1 / 13

ECD as KR *

ECD as KR *. Robert J. Mislevy, University of Maryland Roy Levy, University of Maryland Eric G. Hansen, Educational Testing Service (builds on work with Linda Steinberg and Russell Almond) March 6, 2003 * Evidence-centered design as knowledge representation. Knowledge Representations.

dacey
Télécharger la présentation

ECD as KR *

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ECD as KR* Robert J. Mislevy, University of Maryland Roy Levy, University of Maryland Eric G. Hansen, Educational Testing Service (builds on work with Linda Steinberg and Russell Almond) March 6, 2003 * Evidence-centered design as knowledge representation

  2. Knowledge Representations • A knowledge representation (KR) is a structure for expressing, communicating, and thinking about important entities and relationships in some domain. • Maps, wiring diagrams, physics equations, nested lists. • Object models, for business systems and computer systems. • Evidence-centered design models & structures • KRs are surrogates for something else--a real world situation, or a class of situations, or a representation in other KRs. • They capture some entities and relationships, but ignore others. • The included entities, relationships, and processes are the ontology of the KR -- what kinds of things you think about, and how.

  3. KRs are useful when they highlight important relationships and make them easier to work with. • KRs facilitate analogies across problems and domains. • In what ways are AP Studio Art, the SAT, Hydrive, and a language proficiency oral interview alike? • KRs make it easier to acquire and structure information. • E.g., ECD design process in ETS Teaching & Learning programs • KRs can facilitate working together. • ECD object model for sharing, re-using, repurposing the elements and processes in assessments. • KRs are significant in planning. • What will a solution have to look like? What elements in assessments can vary substantially, but what relationships must hold? • Overlapping KRs coordinate work in complex systems. • Multiple ECD KRs, with bridges among them, for different, interrelated parts of assessment (substance to argument to specs & models to operation to reporting).

  4. *** Warning -- cognitive overload ***

  5. Where you usually start: What are all the kinds of things that are important to know and do, when and how? What does good work look like? Not generally organized according to assessment arguments. (In ECD, “domain analysis”) KRs: Idiosyncratic from domains, as evolved to suit domain purposes.

  6. Where you usually want to go: Operational assessment system: Pieces and processes that gather, evaluate, and report, to achieve assessment purpose. (In ECD, “assessment delivery system.”) KRs: Object model for delivery system.

  7. How do you get from here to there? That is, from knowledge about the domain, to objects and processes that meet the purposes you had in mind?

  8. What’s in between (1): Assessment argument: What knowledge, skill, accomplishments, etc., of students do you want do draw inferences about? What do you need to see them say, do, or make? What circumstances can evoke this evidence? (Messick, 1984) KRs: Toulmin & Wigmore diagrams %% EH: How about: What’s in between (part 1) .. Just a thought..

  9. What’s in between (2): Organizing argument in KRs that presage the structure of assessment elements and processes. Still substantively meaningful. (In ECD, “Domain Modeling”) KRs: ETS “paradigms”; T&L forms; PADI Design Patterns; Bayes nets for arguments; BEAR construct map structure.

  10. What’s in between (2, continued): Also has implications for what information you need beforeadministration of the assessment, and how you can interpret the results. What’s in between (2): Organizing argument in KRs that presage the structure of assessment elements and processes. Still substantively meaningful. (In ECD, “Domain Modeling”) KRs: ETS “paradigms”; T&L forms; PADI Design Patterns, Bayes nets for arguments. %% EH: Very good point for disability access..

  11. Need to establish correspondence between the common assessment KRs and the domain-specific KRs that address key entities and relationships from that domain, as they need to be organized into the assessment argument, thence assessment structures. E.g., BioKIDS’ structure/demand matrices and FOSS’s filled-in construct maps What’s in between (2): Organizing argument in KRs that presage the structure of assessment elements and processes. Still substantively meaningful. (In ECD, “Domain Modeling”) KRs: ETS “paradigms”; T&L forms; PADI Design Patterns, Bayes nets for arguments.

  12. What’s in between (3): Models and specifications for operational elements and processes. (ECD “Conceptual Assessment Framework”) KRs: Student, Evidence, & Task models; Bayes nets; Measurement-model equations; Task Templates; Generalized rubrics, scoring algorithms

  13. The upshot: Work through KRs, get machinery that embodies the substantive assessment argument, to meet the purposes you had in mind.

More Related