ASL (Compatibility Mode)

Day One
Session Four
Topic: Performance-Based Assessment and Student

Portfolios as Alternative Assessment Techniques
I. Learning Targets:
At the end of this session the participants should be able
to:
a. define the term performance-based assessment;
b. identify uses of performance-based assessment;
c. construct performance tests for one’s students;
d. define the terms portfolio and portfolio
assessment;
e. build a system for portfolio assessment;
f. appreciate performance-based and
portfolio assessment.
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
II. Session Notes
A. Performance-based assessment
 Definition:
performance-tests : use direct measure of learning rather
than indicators of these
: teacher observes and evaluates student abilities to carry
out complex activities that are used and valued outside
the immediate confines of the classroom
 examples:
field of athletics : diving and gymnastics are performances
that judges rate directly
field of music : band contest where judges directly see and
hear the competence of the
violin or trombone players
 Uses of performance tests
-- can assess processes and products or both
 examples:
-- process: teacher assesses the reading process of
each student by
1. noting the percentage of words read accurately
during oral reading
2. noting the number of sentences read by the
learner that are meaningful within the context of
the story
3. noting the percentage of story elements
that the learner can talk about in
his/her own words after reading.
--product: the fourth grade learners assemble a portfolio of their
writing products, both rough and final drafts.
--process and product: Social studies learning processes and

products are assessed by having learners engage in
a variety of projects built around a question
answered in a variety of ways involving individual
and groups writing assignments, oral presentations,
and exhibits
-- can be embedded in lessons
 a performance activity and assessment that is
embedded in a unit on electricity in a general science
class
-- can assess affective and social skills using rating scales

 self-direction
 ability to work with others
 social awareness
 Developing Performance Tests
Step 1. Deciding what to test

-- knowledge, intellectual skills, habits of mind
Step 2. Designing the assessment context
-- create a task, simulation or situation that will allow
learners to demonstrate the knowledge, skills and
attitudes that they have acquired
Step 3. Specifying the scoring rubrics
-- rubrics: a carefully constructed scoring
system.
: may be used for products (poems, essays,
drawings, etc.); complex cognitive processes;
observable performance; and habits of mind
and social skills.
Step 4. Specifying Testing Constraints.

-- time -- equipment
-- reference materials -- prior knowledge of the tasks
-- other people -- scoring criteria
B. Portfolio Assessment
 Definition: tells a story of the learner’s growth in proficiency, long-
term achievement and significant accomplishments in a given
academic area.
 What is a portfolio?
It is a planned collection of learner achievement that documents
what a student has accomplished and the steps taken to get
there. The collection represents a collaborative effort among
teacher and learner, to decide on portfolio
purpose, content and evaluation criteria.
Developing a system for portfolio assessment
Step 1. Deciding on the purposes for a portfolio
 monitoring student progress
 communicating what has been learned to parents
 assigning a course grade
Step 2. Identifying cognitive skills and disposition.
Step 3. Deciding who will plan the portfolio.
Step 4. Deciding which products to put in the portfolio and how
many sample of each product to include.
Step 5. Building the portfolio rubrics.
Step 6. Developing a procedure to aggregate all portfolio ratings.
Step 7. Determining the logistics.
 timelines
 how products are turned in and retrieved
 where final products are kept
 who has access to the portfolio
 plan a final conference with individual learners, and
parents
Essay Portfolio Rating Form
___________ First Draft
___________ Second Draft
___________ Final Draft
To be completed by student:
1. Date submitted: ________________________________________________________
2. Briefly explain what this essay says about you. _______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3. What do you like best about this piece of writing? _____________________________
______________________________________________________________________
4. What do you want to improve on the next draft? _______________________________
______________________________________________________________________
5. If this is your final draft, will you include this in your portfolio and why? ___________
______________________________________________________________________
To be completed by teacher:
1. Quality Reflection
Rating Description
5 States very clearly what he/she likes most and least about essay.
Goes into much detail about how to improve the work.
4 States clearly what he/she likes and dislikes about the essay. Gives
detail about how to improve the work.
3 States his/her likes and dislikes but could be clearer. Gives some
detail about how the work will be improved.
2 Is vague about likes and dislikes. Gives few details about how
essay will be improved.
1 No evidence of any reflection on the work.
2. Writing Conventions
Rating Description
5 The use of writing conventions is very effective. No errors evident.
These conventions are fluid and complex: punctuation, grammar
usage, sentence structure, spelling.
4 The use of writing conventions is effective. Only minor errors evi-
dent. These conventions are nearly all effective: punctuation,
grammar usage, sentence structure, spelling.
3 The use of writing conventions is somewhat effective. Errors don’t
interfere with meaning. These conventions are somewhat effective:
punctuation, grammar usage, sentence structure, spelling.
2 Errors in the use of writing conventions interfere with meaning.
These conventions are limited and uneven: punctuation, grammar
usage, sentence structure, spelling.
1 Major errors in the use of writing conventions obscure meaning. Lacks
understanding of punctuation, grammar usage, sentence struc-
ture, spelling.
3. Organization
Rating Description
5 Clearly makes sense.
4 Makes sense.
3 Makes sense for the most part.
2 Attempted but does not make sense.
1 Does not make sense.
4. Planning (1st draft only)

Rating Description
5 Follows up on all suggestions for revision.
revisions are definite improvement.
4 Follows up on most suggestion for revision.
Revisions on the previous draft.
3 Addresses some but not all suggested
revisions. Revisions are a slight
improvement over earlier draft.
2 Ignores most suggestions for revision.
Revisions made do not improve the earlier
draft.
1 Made only a minimal attempt to revise, if at
all.
Sum of ratings: _______________
Average of ratings: ________________
Comments:
_______________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
(Source:
Kubiszyn
and Borich,
pages 179-184)
(Source:
Kubiszyn
and Borich,
pages 179-184)
(Source: Kubiszyn and Borich, pages 179-184)
Day Two
Day Two
Session One
Topic: Determining the Quality of a Test through Validity
I. Learning Targets
At the end of this session the participants should be able
to:
a. define the term validity
b. describe the types of validity
c. identify types of criterion-related validation
d. identify types of evidence used in construct validation
e. describe the methods used in the validity of the
interpretations from the test scores
f. identify construct validation; and
g. appreciate the validity of test.
II. Session Notes
A. Definition and other features of validity

 Validity refers to the appropriateness of the interpretation of
the results of a test or evaluation instrument for a given group
of individuals, and not to the instrument itself.
 It is more correct to speak of the validity of the interpretation to
be made of the
results.
 Validity is a matter of degree.
 Best considered in terms of categories that specify degree,
such as high validity, moderate validity and low validity.
 Is always specific to some particular use interpretation.
 Is a unitary concept based on various kinds of evidence.
B. Approaches to Test Validation
TABLE 3.1 Approaches to Test Validation
(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p.51)
C. Types of criterion-related validation (based on time difference only)
(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p.57)
D. Some types of evidence in construct validation
Math Reasoning Test
 Compare the test tasks to the task domain (content-related
evidence).
 Have test takers “Think Aloud” as they answer (to check on
mental process).
 Compare scores of math majors with scores of non-majors.
 Correlate scores of other math reasoning tests.
 Correlate scores with scores of reading tests (to rule out
reading ability).
 Correlate scores with math grades
(criterion-related evidence).
E. Methods used in Construct validation
• Defining the domain of tasks to be measured.
 Analyzing the mental process required for the test items.
 Comparing the scores of known groups.
 Comparing scores before and after some particular

treatment.
 Correlating the scores with other measures.
F. Factors that lower the validity of the interpretations from the test
scores
 Unclear direction
 Reading vocabulary and sentence structure too difficult
 Appropriate level of difficulty of the test items
 Poorly constructed test items
 Ambiguity
F. Factors that lower the validity of the interpretations from the test
scores
 Test items inappropriate for the outcomes being measured

 Inadequate time limits
 Test too short
 Improper arrangement of items
 Identical pattern of answers
Exercise # 1
Read each of the following situations. Identify the type of reliability or validity
each illustrates. For numbers, 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, interpret the correlation
coefficient. Write your answer in your answer sheet (15 pts.)
1. A researcher constructed an achievement test in Math. He administered it

to all first year students in a public high school. After a couple of weeks he
administered it to the same students. He then correlated the scores on the
two tests and obtained an r = 67.
2. A graduate student made an anxiety scale for college students. She
administered it to a random sample of 50 senior students. She also
administered a standardized anxiety scale to the same students. If she
applies the PPM formula to the scores in both instruments, what test
characteristic does she establish for her anxiety scale?
3. The end of the grading period was a month away. One of the general
science teachers was assigned to construct the periodic test in the
aforementioned subject. A couple of weeks prior to the administration of
the test, it was shown to the teachers teaching the same subject in the
same grade level. These teachers were requested to go over the items to
determine if they fit the instructional objectives and the content area
covered for that particular grading period. All of them agreed that the test
items fit the conditions given.
4. A researcher constructed two forms (Form A and Form B) of an
achievement test in Filipino. He administered Form A in the morning of one
school day and then administered Form B the following day. The
correlation coefficient was 0.33.
5. A teacher in a business school made a test to measure the clerical
ability of graduating students from the two-year secretarial program.
After three years, he traced the whereabouts of these same students
and obtained their performance ratings as secretaries. The correlation
coefficient was 0.83.
6. A researcher administered an achievement test in Science to second
year high school students in March. Due to time constraints, he could
not administer it a second time. However, he was still able to use a
procedure that enabled him to obtain an r =0.75.
7. A Metrobank Outstanding teacher awardee prepared an honesty
scale. He administered it to some government employees. After
conducting an experiment, he found out that the honest employees
obtained a high score in his scale while the dishonest ones did not.
What did he determine, reliability or validity? Indicate which type.
8. So you prepared two forms of an achievement test in Chemistry. You
administered Form A to fourth year BSE Chemistry students. After three
weeks, you administered Form B to the same students. You correlated
the scores on the two forms of the test and obtained an r = 0.25.
9. A teacher in an ICT school constructed a test to measure the fourth
year engineering student’s ability in information technology. He
administered it for the first time on October 15, 2007. He administered
it for a second time to the same students in November 20, 2007. The
correlation coefficient was r = -0.20.
Day Two
Session Two
Topic: Determining the Quality of a Test through Reliability
I. Learning Targets
At the end of this session the participants should be able to:
a. define the term reliability;
b. define basic terminology: coefficient, validity coefficient and
reliability coefficient;
c. explain the procedure for determining reliability by correlation
methods;
d. discuss the methods of estimating reliability;
e. explain reliability demands and nature of the decision; and
f. appreciate the reliability of tests.
II. Session Notes
A. Definition and other features of reliability
 Reliability refers to the results obtained with an assessment

instrument and not to the instrument itself.
 An estimate of reliability always refers to a particular type
of consistency.
 Test scores are reliable (or generalizable) over
 different periods of time
 different scores of questions
 different raters
 Test scores are not reliable in general
 The appropriate type of consistency in a particular case is
dictated by the use to be made of the results.
B. Determining reliability by correlation methods
Table 3.1 Methods of estimating Reliability
(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p. 80)
Test-Retest
September 25 October 15
Form A Form A
1. hosidos 1. hosidos
2. hodis osid 2. hodis osid
3. kodsosicos 3. kodsosicos
4. kdosodiso 4. kdosodiso
Score = 82 Score = 86
Figure 4.1 Test-retest method (using same test form)
Figure 4.2 Equivalent-forms method (without and with a time interval)
Figure 4.3 Odd-even scoring to use of split-half method (odd and
even scores are then correlated
Sum number Sum number

Of odd items Of odd items
Correct Correct
Item 1 Item 2
3 4
5 6
. .
. .
. .
Odd Even
Score = 40 Score = 42
C. Methods of estimating reliability
When examining the reliability coefficient of standardized tests, it is important to
consider the methods that were used to obtain the reliability estimates. In general,
the size of the reliability coefficient is related to the method of estimating reliability.
(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p. 97)
D. Some basic terminology
E. Reliability demands and nature of the decision
 High reliability is demanded when the

 Decision is important.
 Decision is final.
 Decision concerns individuals.
Example:
 Select or reject college applicant.
 Low reliability is tolerable when the
 Decision is minor importance
 Decisions concerns groups
 Decision making is in early stage
 Decision is reversible
Example:
Whether to review a classroom lesson.
Day Two
Session Three
Workshop II. Exercises on Validity and Reliability
I. Learning Targets
At the end of this session the participants should be able to:
a. answer exercises on validity and reliability;
b. calculate Pearson r using both the deviation score formula and
the raw score formula;
c. interpret the Pearson r; and
d. appreciate correlation coefficient.
II. Workshop II
1. Discussion on exercise on reliability and validity.
2. Discussion on the Pearson product-moment correlation and the
two formulae.
3. Calculation of Pearson r.
4. Interpretation of Pearson r.
What is the Pearson product-moment correlation?
 The Pearson product-moment correlation is a parametric
statistical technique that indicates the relationship between two
or more variables.
 It gives an index of correlation, r, appropriate when the data
represent either interval or ratio scales.
 It takes into account each pair of scores and produces a
coefficient between 0.00 and either +1.00.
Why do we apply the Pearson product-moment correlation?

 It is applied to determine the magnitude
and direction of the relationship between
two or more variables.
Exercise # 2
For the following pairs of variables, would you expect the
correlation coefficient to be positive, negative or zero?
a. A person’s total family income and his neighbor’s total family

income.
b. Number of registered voters in a district and the number voting
on election day.
c. Number of cigarettes smoked and kung function.
d. Calories consumed and weight.
e. Altitude and mean temperature.
f. Gross national product and infant mortality rate.
g. Number of cars in a household and total family income.
h. Number of hours you study and your grade on
an exam.
i. Size of the head and intelligence test scores.
Exercise # 3
Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient
Calculation of the correlation coefficient (r)
The raw-score formula
N ∑XY - ∑X ∑Y
rxy = __________________________
√[N ∑X2 – (∑X)2][N∑Y2 – (∑Y)2]
Scores of Ten Students on Two Tests Along with the
Calculations and Totals Necessary for Computations of the
Raw Score Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient Formula
Student TEST X TEST Y X2 Y2 XY

a 8 3 64 9 24
b 2 1 4 1 2
c 8 6 64 36 48
d 5 3 25 9 15
e 15 14 225 196 210
f 11 12 121 144 132
g 13 9 169 81 117
h 6 4 36 16 24
i 4 4 16 16 16
j 6 5 36 25 30
∑ 78 61 760 533 618
REFERENCES:
1. Gronlund, Norman E. and Linn, Robert L. (1990). Measurement

and Evaluation in Teaching (6th ed.) New York: MacMillan
Publsihing House
2. Kubiszyn, Tom and Borich, Gary (2004). Educational Testing and

Measurement – Classroom Application and Practice.
(7th ed.) Singapore: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
3. McMillan, James H. (1997). Classroom Assessment: Principles

and Practice for Effective Instruction. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon
4. Ferguson, George A. and Takane, Yoshio (1989).

Statistical Analysis in Psychology and
Education. (6th ed.). Singapore: Mc-
Graw-Hill Book Co.
5. Tanner, David E. (2001). Assessing Academic

Achievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Thank you 

ASL (Compatibility Mode)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASL (Compatibility Mode)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Day One

Topic: Performance-Based Assessment and Student

--process and product: Social studies learning processes and

-- can assess affective and social skills using rating scales

Step 1. Deciding what to test

Step 4. Specifying Testing Constraints.

4. Planning (1st draft only)

Topic: Determining the Quality of a Test through Validity

A. Definition and other features of validity

(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p.51)

(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p.57)

• Defining the domain of tasks to be measured.

 Analyzing the mental process required for the test items.

 Comparing the scores of known groups.

 Comparing scores before and after some particular

 Correlating the scores with other measures.

 Test items inappropriate for the outcomes being measured

1. A researcher constructed an achievement test in Math. He administered it

Topic: Determining the Quality of a Test through Reliability

A. Definition and other features of reliability

 Reliability refers to the results obtained with an assessment

(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p. 80)

Figure 4.1 Test-retest method (using same test form)

Sum number Sum number

(Source: Gronlund and Linn, p. 97)

 High reliability is demanded when the

Workshop II. Exercises on Validity and Reliability

Why do we apply the Pearson product-moment correlation?

a. A person’s total family income and his neighbor’s total family

Calculation of the correlation coefficient (r)

The raw-score formula

Student TEST X TEST Y X2 Y2 XY

1. Gronlund, Norman E. and Linn, Robert L. (1990). Measurement

2. Kubiszyn, Tom and Borich, Gary (2004). Educational Testing and

3. McMillan, James H. (1997). Classroom Assessment: Principles

4. Ferguson, George A. and Takane, Yoshio (1989).

5. Tanner, David E. (2001). Assessing Academic

You might also like