Search for: All records

Abstract This study describes preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching mathematics for social justice (TMSJ) after experiencing a two‐part professional development (PD) workshop on the subject. The research question is: To what degree does a PD experience, designed by a preservice teacher, influence preservice teachers' beliefs about TMSJ? The lead author is a preservice teacher who designed and enacted two workshops for education majors at Midwest University. Results indicated that preservice teachers' beliefs were statistically significantly different, with their beliefs trending toward “more strongly agree” about TMSJ after the two‐part PD. There was also less variance in their responses to the survey after the PD compared to before it. This research offers (a) a narrative of preservice teacher‐driven PD and (b) a rich description of a PD for preservice teachers, thus adding to prior literature about in‐service teachers' outcomes. 

Abstract Determining the most appropriate method of scoring an assessment is based on multiple factors, including the intended use of results, the assessment's purpose, and time constraints. Both the dichotomous and partial credit models have their advantages, yet direct comparisons of assessment outcomes from each method are not typical with constructed response items. The present study compared the impact of both scoring methods on the internal structure and consequential validity of a middle‐grades problem‐solving assessment called the problem solving measure for grade six (PSM6). After being scored both ways, Rasch dichotomous and partial credit analyses indicated similarly strong psychometric findings across models. Student outcome measures on the PSM6, scored both dichotomously and with partial credit, demonstrated strong, positive, significant correlation. Similar demographic patterns were noted regardless of scoring method. Both scoring methods produced similar results, suggesting that either would be appropriate to use with the PSM6. 

Abstract Problem solving is a central focus of mathematics teaching and learning. If teachers are expected to support students' problem‐solving development, then it reasons that teachers should also be able to solve problems aligned to grade level content standards. The purpose of this validation study is twofold: (1) to present evidence supporting the use of the Problem Solving Measures Grades 3–5 with preservice teachers (PSTs), and (2) to examine PSTs' abilities to solve problems aligned to grades 3–5 academic content standards. This study used Rasch measurement techniques to support psychometric analysis of the Problem Solving Measures when used with PSTs. Results indicate the Problem Solving Measures are appropriate for use with PSTs, and PSTs' performance on the Problem Solving Measures differed between first‐year PSTs and end‐of‐program PSTs. Implications include program evaluation and the potential benefits of using K‐12 student‐level assessments as measures of PSTs' content knowledge. 

The purpose of this proceeding is to share a component to a validity argument for a new, computer adaptive mathematics Problem-Solving Measure that is designed for grades six through eight (PSM 6-8). The PSM is a single test, which uses computer adaptive features to measure students’ performance using instructional standards. It is intended to measure students’ problem-solving performance related to instructional standards. 

Assessment continues to be an important conversation point within Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education scholarship and practice (Krupa et al., 2019; National Research Council, 2001). There are guidelines for developing and evaluating assess- ments (e.g., AERA et al., 2014; Carney et al., 2022; Lavery et al., 2019; Wilson & Wilmot, 2019). There are also Standards for Educational & Psychological Testing (Standards; AERA et al., 2014) that discuss important rele- vant frameworks and information about using assessment results and interpretations. Quantitative assessments are used as part of daily STEM instruction, STEM research, and STEM evaluation; therefore, having robust assess- ments is necessary (National Research Council, 2001). An aim of this editorial is to give readers a few relevant ideas about modern assessment research, some guidance for the use of quantitative assessments, and framing validation and assessment research as equity-forward work. 

Lengthy standardized assessments decrease instructional time while increasing concerns about student cognitive fatigue. This study presents a methodological approach for item reduction within a complex assessment setting using the Problem Solving Measure for Grade 6 (PSM6). Five item-reduction methods were utilized to reduce the number of items on the PSM6, and each shortened instrument was evaluated through validity evidence for test content, internal structure, and relationships to other variables. The two quantitative methods (Rasch model and point-biserial) resulted in the best psychometrically performing shortened assessments but were not representative of all content subdomains, while the three qualitative (content preservation) methods resulted in poor psychometrically performing assessments that retained all subdomains. Specifically, the ten-item Rasch and ten-item point-biserial shortened tests demonstrated the overall strongest validity evidence, but future research is needed to explore the psychometric performance of these versions in a new independent sample and the necessity for subdomain representation. Implications for the study provide a methodological framework for researchers to use and reduce the length of existing instruments while identifying how the various reduction strategies may sacrifice different information from the original instrument. Practitioners are encouraged to carefully examine to what extent their reduced instrument aligns with their pre-determined criteria. 

Depth-of-knowledge (DOK) is a means to communicate the cognitive demand of tasks and is often used to categorize assessment items. Webb’s (2002) framework has been applied across content areas. The aim of this two-phase iterative study was to modify Webb’s DOK framework for word problems. Through work with school partners, this iterative design-research based study provides supportive evidence for a modified DOK framework reflecting levels of complexity in word problems. The resulting modified DOK framework presents an opportunity for mathematics educators to reflect on various aspects of cognitive complexity. 

Determining the most appropriate method of scoring an assessment is based on multiple factors, including the intended use of results, the assessment's purpose, and time constraints. Both the dichotomous and partial credit models have their advantages, yet direct comparisons of assessment outcomes from each method are not typical with constructed response items. The present study compared the impact of both scoring methods on the internal structure and consequential validity of a middle-grades problem-solving assessment called the problem solving measure for grade six (PSM6). After being scored both ways, Rasch dichotomous and partial credit analyses indicated similarly strong psychometric findings across models. Student outcome measures on the PSM6, scored both dichotomously and with partial credit, demonstrated strong, positive, significant correlation. Similar demographic patterns were noted regardless of scoring method. Both scoring methods produced similar results, suggesting that either would be appropriate to use with the PSM6.