CIRCA:Creating innovative assessment items and test forms - Scalise, K.


Revision as of 04:42, 27 February 2013 by DominiGee (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Creating innovative assessment items and test forms

Scalise, K. (2012). "Creating innovative assessment items and test forms." In R. Lissitz & H. Jiao (Eds.) Computers and their impact on state assessment: Recent history and predictions for the future (pp. 133-155). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age publishing.

Reviews 8 examples of innovative assessments (3 digital simulations; 3 digital games; and 2 that explore innovations such as behavioral observation/biometrics/information foraging/crowd sourcing/collaborative assessment). The last two are more interesting because they break the typical digital assessment format: Intel’s Tabletop Simulations and Eye Tracking in reading assessments. Intel’s Tabletop Simulations have students do hands-on work with the technology recording and observing (using a webcam) as a form of performance assessment. The Eye Tracking in reading assessments provide data on reading patterns and focal points – in these assessments, diagnostic profiles reveal where students reading approaches can be improved and indicate substantially different patterns between readers. The article also presents a ‘Intermediate constraint taxonomy for e-learning assessment questions and tasks’ (IC taxonomy) chart to list out the 7 types of assessment formats and 4 levels of complexity. This article also defines innovative assessment items to be “in context, with properties to include being a useful or potentially useful form distal to, or different from, current or standard assessment design practices in context” (pg. 149). She also lists 3 aspects that a software product needs to engage in before it is considered engaging in assessment practice: (a) collecting evidence (information/observations); (b) designed knowing the goals and objectives of the assessment; and (c) inferences such as generating score/proficiency estimate/diagnostic profile. These three aspects can be summed as “collective evidence designed to make an inference” (pg. 134).

Personal tools