Una ampliación del concepto de Templete: de herramienta para desarrollar ejercicios a instrumento para regular el proceso de desarrollo de los exámenes de ciencias
Palabras clave:
Enseñanza de las ciencia, construcción de pruebas, prueba de ejecución.Resumen
En este artículo discutimos las limitaciones y ventajas del uso de templetes. Un templete es un conjunto de instrucciones para desarrollar ejercicios; su fin es abatir el costo y el tiempo de desarrollo de los exámenes. Los templetes no permiten generar ejercicios intercambiables desde el punto de vista estadístico. Sin embargo, cuando sus instrucciones son precisas y se entrena a los autores de pruebas para usarlos adecuadamente, los templetes permiten generar ejercicios de estructura y apariencia similarares. Basados en nuestra experiencia y en nuestro trabajo de investigación, discutimos las ventajas de usar templetes como: (a) herramientas para desarrollar pruebas de respuesta construida, (b) documentos que formalizan las propiedades estructurales de los ejercicios; (c) ambientes para la creación de ejercicios que permiten estandarizar y simplificar los formatos de respuesta para los estudiantes; y (d) herramientas conceptuales que regulan el proceso de desarrollo de exámenes. En este artículo también advertimos de posibles usos inapropiados de los templetes.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Referencias
Aschbacher, P. R. (1991). Performance assessment: State activity, interest, and concerns. Applied Measurement in Education, 4 (4), 275-288.
Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29 (1), 1-17.
Bejar, I.I. (1995). From adaptive testing to automated scoring of architectural simulations. In E. L. Mancall & P.G. Bashook (Eds.), Assessing clinical reasoning: The oral examination and alternative methods (pp. 115-127). Evanston: American Board of Medical Specialties.
Bormuth, J.R. (1970). On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crocker, L. (1997). Assessing content representativeness of performance assessment exercises. Applied Measurement in Education, 10 (1), 83-95.
Cronbach, L. J., Linn, R. L., Brennan, R. L., & Haertel, E. H. (1997). Generalizability analysis for performance assessments of student achievement or school effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 373-399.
Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137-163. Downing, S. M. & Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Test item development: Validity evidence form quality assurance procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 10 (1), 61-82.
Fitzpatrick, R. & Morrison, E.J. (1971). Performance and product evaluation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 237-270). Washington: American Council on Education.
Gelman, R. & Greeno, J. G. (1989). On the nature of competence: Principles for understanding in a domain. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 125-186). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
General Accounting Office (1993). Student testing: Current extent and expenditures, with cost estimates for a national examination. Washington: Author.
Guttman, L. (1969). Integration of test design and analysis. In Proceedings of the 1969 invitational conference on testing problems (pp. 53-65). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Haertel, E. H. & Linn, R. L. (1996). Comparability. In Phillips, G. W. (Ed.), Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment (pp. 59-78). Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Haladyna, T. M. & Shindoll, R. R. (1989). Shells: A method for writing effective multiple-choice test items. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 12, 97-104.
Hively, W., Patterson, H. L., & Page, S. H. (1968). A "universe-defined" system of arithmetic achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5 (4), 275-290.
Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work: Some considerations in philosophy of science. Science & Education, 1, 115-144.
Katz, I. R. (1998). A software tool for rapidly prototyping new forms of computer-based assessments (GRE Board Professional Report No. 91-06aP). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Klein, S. P., Shavelson, R. J., Stecher, B. M., McCaffrey, D., & Haertel, E. (1997). The effect of using shells to develop hands-on tasks. Unpublished manuscript. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.
Lindquist, E. F. (Ed.). (1951). Educational measurement. Washington: American Council of Education.
LOGALä (1996). Science Explorer 3.0 [Computer program]. Cambridge, MA: LOGAL Software, Inc.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 13-23.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1996). Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Science Standards for National Board Certification. Detroit: Author.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
Nuttall, D. L. (1992). Performance assessment: The message from England. Educational Leadership, 49 (8), 54-57.
O'Neil, J. (1992). Putting performance assessment to the test. Educational Leadership, 49 (8), 14-19.
Roid, G. H., & Haladyna, T. M. (1982). A technology for test-item writing. New York: Academic Press.
Schneider, S., Daehler, K. R., Hershbell, K., McCarthy, J., Shaw, J., & Solano-Flores, G. (en prensa). Developing a national science assessment for teacher certification: Practical lessons learned. In L. Ingvarson (Ed.), Assessing teachers for professional certification: The first ten years of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Greenewich: JAI Press, Inc.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30 (3), 215-232.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21 (4), 22-27.
Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Wiley, E. (1999). Notes on sources of sampling variability in science performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36 (1), 61-71.
Solano-Flores, G. (1993). Item structural properties as predictors of item difficulty and item association. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (1), 19-31.
Solano-Flores, G., Jovanovic, J, Shavelson, R. J., & Bachman, M. (1994, April). Development of an item shell for the generation of performance assessments in physics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Solano-Flores, G., Jovanovic, J., Shavelson, R. J., & Bachman, M. (1999) On the development and evaluation of a shell for generating science performance assessments. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (3), 293-315.
Solano-Flores, G., Raymond, B., Schneider, S. A., & Timms, M. (1999). Management of scoring sessions in alternative assessment: The computer-assisted scoring approach. Computers & Education, 33, 47-63.
Solano-Flores, G., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Development of performance assessments in science: Conceptual, practical and logistical issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16 (3), 16-25.
Stecher, B. M., & Klein, S. P. (1997). The cost of science performance assessments in large-scale testing programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (1), 1-14.
Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Solano-Flores, G., McCaffrey, D., Robbyn, A., Shavelson, R. J., & Haertel, E. (en prensa). The effects of content, format, and inquiry level on performance on science performance assessment scores. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.). (1971). Educational Measurement (2nd. Ed.). Washington: American Council on Education.
Wigdor, A. K., & Green, B. F., Jr. (Eds.). (1991). Performance assessment for the workplace (Vol. 1). Washington: National Academy Press.
Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29 (1), 1-17.
Bejar, I.I. (1995). From adaptive testing to automated scoring of architectural simulations. In E. L. Mancall & P.G. Bashook (Eds.), Assessing clinical reasoning: The oral examination and alternative methods (pp. 115-127). Evanston: American Board of Medical Specialties.
Bormuth, J.R. (1970). On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crocker, L. (1997). Assessing content representativeness of performance assessment exercises. Applied Measurement in Education, 10 (1), 83-95.
Cronbach, L. J., Linn, R. L., Brennan, R. L., & Haertel, E. H. (1997). Generalizability analysis for performance assessments of student achievement or school effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 373-399.
Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137-163. Downing, S. M. & Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Test item development: Validity evidence form quality assurance procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 10 (1), 61-82.
Fitzpatrick, R. & Morrison, E.J. (1971). Performance and product evaluation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 237-270). Washington: American Council on Education.
Gelman, R. & Greeno, J. G. (1989). On the nature of competence: Principles for understanding in a domain. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 125-186). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
General Accounting Office (1993). Student testing: Current extent and expenditures, with cost estimates for a national examination. Washington: Author.
Guttman, L. (1969). Integration of test design and analysis. In Proceedings of the 1969 invitational conference on testing problems (pp. 53-65). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Haertel, E. H. & Linn, R. L. (1996). Comparability. In Phillips, G. W. (Ed.), Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment (pp. 59-78). Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Haladyna, T. M. & Shindoll, R. R. (1989). Shells: A method for writing effective multiple-choice test items. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 12, 97-104.
Hively, W., Patterson, H. L., & Page, S. H. (1968). A "universe-defined" system of arithmetic achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5 (4), 275-290.
Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work: Some considerations in philosophy of science. Science & Education, 1, 115-144.
Katz, I. R. (1998). A software tool for rapidly prototyping new forms of computer-based assessments (GRE Board Professional Report No. 91-06aP). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Klein, S. P., Shavelson, R. J., Stecher, B. M., McCaffrey, D., & Haertel, E. (1997). The effect of using shells to develop hands-on tasks. Unpublished manuscript. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.
Lindquist, E. F. (Ed.). (1951). Educational measurement. Washington: American Council of Education.
LOGALä (1996). Science Explorer 3.0 [Computer program]. Cambridge, MA: LOGAL Software, Inc.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 13-23.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1996). Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Science Standards for National Board Certification. Detroit: Author.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
Nuttall, D. L. (1992). Performance assessment: The message from England. Educational Leadership, 49 (8), 54-57.
O'Neil, J. (1992). Putting performance assessment to the test. Educational Leadership, 49 (8), 14-19.
Roid, G. H., & Haladyna, T. M. (1982). A technology for test-item writing. New York: Academic Press.
Schneider, S., Daehler, K. R., Hershbell, K., McCarthy, J., Shaw, J., & Solano-Flores, G. (en prensa). Developing a national science assessment for teacher certification: Practical lessons learned. In L. Ingvarson (Ed.), Assessing teachers for professional certification: The first ten years of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Greenewich: JAI Press, Inc.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30 (3), 215-232.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21 (4), 22-27.
Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Wiley, E. (1999). Notes on sources of sampling variability in science performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36 (1), 61-71.
Solano-Flores, G. (1993). Item structural properties as predictors of item difficulty and item association. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (1), 19-31.
Solano-Flores, G., Jovanovic, J, Shavelson, R. J., & Bachman, M. (1994, April). Development of an item shell for the generation of performance assessments in physics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Solano-Flores, G., Jovanovic, J., Shavelson, R. J., & Bachman, M. (1999) On the development and evaluation of a shell for generating science performance assessments. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (3), 293-315.
Solano-Flores, G., Raymond, B., Schneider, S. A., & Timms, M. (1999). Management of scoring sessions in alternative assessment: The computer-assisted scoring approach. Computers & Education, 33, 47-63.
Solano-Flores, G., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Development of performance assessments in science: Conceptual, practical and logistical issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16 (3), 16-25.
Stecher, B. M., & Klein, S. P. (1997). The cost of science performance assessments in large-scale testing programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (1), 1-14.
Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Solano-Flores, G., McCaffrey, D., Robbyn, A., Shavelson, R. J., & Haertel, E. (en prensa). The effects of content, format, and inquiry level on performance on science performance assessment scores. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.). (1971). Educational Measurement (2nd. Ed.). Washington: American Council on Education.
Wigdor, A. K., & Green, B. F., Jr. (Eds.). (1991). Performance assessment for the workplace (Vol. 1). Washington: National Academy Press.
Descargas
-
HTML
-
PDFINGLÉS 214
Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo: 1390
Publicado
2001-05-01
