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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:umu-1865 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Näsström, Gunilla |
| Publisher | Umeå universitet, Beteendevetenskapliga mätningar, Umeå : Beteendevetenskapliga mätningar |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | Academic dissertations at the department of Educational Measurement, 1652-9650 ; 3 |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds