in the understudied area of biotechnology.