No description available.

This study was prompted by an interest in the extent to which the aims of home economics education in Ireland are being served by the assessment carried out at a national level. This interest led to an empirical investigation of key stakeholders’ perceptions of the validity of home economics assessment and a critical evaluation of its impact on teaching and learning. The data collection primarily comprised interviews with a selection of teachers and other key people such as students, teacher educators and professional home economists; and a complementary analysis of curriculum and design of Junior and Leaving Certificate home economics assessments during the period 2005-2014. The analysis of interview data combined with the curriculum and assessment analyses revealed the compounding impact and washback effect of home economics assessments on student learning experience and outcomes. This impact was reflected in several areas of the findings including an evident satisfaction among the respondents with junior cycle assessment, due to the perceived appropriateness of the assessment design and operational arrangements, and dissatisfaction with curriculum and assessment arrangements at senior cycle as they were considered to be inappropriate and negatively impacting on the quality of learning achieved. The respondents candidly pointed to what they considered to be an acceptance by some teachers of unethical behaviour around the completion of journal tasks. The respondents indicated that summative assessment practices are commonly used in home economics classrooms and the findings strongly suggest that external examinations are influencing teaching methods by demanding a test-oriented pedagogy to enable students to achieve certificate points. The technical analysis of the Junior and Leaving Certificate examination questions confirmed that these external assessments predominantly promote lower-order learning and there are clear indications of a washback effect on the quality of learning achieved. There is a view that the subject's position in the curriculum is weakened due to a lack of coherence around practice, as well as a lack of advocacy and leadership in the field. There was little evidence of the impact of home economics education and many of the interviewees merely 'hoped' that home economics made a difference in the lives of students. The study also showed that there are profiling, identity and teacher agency issues impacting upon the home economics profession. While not immediately generalisable to all home economics teachers or settings in schools, this study nonetheless implies that if the views and practices of the respondents were to be replicated across the whole of the home economics education community, it would not be safe to view national assessment results as a valid indicator of learning and achievement standards in the subject. There are grounds in this work to argue that the subject's values and purposes are not supported by existing curriculum, pedagogy and assessment arrangements.

Submitted by SBI Biblioteca Digital (sbi.bibliotecadigital@puc-campinas.edu.br) on 2018-03-27T18:51:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 LUISA BASTOS GOMES.pdf: 1412598 bytes, checksum: ea727ad18de502ab68a256bc28b9183b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-27T18:51:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 LUISA BASTOS GOMES.pdf: 1412598 bytes, checksum: ea727ad18de502ab68a256bc28b9183b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-15 / CNPQ / Considering creativity and resilience as important personal characteristics reported in the scientific literature, especially in the Positive Psychology movement, this research carries out studies focusing on the relationship between the two constructs by applying validated instrument to adults. Two psychometric studies were carried out, both involving the search for evidence of validity based on relationship with external variables, precisely the convergent type. The first study used the instrument Creative and Thinking Styles (2003) with the Pillars of Resiliency Scales test (Cardoso & Martins, 2013) in a sample of 134 subjects, with 64% (n = 86) of female participants, aged between 18 and 65 years (M = 32.27 and DP = 11.75). The second study used once more Pillars of Resiliency Scales test (2013) and the test Thinking Creatively with Words-Torrance Tests (Wechsler, 2006) in a sample of 101 subjects, with 66% (n = 67) of female participants, between the ages of 18 and 65 years old. The results of the study 1 showed positive and significant correlations between all the pillars of resiliency and the Nonconformist-Transformer Style, as well as negative correlations in the majority of the pillars of resiliency with the Cautious-Reflective Style. In study 2, no significant correlations were displayed between the creative measures offered by Torrance and the pillars of resiliency. We discuss the possible relationship found in results between qualitative and quantitative measures of creativity and its affinity with resilience, and finally, we suggest further studies should be conducted with other instruments that assess other resiliency models. / Considerando a criatividade e a resili?ncia como importantes caracter?sticas pessoais relatadas na literatura cient?fica, especialmente dentro do movimento da Psicologia Positiva, essa pesquisa tem como objetivo realizar estudos que investiguem a rela??o entre os dois construtos. Foram realizados dois estudos psicom?tricos, ambos envolvendo a busca por evid?ncias de validade com base na rela??o com vari?veis externas, do tipo convergente. O primeiro estudo utilizou o instrumento Estilos de Pensar e Criar com o teste Escalas Pilares de Resili?ncia em uma amostra de 134 sujeitos, sendo que 64% (n=86) dos participantes eram do sexo feminino, com idade entre 18 e 65 anos (M = 32,27 e DP = 11,75). Os resultados apontaram correla??es positivas e significativas entre todas os pilares de resili?ncia e o estilo Inconformista-Transformador, assim como correla??es negativas de grande parte dos pilares de resili?ncia com o estilo Cauteloso-Reflexivo. O segundo estudo utilizou novamente o instrumento Escala de Pilares de Resili?ncia e o Teste Pensando Criativamente com Palavras de Torrance em uma amostra de 101 sujeitos, sendo que 66% (n=67) eram do sexo feminino, com idade entre 18 e 65 anos (M = 28,83 e DP = 11,63). N?o foram encontradas correla??es significativas entre as medidas criativas proporcionadas pelo Torrance e os pilares de resili?ncia. Discute-se as poss?veis rela??es entre as diferen?as encontradas quando se faz uso de medida qualitativa e quantitativa da criatividade na sua rela??o com a resili?ncia. Por fim, sugere-se novos estudos com outros instrumentos que avaliem a resili?ncia a partir de outros modelos.

Grades serve as one of the primary indicators of student learning, directing subsequent actions for students, instructors, and administrators, alike. Therefore, grade validity—that is, the extent to which grades communicate a meaningful and credible representation of what they purport to measure—is of utmost importance. However, a grade cannot be valid if one cannot trust that it will consistently and reliably result in the same value, regardless of who makes a measure or when they make it. Unfortunately, such reliability becomes increasingly challenging to achieve with larger class sizes, especially when utilizing multiple evaluators, as is often the case with mandatory introductory courses at large universities. Reliability suffers further when evaluating open-ended tasks, as are prevalent in authentic, high-quality engineering coursework.<div><br></div><div>This study explores grading reliability in the context of a large, multi-section engineering course. Recognizing the number of people involved and the plethora of activities that affect grading outcomes, the study adopts a systems approach to conduct a human reliability analysis using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method. Through this method, a collection of data sources, including course materials and observational interviews with undergraduate teaching assistant graders, are synthesized to produce a general model for how actions vary and affect subsequent actions within the system under study. Using a course assignment and student responses, the model shows how differences in contextual variables affect expected actions within the system. Next, the model is applied to each of the observational interviews with undergraduate teaching assistants to demonstrate how these actions occur in practice and to compare graders to one another and with expected behaviors. These results are further related to the agreement in system outcomes, or grades, assigned by each grader to guide analysis of how actions within the system affect its outcome.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The results of this study connect and elaborate upon previous models of grader cognition by analyzing the phenomenon in engineering, a previously unexplored context. The model presented can be easily generalized and adapted to smaller systems with fewer actors to understand sources of variability and potential threats to outcome reliability. The analysis of observed outcome instantiations guides a set of recommendations for minimizing grading variability.<br></div>

<p>Assessment of student learning is ubiquitous in higher education chemistry courses because it is the mechanism by which instructors can assign grades, alter teaching practice, and help their students to succeed. One type of assessment that is popular in general chemistry courses, yet difficult to create effectively, is the multiple-choice assessment. Despite its popularity, little is known about the extent that multiple-choice general chemistry exams adhere to accepted design practices or the processes that general chemistry instructors engage in while creating these assessments. Further understanding of multiple-choice assessment quality and the design practices of general chemistry instructors could inform efforts to improve the quality of multiple-choice assessment practice in the future. This work attempted to characterize multiple-choice assessment practices in undergraduate general chemistry classrooms by, 1) conducting a phenomenographic study of general chemistry instructor’s assessment practices and 2) designing an instrument that can detect violations of item writing guidelines in multiple-choice chemistry exams. </p> <p>The phenomenographic study of general chemistry instructors’ assessment practices included 13 instructors from the United States who participated in a three-phase interview. They were asked to describe how they create multiple-choice assessments, to evaluate six multiple-choice exam items, and to create two multiple-choice exam items using a think-aloud protocol. It was found that the participating instructors considered many appropriate assessment design practices yet did not utilize, or were not familiar with, all the appropriate assessment design practices available to them. </p> <p>Additionally, an instrument was developed that can be used to detect violations of item writing guidelines in multiple-choice exams. The instrument, known as the Item Writing Flaws Evaluation Instrument (IWFEI) was shown to be reliable between users of the instrument. Once developed, the IWFEI was used to analyze 1,019 general chemistry exam items. This instrument provides a tool for researchers to use to study item writing guideline adherence, as well as, a tool for instructors to use to evaluate their own multiple-choice exams. The use of the IWFEI is hoped to improve multiple-choice item writing practice and quality.</p> <p>The results of this work provide insight into the multiple-choice assessment design practices of general chemistry instructors and an instrument that can be used to evaluate multiple-choice exams for item writing guideline adherence. Conclusions, recommendations for professional development, and recommendations for future research are discussed.</p>

No description available.