An Empirical Investigation Demonstrating the Multidimensional DIF Paradigm: A Cognitive Explanation for DIF

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) is traditionally used to identify different item performance patterns between intact groups, most commonly involving race or sex comparisons. This study advocates expanding the utility of DIF as a step in construct validation. Rather than grouping examinees based on cultural differences, the reference and focal groups are chosen from two extremes along a distinct cognitive dimension that is hypothesized to supplement the dominant latent trait being measured. Specifically, this study investigates DIF between proficient and non-proficient fourth- and seventh-grade writers on open-ended mathematics test items that require students to communicate about mathematics. It is suggested that the occurrence of DIF in this situation actually enhances, rather than detracts from, the construct validity of the test because, according to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), mathematical communication is an important component of mathematical ability, the dominant construct being assessed. However, the presence of DIF influences the validity of inferences that can be made from test scores and suggests that two scores should be reported, one for general mathematical ability and one for mathematical communication. The fact that currently only one test score is reported, a simple composite of scores on multiple-choice and open-ended items, may lead to incorrect decisions being made about examinees.     

Communicating data to schools

The article explores the communication of data to schools by researchers and evaluators. The stance is taken that the research process is one in which the participants are involved in a mutually supportive enterprise in which the relationship should be viewed as co-operation between professional colleagues, i.e., a relationship in which perceived status is minimised but one in which different knowledge and expertise exists on both sides. It is argued that the obtaining of data at school sites requires the researcher to provide data to their sources. Careful consideration needs to be given by researchers to the process and methods of communication of data to school communities. Issues addressed include audience, terminology, prose and other forms of presentation. A case is made for the researcher to become involved in dialogue to enhance the “meaning-making” of practitioners and themselves. The article concludes with a set of guidelines for researchers.     

Assessment of Teacher Reactions to a Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation System: A Pilot Study*

This article reports on teachers' reactions to a pilot implementation of a new standards-based teacher evaluation system in a medium-sized Midwestern school district. The system, based on the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 1996), was intended to serve as the foundation for a new knowledge and skill pay plan for teachers. Teacher reactions were measured using both interview and survey methods. Teachers' overall favorableness toward the system, as measured by the survey, was correlated with acceptance of the teaching standards, perception of the evaluation process as fair and the evaluator as capable and objective, and perception that the evaluation system had a positive impact on their teaching. In interviews, teachers perceived both positive and negative aspects of the system, and for many these more or less balanced each other. While most teachers accepted the evaluation standards and the need for an evaluation system, many also perceived that the system added too much to teachers' workloads and did not provide enough feedback. Based on these results several changes were made in the evaluation system prior to full implementation. The results are discussed with reference to previous research and the Personnel Evaluation Standards.     

Bullying and the Unique Socioemotional Needs of Gifted and Talented Early Adolescents: Veteran Teacher Perspectives and Practices

Much is written at the elementary school level concerning bullying and the socioemotional needs of gifted and talented (GT) students; however, in the last 10 years, little qualitative research exists concerning the early adolescent GT age group. In the social environment of classroom life, early and current research indicates that many of these students experience neurotic perfectionism, overexciteabilities (OEs), developmental asynchrony, and bullying. The formation of autonomous classes (GT-only classes) has afforded some hope concerning the amelioration of such problems; nevertheless, in this study, detailed evidence of classroom bullying in the form of social ostracism and teasing has been found with this GT age group. If left unchecked, psychological autopsies have shown these students suffering emotional difficulties and even committing suicide as a result of school and classroom torment. With such potential for classroom bullying problems, few studies address what veteran teachers of early adolescent GT students do to keep students psychologically safe. Within the social milieu of classroom life, and in comparison to research standards, this study explores three efficacious teacher perspectives and practices.