- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Acknowledgement
- About the Sourcebook
- Acronyms
- Part 1 - Introduction and overview
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Validating Assessment for Learning: Consequential and Systems Approaches
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 14:50 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
Journal ArticleSource:
Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Volume 6, Issue 12, p.23-31 (2009)URL:
http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/237/226Keywords:
consequential validity; educational evaluation; formative assessment; Learning; performance assessment; systemic validityAbstract:
In order to adequately evaluate assessment for learning, expanded approaches to validity need to be considered. The purpose of this manuscript is to explore what is necessary to evaluate claims that assessment facilitates learning. Messick’s (1994) concept of consequential validity provides one lens for determining the learning consequences of assessment. His approach suggests that learning consequences are a special case of the general concept of consequential validity and should be evaluated from that perspective. The systems approach developed by Frederiksen and Collins (1989) provides another perspective of how assessments can be designed with learning consequences in mind. Their model provides a transparent way to link assessments to learning by making teaching to the test a valid activity. The adequacy of both models for evaluating claims of learning from assessment is explored. Based on the analysis, a model for evaluating the validity of evidence for assessment for learning is outlined.