umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Alignment of standards and assessment: A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Educational Measurement.
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Educational Measurement.
2008 (English)In: Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, ISSN 1696-2095, Vol. 6, no 3, 667-690 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction. In a standards-based school-system alignment of policy documents with stan-dards and assessment is important. To be able to evaluate whether schools and students have reached the standards, the assessment should focus on the standards. Different models and methods can be used for measuring alignment, i.e. the correspondence between standards and assessment. Based on the assumption that a model must be able to include content and cogni-tive complexity, nine different models are identified and these models are then scrutinized with reference to defined theoretical criteria. The conclusion is that Bloom’s revised taxon-omy and Porter’s taxonomy are the most appropriate models.

Method. Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Porter’s taxonomy are compared based on empirical data from standards and assessment in a chemistry course in upper secondary schools in Swe-den. The comparison is based on five rules and of inter-rater reliability.

Results. Bloom’s revised taxonomy was more inclusive and exclusive than Porter’s taxon-omy. The inter-rater reliability for classification of standards was significantly better for Bloom’s revised taxonomy than for Porter’s taxonomy.

Conclusion. Based on the five rules, the conclusion is that Bloom’s revised taxonomy is the best model.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 6, no 3, 667-690 p.
Keyword [en]
Alignment, standards, assessment, Bloom's revised taxonomi, Porter's taxonomy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-11292OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-11292DiVA: diva2:150963
Available from: 2008-12-09 Created: 2008-12-09 Last updated: 2011-01-10Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Measurement of alignment between standards and assessment
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Measurement of alignment between standards and assessment
2008 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Many educational systems of today are standards-based and aim at for alignment, i.e. consistency, among the components of the educational system: standards, teaching and assessment. To conclude whether the alignment is sufficiently high, analyses with a useful model are needed. This thesis investigates the usefulness of models for analyzing alignment between standards and assessments, with emphasis on one method: Bloom’s revised taxonomy. The thesis comprises an introduction and five articles that empirically investigate the usefulness of methods for alignment analyses.

In the first article, the usefulness of different models for analyzing alignment between standards and assessment is theoretically and empirically compared based on a number of criteria. The results show that Bloom’s revised taxonomy is the most useful model. The second article investigates the usefulness of Bloom’s revised taxonomy for interpretation of standards in mathematics with two differently composed panels of judges. One panel consisted of teachers and the other panel of assessment experts. The results show that Bloom’s revised taxonomy is useful for interpretation of standards, but that many standards are multi-categorized (placed in more than one category). The results also show higher levels of intra- and inter-judge consistency for assessment experts than for teachers. The third article further investigates the usefulness of Bloom’s revised taxonomy for analyses of alignment between standards and assessment. The results show that Bloom’s revised taxonomy is useful for analyses of both standards and assessments. The fourth article studies whether vague and general standards can explain the large proportion of multi-categorized standards in mathematics. The strategy was to divide a set of standards into smaller substandards and then compare the usefulness and inter-judge consistency for categorization with Bloom’s revised taxonomy for undivided and divided standards. The results show that vague and general standards do not explain the large proportion of multi-categorized standards. Another explanation is related to the nature of mathematics that often intertwines conceptual and procedural knowledge. This was also studied in the article and the results indicate that this is a probable explanation. The fifth article focuses on another aspect of alignment between standards and assessment, namely the alignment between performance standards and cut-scores for a specific assessment. The validity of two standard-setting methods, the Angoff method and the borderline-group method, was investigated. The results show that both methods derived reasonable and trustworthy cut-scores, but also that there are potential problems with these methods.

In the introductory part of the thesis, the empirical studies are summarized, contextualized and discussed. The discussion relates alignment to validity issues for assessments and relates the obtained empirical results to theoretical assumptions and applied implications. One conclusion of the thesis is that Bloom’s revised taxonomy is useful for analyses of alignment between standards and assessments. Another conclusion is that the two standard setting methods derive reasonable and trustworthy results. It is preferable if an alignment model can be used both for alignment analyses and in ongoing practice for increasing alignment. Bloom’s revised taxonomy has the potential for being such an alignment model. This thesis has found this taxonomy useful for alignment analyses, but its’ usefulness for increasing alignment in ongoing practice has to be investigated.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Beteendevetenskapliga mätningar, 2008. 226 p.
Series
Academic dissertations at the department of Educational Measurement, ISSN 1652-9650 ; 3
Keyword
alignment, standards, assessment, Bloom's revised taxonomy, the Angoff method, the borderline-group method, usefulness, validity
National Category
Manufacturing, Surface and Joining Technology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-1865 (URN)978-91-7264-662-9 (ISBN)
Public defence
2008-10-24, S205, Samhällsvetarhuset, Umeå, 10:15 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2008-09-30 Created: 2008-09-30 Last updated: 2017-03-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/16/english/Art_16_216.pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Näsström, GunillaHenriksson, Widar
By organisation
Educational Measurement

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 639 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf