BENDRŲJŲ GAMTOS PAŽINIMO IR SOCIALINIŲ MOKSLŲ MOKYMOSI REZULTATŲ VERTINIMO VALIDUMAS. (Lithuanian)

VALIDITY OF TWO GENERAL OUTCOME MEASURES OF SCIENCE AND SOCIAL STUDIES ACHIEVEMENT. (English)

Structured formative assessment in reading and mathematics has long been part of the fabric of special education. However, inquiry addressing the efficacy of structured formative assessment techniques to document student achievement and growth in social studies and science content is still in its infancy. Originally, reading measures were evaluated to determine their utility in measuring progress in the content areas. Over the past two decades the literature has expanded to include content focused instruments including vocabulary matching and content maze. The present research addressed three more content-oriented instruments that have the advantage of being administered and scored online: Critical content monitoring, sentence verification technique, and written retell. The instruments were being evaluated for their technical adequacy and logistical SPECIALUSIS UGDYMAS / SPECIAL EDUCATION 2016 1 (34) 187 feasibility. Two research questions were evaluated: (a) what were the correlations with nationally-normed standardized achievement and statewide accountability tests in science and social studies content for critical content monitoring, sentence verification technique, and written retell? and (b) what was the incremental validity of adding measures of reading comprehension, using sentence verification technique and/or written retell, to content-focused achievement models that included critical content monitoring? Participants were fifth-grade students (N = 51) enrolled in a public primary school in the southeastern U.S. As a whole, participants were 11.1 years old (SD = .5) at the time of testing, 68.6% female (n = 35), 66.7% Caucasian (n = 34), and 68.6% full-pay lunch status (n = 35). The three predictor variables were correlated with content test scores from the nationally representative standardized achievement test (i.e., Stanford Achievement Test-Tenth Edition abbreviated online form) and a statewide accountability test. Pearson correlations for critical content monitoring and the Stanford tests across science (r = .55) and social studies (r = .63) were moderately strong and similar in magnitude with other reported correlations for academic language measures in the literature. Correlations for critical content monitoring were descriptively larger than those between the standardized tests and sentence verification technique and written retell. Commonality analyses indicated that both critical content monitoring and sentence verification technique added unique variance to explanatory models. A discussion of the results contributed to two implications. First, academic language, at the core of structured formative assessment instruments such as vocabulary matching and critical content monitoring, appears to be a viable avenue for continued inquiry. Second, given educational recommendations to rely on data from multiple sources in decision-making processes and present findings indicating that multiple instruments added unique variance to explanatory models, the use of multiple structured formative assessment measures in the development of content assessment frameworks appears warranted. Study limitations included the order of presentation of the instruments, the small size and makeup of the sample, and the focus on one grade level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Šis tyrimas papildo tyrimo validavimo rezultatus, gautus atlikus dalyko mokymosi struktūruotą formuojamąjį vertinimą, kuris buvo vykdomas internetu. Tyrimas kartu vertino ir galimybę įtraukti papildomus kintamuosius, tokius kaip teksto suvokimo pažymint teisingus ar klaidingus teiginius metodą bei rašytinį atpasakojimą, tam, kad būtų galima paaiškinti mokinių pasiekimų skirtumus gamtos pažinimo ir socialinių mokslų srityse. Tyrime dalyvavo penktos klasės mokiniai (N = 51), lankantys valstybinę pradinę mokyklą pietrytinėje JAV dalyje. Trys kintamieji - prediktoriai (t. y. turinio suvokimas, klaidingų ar teisingų teiginių žymėjimo metodas ir rašytinis atpasakojimas) koreliavo su testo rezultatais, gautais atlikus nacionalinį reprezentuojamąjį standartizuotą pasiekimų testą (Stanfordo pasiekimų testo dešimtoji sutrumpinta internetinė versija) ir valstijos atsiskaitomąjį testą. Pirsono (Pearson) koreliacija tarp turinio suvokimo ir Stanfordo gamtos pažinimo (r =,55) ir socialinių mokslų (r =,63) sričių testų buvo vidutiniškai stipri ir dydžiu panaši į kitas koreliacijas akademinės kalbos tyrimo atvejais. Turinio suvokimo koreliacija buvo didesnė nei nustatytosios tarp standartizuotų testų ir teisingų ar klaidingų teiginių žymėjimo metodo bei rašytinio atpasakojimo. Panašumų analizė rodo, kad tiek turinio suvokimas, tiek teisingų ar klaidingų teiginių žymėjimo metodas aiškinamuosius modelius papildė unikaliais skirtumais. Straipsnyje taip pat aptariami tyrimo ribotumai. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Special Education is the property of Special Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)