Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i4CMOKm15787; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 18:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <Sea2-F54X4yuLmsZhNf0002b0de@hotmail.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:549] stakeholder needs X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 3092 Lines: 70 Part 2 of my reply to Marie: I said, I guess the question is, what information do we need to get from the >assessments we use? Marie replied: Is this the place that we should start at? Will the answer to this question be the same for all the different stakeholders? What do funders need to know? How about teachers? How about the students themselves? And program leadership too - what do they want/need to know? If the assessment we use depends on what information we need to get, then that should be the starting point for creating or choosing assessments. Will the answer to this question be the same for all the different stakeholders? Probably not always (it isn't now), but which stakeholders have priority? As it is now, whoever the stakeholder is in the accountability movement is <the> primary stakeholder, and that's not even clearly defined(ostensibly "the taxpayers", but who's the proxy stakeholder--whoever wants to put adult ed on the chopping block this time?) As it is, we try to find instructional and program improvement applications in data that has been collected for accountability purposes. I think that's backward. We should be able to demonstrate effectiveness and results (accountability) with evidence/data collected for the primary purpose of improving instruction and programming. Students should be our primary stakeholders. Are they now? Eileen From: "Marie Cora" <mariecora@hotmail.com> Reply-To: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:543] RE: To Standardize or Not To Standardize Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Hi all, Ok, so we have a few questions and comments from Eileen then: anyone with more psychometric background than I is HEARTILY welcomed to respond!!! :) 1. What is the "right" thing (or things) to standardize? How do you determine what those things might be? 2. Eileen writes: >If you decide that certain characteristics of performance are >important, then those become the criteria against which you can judge lots >of different examples of work. For example, if my faculty group thinks it >is important that students write with an awareness of the intended >audience, then we can make that a criterion, describe it at different >levels, and use it to evaluate performance on emails, postings to the >discussion board of the online component of our classes, homework, essays, >a copy of the note the student wrote to her child's teacher, etc., etc. We >can use real-life writing to assess how well the student meets this >criterion, and we don't have to standardize conditions to do so. My question: haven't you just described (part of) a process for standardizing the conditions of "awareness of intended audience"? If not, why not? If yes, why? **Jump in anyone on the list - I'm not posing this question only to Eileen - you all must have opinions - and if there are test developers, psychometricians reading, what do you think about this? 3. > marie cora NIFL Assessment List Moderator
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:16 EST