Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9ILmK910846; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <39EE1A72.76E21BBB@sri.com> Errors-To: rgspacone@aol.com Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Regie Stites" <regie.stites@sri.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1224] Introductory Remarks X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) Status: O Content-Length: 3272 Lines: 70 Hello everyone, I would like to thank Ronna Spacone for this opportunity to respond to questions from the 4EFF list. Having been a listener (aka lurker) on the list for some time I feel that it is quite an honor to be given a virtual soap box to stand on to address the list. As of the end of the day today, there have already been a number of interesting and challenging questions posted by Debbie Tuler, Ronna Spacone, Amy Trawick, Sue Barton, Donna Curry, Andy Nash, and Mary Hannaman. Rather than respond separately to each of the questions I will instead address my comments to what I see as some common threads that run through this initial set of questions. The common threads so far as I see them are the following: 1) The role of EFF standards and assessment in systemic reform (including improving instructional practice) 2) The pros and cons of performance-based assessment (and portfolios) 3) Assessing ESOL students on the EFF standards I will be responding to issues in each of these areas in subsequent posts. In doing so, I hope to touch on most (but probably not all) of the particular questions that have been addressed to me. Before I begin to respond, I think it will be a good idea for me to say something about my role in helping to plan assessment development and validation processes for EFF. Last month, at a meeting of the EFF National Policy Group, I presented a "road map" for validating the EFF Assessment Framework. The road map describes a process and criteria that can be used to develop valid and reliable performance standards and measures aligned with the EFF Content Standards. The road map includes recommendations for a behavioral-anchoring process that can be used to develop descriptions (and examples) of performance at various levels for each of the EFF standards. It also describes the types of validity evidence that may be needed to satisfy the concerns of various stakeholders. From a measurement perspective, the central concern is likely to be construct validity — the degree to which an assessment system meets technical criteria for validity and reliability. From a policy perspective, the central concern is likely to be consequential validity — the degree to which the uses of an assessment system lead to fair and equitable outcomes for learners, instructors, programs, and funders. Finally, from a popular perspective, the central concern is likely to be face validity — the degree to which an assessment system is meaningful and understandable to all. I believe that all three general types of validity (construct, consequential, and face) are equally important. Much of what is wrong with current systems of assessment in adult basic education can be interpreted as problems in one or more of these types of validity. The validity concerns (and processes for avoiding validity problems) that I identified in the road map have recently been the focus of my attention in thinking about EFF. These concerns are the background for most of what I will have to say in response to the questions addressed to me on the list. Regie Regie Stites, Ph.D. Education Researcher Center for Education and Human Services SRI International Menlo Park, CA e-mail: regie.stites@sri.com voice: (650) 859-3768
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:16 EST