Prácticas docentes de los maestros de matemáticas y pruebas estandarizadas a gran escala. Evaluación formativa y las pruebas estandarizadas en México
Artículos
Publicado junio 2, 2011
Palabras clave
Investigación
Prácticas de enseñanza de las matemáticas
Evaluación formativa
EXANI I
México
Prácticas de enseñanza de las matemáticas
Evaluación formativa
EXANI I
México
Resumen
El propósito del estudio es conocer las prácticas docentes (en particular las relacionadas con la evaluación formativa) de los maestros de matemáticas de secundaria, y explorar cómo se relacionan con los resultados de los alumnos en el Exani I. Se revisaron las respuestas de 478,032 estudiantes en el examen y en el cuestionario de contexto. Las prácticas docentes fueron caracterizadas de acuerdo al marco conceptual de Ruiz-Primo (2004, 2006), del cual se elaboraron 3 escalas: epistémico, conceptual y social. Se encontraron bajas correlaciones entre las prácticas docentes y los puntajes en el examen. Estos resultados se discuten en términos de la congruencia que existe entre las prácticas docentes y el tipo de reactivos que se aplican en las evaluaciones a gran escala. En la medida en que se tenga claro cómo se relacionan, se podrán establecer conclusiones más válidas de los resultados de las pruebas a gran escala y de las inferencias y limitaciones que se puedan hacer con estos resultados.Citas
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative Assessment and Science Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Educa-tion: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal, 314(7080), 572.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carmona, G. (2006). The relationship between performance-based assessments and states’ standardized testing. Individual presentation in the SIG for Large Scale Assessment. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: San Francisco, CA.
Mann, H. B. & Whitney, D. R. (1947). “On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other”. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18 (1): 50–60.
Masters, G. (1982). A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149-174-1 74.
NRC (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational as-sessments. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
Popham, W. J. (2007). Instructional insensitivity of tests: Accountability’s dire drawback. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 146-150.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Formative assessment: Seven stepping-stones to success. Principal Leadership, 9(1), 16-20.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Furtak, E.M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific in-quiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3 & 4), p. 237–263.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2004). Informal assessment of students’ understan-ding of scientific inquiry. CSE: Technical Report 639. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing/ University of California, Los Angeles.
Smith, A., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statis-tics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 33.
Stroup, W. M. (2009). What it means for mathematics tests to be insensitive to instruction. Plenary In L. C. Hart & C. D. Thomas (Eds.) Proceedings of the 29th annual mee-ting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. [CD-ROM]. Eugene, OR: All Academic.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Three practical, policy-focused procedures for determining an accoun-tability test’s instructional sensitivity: An index of sensitivity to instruction. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association held at Chicago, IL.
Wiliam, D. (2008). International comparisons and sensitivity to instruction. Assessment in
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Educa-tion: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal, 314(7080), 572.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carmona, G. (2006). The relationship between performance-based assessments and states’ standardized testing. Individual presentation in the SIG for Large Scale Assessment. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: San Francisco, CA.
Mann, H. B. & Whitney, D. R. (1947). “On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other”. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18 (1): 50–60.
Masters, G. (1982). A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149-174-1 74.
NRC (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational as-sessments. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
Popham, W. J. (2007). Instructional insensitivity of tests: Accountability’s dire drawback. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 146-150.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Formative assessment: Seven stepping-stones to success. Principal Leadership, 9(1), 16-20.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Furtak, E.M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific in-quiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3 & 4), p. 237–263.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2004). Informal assessment of students’ understan-ding of scientific inquiry. CSE: Technical Report 639. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing/ University of California, Los Angeles.
Smith, A., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statis-tics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 33.
Stroup, W. M. (2009). What it means for mathematics tests to be insensitive to instruction. Plenary In L. C. Hart & C. D. Thomas (Eds.) Proceedings of the 29th annual mee-ting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. [CD-ROM]. Eugene, OR: All Academic.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Three practical, policy-focused procedures for determining an accoun-tability test’s instructional sensitivity: An index of sensitivity to instruction. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association held at Chicago, IL.
Wiliam, D. (2008). International comparisons and sensitivity to instruction. Assessment in