Traditional assessments (e.g. multiple-choice quizzes and essays) fail to meet the diverse needs of students and are increasingly prone to academic integrity risks. This study compared students' perceptions of traditional assessments with two innovative assessment types: Reflective E-portfolios and Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs). Participants were 85 undergraduate biopsychology students, who completed Assessment Experience and Perceived Academic Misconduct scales, the University Needs Instrument, and provided qualitative responses. Students with high academic and emotional support needs rated E-portfolios more positively than IOAs, multiple choice quizzes, and written assessment tasks. IOAs, followed by E-portfolios were viewed as less vulnerable to academic misconduct than traditional tasks. Students had initial polarized reactions to innovative tasks, followed by task enjoyment, and highlighted the importance of engaging teaching methods and learning support. Our findings support the need for more innovative assessment that supports diverse student learning needs, while maintaining academic integrity.
Existing formative assessments have key limitations for evaluating PST skill early in teacher preparation program coursework. This study examines the validity of performance tasks as feasible-to-use assessments providing reliable and actionable information about PSTs' instructional skills. Participants were 153 PSTs from two universities participating in a mathematics methods course. Participants completed a set of three performance tasks targeting a focal skill and filmed themselves performing this skill during classroom instruction. All tasks were double coded by trained raters on a proximal measure of the focal skill and distal measures of instructional quality as defined by general and special mathematics educators. ANOVA and Generalizability Theory (GT) analyses were conducted to investigate score accuracy, consistency, bias, and generalizability over different conditions. Regression analyses were conducted to examine how performance task scores relate to PSTs' classroom performance. Study results indicated that performance tasks were reliable and valid measures of PST skill.
This study examined the validity of a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) version of a multidimensional test of reading comprehension that produces two scores: an overall reading comprehension score and a diagnostic classification. The Multiple-choice Online Causal Comprehension Assessment, or MOCCA, uses several features to render scores across two measurement dimensions. We sought evidence that CAT increased testing efficiency by reducing test time and length without sacrificing measurement precision, while also producing better diagnostic classifications and equivalent convergent validity compared to a fixed-item test (FIT). Using a blocked randomized control trial design, we compared CAT and FIT versions on several dependent variables related to testing efficiency, precision, and validity. CAT reduced average test length and testing time while improving measurement precision for the reading comprehension score and improving diagnostic classifications. Results also revealed similar correlations between reading comprehension scores and criterion measures, and evidence of the predictive utility of both scores.
