د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B61

Approximately 90% of Dutch primary schools use the LOVS tests. The Computer Program
LOVS allows the user to process test results and automatically generate pupil reports, group
overviews, and school reports. In this process, accurate interpretation of the results is of the
utmost importance.
Meijer, Ledoux, and Elshof (2011) recently published a report about the usability of
various pupil-monitoring systems in Dutch primary education. The results of this study
suggest that users of the Computer Program LOVS have difficulty interpreting the test results,
which sometimes results in users making incorrect decisions. In addition, use of the test
results by teachers appears to be limited, as interpretation and analysis of the results is mainly
executed by internal support teachers. This conclusion is also supported by Ledoux et al.
(2009), who claim that teachers are not always involved in the interpretation phase. In
addition, multiple studies (Ledoux et al., 2009; Meijer et al., 2011) suggest that the many
possibilities offered by the Computer Program LOVS are only used to a limited extent. For
example, the trend analyses often remain unused. Various studies have suggested that school
staff currently lack the knowledge and skills that are needed to use data to improve the quality
of education (Earl & Fullan, 2003; Kerr, Marsch, Ikemoio, Darilek, & Barney, 2006; Ledoux
et al., 2009; Meijer et al., 2011; Saunders, 2000; Van Petegem & Vanhoof, 2004; Williams &
Coles, 2007; Zupanc, Urank, & Bren, 2009). Vanhoof, Verhaeghe, Verhaeghe, Valcke, and
Van Petegem, (2011) emphasise that there is little knowledge about the degree to which users
are capable of correctly interpreting and analysing data from SPFS; this is a crucial
precondition for DDDM.
Moreover, various studies have suggested that a certain degree of ‗assessment literacy‘
is a precondition for a correct interpretation of test results (Earl & Fullan, 2003; Vanhoof, et
al., 2011; Verhaeghe, 2011). ―Assessment literacy refers to the capacity of teachers – alone
and together – (a) to examine and accurately understand student work and performance data,
and correspondingly, (b) to develop classroom, and school plans to alter conditions necessary
to achieve better results‖ (Fullan & Watson, 2000, p. 457). As data interpretation is necessary
for adequately altering conditions to meet pupils‘ needs, it touches upon one of the basic skills
that compromise assessment literacy. Hattie and Brown (2008) noted that when assessment
results are displayed graphically, the need for teachers to have a high degree of assessment
literacy is reduced because they can make use of their intuition to interpret the assessment
results (a). However, they emphasised that teachers do need to be very skilled in transforming
their interpretations into meaningful actions for teaching that meet the needs of the learners
(b). Mandinach and Jackson (2012) call this ‗pedagogic data literacy‘. The Computer Program
LOVS provides both numerical information in the form of a table and graphical
representations, which allows for intuitive interpretations and provides numerical data for
further analysis and comparison to instructional goals. However, it is not clear which (basic)
level of assessment literacy can be expected of the current teacher population in the
Netherlands.
Popham (2009) has noted that currently in most pre-service teacher education
programmes in the United States, courses on educational assessment are not part of the
curriculum and no formal requirements exist. This situation is no different in the Netherlands,
although the recent developments in the area of DDDM have boosted professional
development initiatives.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني