Jim S Tognolini

Standards-Based Assessment: A Tool and Means to the Development of Human Capital and Capacity Building in Education

This paper outlines a model for giving meaning to student achievement by referencing assessment to student learning or standards. This effectively shifts the focus in assessment from notions of rank ordering students (comparing their performance purely to each other) to those of monitoring growth or progress and measurement. More specifically it introduces standards-based assessment: the concept and theory. It considers how such systems operate and provides some possible strategies for implementation. Finally it shows how such systems can significantly impact upon human capital and capacity building in education.

Measuring attitudes toward plagiarism: issues and psychometric solutions

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of failing to psychometrically test questionnaire instruments when measuring university students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. These issues are highlighted by a psychometric evaluation of a commonly used (but previously untested) plagiarism attitudinal scale. Design/methodology/approach – The importance of psychometric testing is shown through an analysis of a commonly used scale using modern techniques (e.g. Rasch analysis) on 131 undergraduate education students at an Australian university. Findings – Psychometric analysis revealed the scale to be unreliable in its present form. However, when reduced to an eight-item subscale it became marginally reliable. Research limitations/implications – The main implication of this paper is that questionnaire instruments cannot be assumed to function as they are intended without thorough psychometric testing. Practical implications – The paper offers valuable insight into the psychometric properties of a ...

Establishing and Applying Performance Standards for Curriculum-Based Examinations.

This paper describes how a state education system in Australia introduced standards-referenced assessments into its large-scale, high-stakes, curriculum-based examinations in a way that enables comparison of performance across time even though the examinations are different each year. It describes the multi-stage modified Angoff standard-setting procedure used to establish cut-off scores on subject examinations, and how the results from this exercise were then used to develop standards packages. These packages illustrate the performances of students at the borders between the various bands. The paper also shows how originally it was intended to use a Rasch measurement model to create the statistical feedback used in the standard-setting procedure. It also describes the modifications to the feedback that were necessary to meet the real-time constraints of this large-scale examination programme. It argues that consideration should now be given to using the Rasch model to provide this feedback instead of the current approach.

Assessment, Standards-Referencing and Standard Setting

This chapter describes a model for giving meaning to student performance by referencing it to standards. This effectively shifts the focus in assessment from notions of rank ordering students (comparing their performance purely to each other) to those of monitoring growth or progress and measurement. More specifically, it introduces standards-referenced assessment: the concept and theory.

Evaluating the validity of the online multiliteracy assessment tool

This study aims to assess the validity of the Online Multiliteracy Assessment for students in Years 5 and 6. The Online Multiliteracy Assessment measures students’ abilities in making and creating meaning, using a variety of different modes of communication, such as text, audio and video. The study involved selecting two groups of students: the first group (n=19) was used in two pilot studies of the items and the second (n=299) was used in a field trial validating the functioning of the items and assessing the quality of the scale. The results indicated that the Online Multiliteracy Assessment has acceptable test–retest reliability; however, the fit to the Rasch model was less than ideal. Further investigation identified two important areas for improvement. First, the items assessing the higher order skills of synthesising, communicating and creating need to be more cognitively demanding. Second, some items need to be modified in order to improve their functionality.