National Assessment in Sweden. A multi-dimensional (ad)venture

Transcription

1 Challngs in Educational Masurmnt Contnt, Mthods and Consquncs Gothnburg, 12 Oct National Assssmnt in Swdn A multi-dimnsional (ad)vntur Gudrun Erickson Univrsity of Gothnburg Dpt. of Education and Spcial Education

2 Only Swdn has Swdish Goosbrris Carl Jonas Lov Almqvist (1838)

3 Outlin Contxt Discussions and Dilmmas: Aims Construct(s) Mthods Agncy Uss & Consquncs Ongoing activitis Prospcts and Challngs

4

5 Background national assssmnt Long tradition of assssmnt at th national lvl; high dgr of accptanc; Sinc th 1980s, diffrnt univrsitis commissiond by th National Agncy for Education to b rsponsibl for tst dvlopmnt; Currntly, an xtnsiv systm with formativ as wll as summativ matrials; No xams; national tst rsults hav an advisory function and ar to b combind with tachrs continuous obsrvations; Tachrs mark thir own studnts tsts, and award final grads; co-rating strongly rcommndd but not mandatory.

6 Discussions and Dilmmas Initially, grat caution not to intrfr at th local lvl; schools and tachrs givn vry much rsponsibility; Far of too much advic and support, i.. that national tsts would b prcivd and tratd as xams; A growing numbr of obsrvations and studis indicatd considrabl diffrncs in handling national tsts and in awarding grads; issus of fairnss and quity raisd; Far of national tsts mayb providing too littl advic and support, i.. national tsts not important nough; What is lagom advic and support? (lagom = not too much, not too littl)

7 Th Qustion of Aim(s) For a numbr of yars, th aims of th Swdish national tsts wr to - nhanc ducational achivmnt - concrtiz standards - clarify goals and indicat strngths and waknsss in individual larnr profils - nhanc quity in assssmnt and grading - provid vidnc for local and national analyss of ducational achivmnt Sinc 2008, only th last two with th first two as possibl ffcts A rcnt national inquiry suggsts a sparation of th two rmaining aims

8 Th Qustion of Construct Individual subjct syllabuss dfin th construct; Contnt standards (Aim of subjct Goals Cntral contnt ) and Prformanc standards; Prformanc standards similar across subjcts, with gnric valu words to distinguish btwn lvls; A rcnt study by th National Agncy for Education rvals considrabl diffrncs btwn syllabuss rgarding, for xampl, amount of contnt in th prformanc standards; A majority of tachrs do not rgard th prformanc standards clar nough to support grading in a satisfactory way; rvisions suggstd; A thrshold rul offrs no possibility to compnsat for waknsss with strngths; all aspcts of th prformanc standards hav to b mt; Urgnt nd for discussions about th ffct of digitalization on constructs and thus syllabuss.

9 Th Qustion of Mthod Exampls of issus Format: Constructd rspons vs. Slctd rspons Can rasoning b masurd with multipl choic? Points for scoring: Should points b usd? If ys, what typ? If wightd (diffrntiatd), according to what principls, and how rliabl? Anchor itms: Should anchor itms b usd? If ys, typ and numbr? Data analysis: Classical or mor modrn mthods? IRT? If ys, typ? Qualitativ analyss: which and how? Aggrgation: Should aggrgation b mad? If ys, of what and how? Standard stting: Mthod? Participants Which? How many? Rporting rsults: Lvl of dtail? How? To whom?

10 Th Qustion of Agncy Exampls of issus Tachrs marking thir own studnts national tsts: rasons and ffcts; Co-marking Extrnal marking Studnts rols and rights; Th issu of dlgation: th rsponsibility and rol of th univrsitis commissiond to b in charg of tst dvlopmnt.

11 Uss and Consquncs (1) Exampls of issus and rsults Consistnt diffrncs btwn subjcts rgarding rsults du to construct, contxt, curricula, taching/tachrs/taching matrials, tsts? Exampl: Aggrgatd national tst scors, yar 9 (2015) % F E D C B A English Swdish Mathmatics Chmistry History

12 Uss and Consquncs (2) Exampls of issus and rsults Tachrs pay diffrnt attntion to national tst rsults in thir final grading what is lagom advic and support? Exampl: Rlation btwn aggrgatd tst grads (ATG) and final subjct grads (FSG), yar 9; spring 2015 FSG<ATG FSG=ATG FSG>ATG English 15% 74 % 11 % Swdish 9 % 64 % 27 % Mathmatics 2 % 60 % 38 % Chmistry 15 % 65 % 20 % History 2 % 40 % 58 %

13 Uss and Consquncs (3) Exampls of issus and rsults National tst rsults vary ovr tim, within and btwn subjcts; tachrs grads sm mor stabl

14 A Common Framwork for National Tsts Prparatory work during a numbr of yars; Currnt assignmnt by th National Agncy for Education to a small working group (collaborating with rfrnc groups): Thortically foundd quality assuranc Thortical + practical part Main targt groups: th NAE and th univrsity institutions dvloping th tsts (indirctly also othr stakholdrs); Th Framwork intndd to form th basis for th diffrnt tst dvlopmnt groups to dvlop thir subjct spcific spcifications; clarity and transparncy mphasizd; To b dlivrd to th NAE in Dcmbr 2016; howvr, dpnding on political dcisions about th national assssmnt systm at larg.

15 Rcnt national inquiry rgarding th national tsts for lowr and uppr scondary school Main suggstions A distinct aim for ach part of th national assssmnt systm: National tsts National assssmnt support matrials National valuation A rducd numbr of national tsts Gradual digitalisation of th national tsts; xtnsiv piloting Piloting of modls for co-rating and xtrnal rating A clarr rlationship btwn national tst rsults and grads Incrasd quality and stability ovr tim SOU 2016:25: Equivalnt, fair and fficint a nw systm for national assssmnt

16 Prospcts and Challngs Building on, maintaining and furthr dvlop th positiv attituds to, and (intndd/assumd) washback of, th national assssmnt systm; Incrasing stability, thrby contributing to validity and rliability fairnss and quity ; Enabling systmatic studis of dvlopmnt ovr tim; Furthr dvloping and laborating mthods of collaboration with broad groups of stakholdrs, and btwn policy, practic and rsarch.

17 Thank you!