Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

Mathematics teachers make numerous decisions that form lessons that in turn greatly influence what students learn. In making these decisions, teachers rely on their curricular reasoning (CR) to decide on what mathematics to teach, how to structure their lesson, and what problems or tasks to use to achieve their lesson goals. However, teachers differ with respect to the sophistication of their CR and the diversity of CR aspects used in their reasoning. In this paper, we detail two ways to classify teachers’ CR: a leveled approach to capture the increasing sophistication of teachers’ CR, and a heat map approach that highlights the extent to which teacher use various CR aspects in their planning. These methods provide stakeholders avenues by which CR can be studied and that teachers’ CR abilities can be further developed. 

Teachers use curricular reasoning (CR) as they design and enact instruction with their students, curriculum materials, and standards in mind (Roth McDuffie & Mather, 2009). Teachers’ CR has not been measured to the extent of other critical practices: professional noticing (cf., Schack et al., 2017) and facilitating mathematical discussions (cf., Smith & Sherin, 2019). As part of a larger project, we aim to develop and validate a questionnaire and an observation protocol to formatively measure middle school teachers’ mathematical CR (Dingman et al., 2021).