covid
Buscar en
Psicología Educativa - Educational Psychology
Toda la web
Inicio Psicología Educativa - Educational Psychology A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessments to measure a...
Información de la revista
Vol. 20. Núm. 2.
Páginas 99-108 (diciembre 2014)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 20. Núm. 2.
Páginas 99-108 (diciembre 2014)
Open Access
A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessments to measure and support the development of argumentative reading and writing skills
Un estudio de casos en el diseño de la evaluación centrada en principios: diseño de evaluaciones para medir e impulsar el desarrollo de la argumentación en habilidades de lecto-escritura
Visitas
4771
Paul Deane1,
Autor para correspondencia
PDeane@ets.org

Corresponding author.
, Yi Song
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A
Este artículo ha recibido

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Abstract

This paper presents a principled approach to assessment design in which major design decisions are structured to support teaching and learning. This approach, developed as part of a long-term research initiative at ETS, Cognitively Based Assessments of, for and as Learning (CBAL), draws upon the learning and cognitive science literatures to create richly-structured assessments that simultaneously measure critical component skills and model effective strategies for applying those skills to complex performance tasks. To illustrate our approach, we focus on an important literacy practice: argumentation. Our model seeks to measure qualitative shifts in the development of critical argumentation skills by postulating argumentation learning progressions informed by the developmental literature. These learning progressions play a critical role in guiding assessment design decisions (selecting targeted skills, developing items to measure those skills, and determining task sequences) and may have the potential to support teachers’ instructional decisions that effectively scaffold the development of students’ argumentation skills.

Keywords:
Argumentation
Assessment
Scenario
Learning progression
CBAL
Reading
Writing
Resumen

Este artículo aborda la cuestión de cómo diseñar de manera fundamentada una evaluación donde las principales decisiones se toman con el fin de apoyar el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Este trabajo ha sido desarrollado como parte de un extenso proyecto de investigación en el ETS –evaluación cognitiva de, por y para el aprendizaje (CBAL en su acrónimo inglés)– y se nutre de la literatura previa sobre cognición y aprendizaje para crear evaluaciones con una estructura muy elaborada que, de forma simultánea, miden habilidades críticas y modelan estrategias eficaces para aplicar esas habilidades a tareas complejas de resolver. Para ilustrar este marco de trabajo, nos centramos en una importante práctica relacionada con la lectura y la escritura: la argumentación. Nuestro modelo trata de medir cambios cualitativos en el desarrollo de habilidades críticas de argumentación, postulando una progresión de aprendizaje para la argumentación tomada de la literatura especializada. Las progresiones de aprendizaje juegan un papel decisivo a la hora de tomar decisiones relativas al diseño de la evaluación (seleccionar las habilidades básicas, elaborar preguntas para medir esas habilidades y determinar la secuencia de las tareas) y pueden también contribuir a que los profesores tomen decisiones relativas a la instrucción que sirvan para estructurar de forma efectiva el desarrollo de la capacidad de argumentar de sus estudiantes.

Palabras clave:
Argumentación
Evaluación
Escenario
Progresión de aprendizaje
CBAL
Lectura
Escritura
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
References
[Aristotle, 1939]
Aristotle (1939). Topics (E. S. Forster, Loeb, Trans.). Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[Bennett, 2010]
R.E. Bennett.
Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment.
Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8 (2010), pp. 70-91
[Bracewell et al., 1978]
J.R. Bracewell, M. Scardamalia, C. Bereiter.
The development of audience awareness in writing.
Resources in education, (1978), pp. 154-433
[Brem and Rips, 2000]
S. Brem, L. Rips.
Evidence and explanation in informal argument.
Cognitive Science, 24 (2000), pp. 573-604
[Bright, 1995]
R. Bright.
Writing instruction in the intermediate grades. What is said, What is done, What is understood.
International Reading Association, (1995),
[Butler and Britt, 2011]
J.A. Butler, A.M. Britt.
Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays.
Written Communication, 28 (2011), pp. 70-96
[Chambliss, 1995]
M.J. Chambliss.
Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments.
Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (1995), pp. 778-807
[Clark and Delia, 1976]
R. Clark, J. Delia.
The development of functional persuasive skills in childhood and early adolescence.
Child Develoment, 47 (1976), pp. 1008-1014
[Coirier et al., 1999]
P. Coirier, J.E.B. Andriessen, L. Chanquoy.
From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing.
Foundations of argumentative text processing, pp. 1-28
[Corcoran et al., 2009]
T. Corcoran, F.A. Mosher, A. Rogat.
Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform.
Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement, Teachers College-Columbia University, (2009),
[Council of Chief State, 2010]
Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/the-standards/ELA-Literacy.
[De La Paz and Graham, 1997a]
S. De La Paz, S. Graham.
Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 63 (1997), pp. 167-181
[Deane, 2011]
P. Deane.
Writing assessment and cognition, (ETS Research Report No. 11-14).
ETS, (2011),
[DiPardo and Freedman, 1988]
A. DiPardo, S.W. Freedman.
Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions.
Review of Educational Research, 58 (1988), pp. 119-149
[Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981]
A. Eisenberg, C. Garvey.
Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts.
Discourse Processes, 4 (1981), pp. 149-170
[Erduran et al., 2004]
S. Erduran, S. Simon, J. Osborne.
TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse.
Science Education, 88 (2004), pp. 915-933
[Ferretti et al., 2009]
R.P. Ferretti, W.E. Lewis, S. Andrews-Weckerly.
Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies?.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (2009), pp. 577-589
[Ferretti et al., 2000]
R.P. Ferretti, C.A. MacArthur, N.S. Dowdy.
The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (2000), pp. 694-702
[Flower et al., 1986]
L. Flower, J.R. Hayes, L. Carey, K.A. Schriver, J. Stratman.
Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision.
College Composition and Communication, 37 (1986), pp. 16-55
[Gorin et al., 2014]
J.S. Gorin, T.P. O’Reilly, J.P. Sabatini, Y. Song, P. Deane.
Measurement: Facilitating the goal of literacy.
Teaching Reading and Writing: Improving Instruction and Student Achievement, pp. 119-128
[Graham and Harris, 1989]
S. Graham, K.R. Harris.
Improving learning disabled students’ skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training.
Exceptional Children, 56 (1989), pp. 201-214
[Graham and Hebert, 2010]
S. Graham, M.A. Hebert.
Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading (A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report). Washington.
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, (2010),
[Graham et al., 1995]
S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, S.S. Schwarts.
The effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (1995), pp. 230-240
[Hayes and Flower, 1980]
J.R. Hayes, L.S. Flower.
Identifying the organization of writing processes.
Cognitive process in writing, pp. 3-30
[Heritage, 2008]
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/ClassroomAssessmentIntegration/pubdocs/FASTLearningProgressions.pdf.
[Hillocks, 2002]
G. Hillocks Jr..
The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning.
Teachers College Press, (2002),
[Kinsler, 1990]
K. Kinsler.
Structured peer collaboration: Teaching essay revision to college students needing writing remediation.
Cognition and Instruction, 7 (1990), pp. 303-321
[Klaczynski, 2000]
P. Klaczynski.
Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition.
Child Development, 71 (2000), pp. 1347-1366
[Knudson, 1992]
R.E. Knudson.
The development of written argumentation: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels.
Child Study Journal, 22 (1992), pp. 167-184
[Kuhn, 1991]
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D., Katz, J.B., & Dean, D., Jr. (2004). Developing reason. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 197-219.
[Kuhn et al., 1997]
D. Kuhn, V. Shaw, M. Felton.
Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction.
, 15 (1997), pp. 287-315
[Kuhn and Udell, 2003]
D. Kuhn, D. Udell.
The development of argument skill.
Child Development, 74 (2003), pp. 1245-1260
[Kuhn et al., 2013]
D. Kuhn, N. Zillmer, A. Crowell, J. Zavala.
Developing Norms of Argumentation: Metacognitive.
Epistemological, and Social Dimensions of Developing Argumentive Competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31 (2013), pp. 456-496
[Larson et al., 2004]
M. Larson, M.A. Britt, A.A. Larson.
Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts.
Reading Psychology, 25 (2004), pp. 205-224
[Leitão, 2003]
S. Leitão.
Evaluating and selecting counterarguments: Studies of children's rhetorical awareness.
Written Communication, 20 (2003), pp. 269-306
[Matsuhashi and Gordon, 1985]
A. Matsuhashi, E. Gordon.
Revision, addition, and the power of unseen text.
The acquisition of written language: Response and revision, pp. 236-249
[McCann, 1989]
T.M. McCann.
Student argumentative writing: knowledge and ability at three grade levels.
Research in the Teaching of English, 23 (1989), pp. 62-76
[Mislevy et al., 2003]
R.J. Mislevy, L.S. Steinberg, R.G. Almond.
On the structure of educational assessments.
Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1 (2003), pp. 3-67
[Nation's Center, 2008]
Nation's Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The nation's report card: Writing 2007 (U.S. Department of Education Publication No. NCES 2008-468). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2008468.pdf.
[Newell et al., 2011]
G.E. Newell, R. Beach, J. Smith, J. Van Der Heide.
Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research.
Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (2011), pp. 273-304
[Nussbaum and Kardash, 2005]
M.E. Nussbaum, C.M. Kardash.
The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2005), pp. 157-169
[O’Reilly and Sheehan, 2014]
O’Reilly and Sabatini, O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (in press). Reading for Understanding: How performance moderators and scenarios impact assessment design (ETS Research Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[O’Reilly and Sheehan, 2009]
O’Reilly, T., & Sheehan, K.M. (2009). Cognitively Based Assessment of, for and as Learning: A Framework for Assessing Reading Competency (ETS Research Report RR-09-26). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[Pellegrino, 2014]
J.W. Pellegrino.
Assessment as a Positive Influence on 21st Century Teaching and Learning: A Systems Approach to Progress.
Psicología Educativa, 20 (2014), pp. 65-77
[Perkins et al., 1991]
D.N. Perkins, M. Farady, B. Bushey.
Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence.
Informal reasoning and education, pp. 83-106
[Persky et al., 2003]
Persky, H.R., Daane, M. C, & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation's report card: Writing 2002 (U.S. Department of Education Publication No. NCES 2003-529). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[Reznitskaya et al., 2001]
A. Reznitskaya, R.C. Anderson, B. McNurlen, K. Nguyen-Jahiel, A. Archodiou, S. Kim.
Influence of oral discussion on written argument.
Discourse Processes, 32 (2001), pp. 155-175
[Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1986]
M. Scardamalia, C. Bereiter.
Research on written composition.
Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 778-803
[Sexton et al., 1998]
M. Sexton, K.R. Harris, S. Graham.
Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions.
Exceptional Children, 64 (1998), pp. 295-311
[Shanahan, 1990]
Shanahan, T. (Ed.) (1990). Reading and writing together: New perspectives for the classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
[Shavelson, 2009]
Shavelson, R. (2009). Reflections on learning progressions. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
[Sheehan and O’Reilly, 2011]
Sheehan, K.M., & O’Reilly, T. (2011). The CBAL Reading Assessment: An Approach for Balancing Measurement and Learning Goals (ETS Research Report RR-11-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[Simon and Holyoak, 2002]
D. Simon, K.J. Holyoak.
Structural dynamics of cognition: From consistency theories to constraint satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology.
, 6 (2002), pp. 283-294
[Stein and Miller, 1993]
N.L. Stein, C.A. Miller.
A theory of argumentative understanding: Relationships among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory, and reasoning.
Argumentation, 7 (1993), pp. 183-204
[Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992]
F.H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst.
Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective.
Erlbaum, (1992),
[Van Eemeren et al., 1996]
F.H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, F.S. Henkemans.
Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments.
Erlbaum, (1996),
[Van Rijn et al., 2014]
P.W. Van Rijn, E.A. Graf, P. Deane.
Empirical Recovery of Argumentation Learning Progressions in Scenario-Based Assessments of English Language Arts.
Psicología Educativa, 20 (2014), pp. 109-115
[Vygotsky, 1978]
L.S. Vygotsky.
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press, (1978),
[Walton, 1992]
D. Walton.
Plausible argument in everyday conversation.
State University of New York Press, (1992),
[Zieky, 2014]
M. Zieky.
An introduction to the use of evidence-centered design in test development.
Psicología Educativa, 20 (2014), pp. 79-87

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul Deane. Educational Testing Service. 660 Rosedale Road, MS 11-R. Princeton, NJ 08541 USA.

Copyright © 2014. Colegio Oficial de Psicologos de Madrid
Opciones de artículo