当前位置: X-MOL 学术Reading & Writing Quarterly › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comparing and Validating Four Methods for Scoring Mathematics Writing
Reading & Writing Quarterly ( IF 1.5 ) Pub Date : 2019-12-23 , DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2019.1700858
Jessica M. Namkung 1 , Michael Hebert 1 , Sarah R. Powell 2 , Marisa Hoins 1 , Nicole Bricko 1 , Meghann Torchia 1
Affiliation  

Abstract Current mathematics curricula and assessments emphasize students’ ability to communicate mathematical reasoning in writing. Limited research exists, however, on what mathematics writing (MW) is and how to assess the quality of MW. Therefore, based on our definition of MW construct, we explored 4 approaches to scoring MW: (a) holistic rubric scoring for overall quality of explanation; (b) analytical rubric scoring across 4 components (i.e., mathematics content, mathematics vocabulary, writing organization, writing grammar); (c) genre-based elements scoring (modified from the scoring form used for the Essay Composition subtest of the Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test); and (d) curriculum-based measurement mathematics-writing sequences (MWS) scoring, including rules for scoring numbers and symbols. Students from 6 classrooms in 3rd-grade, 4th grade, and 5th grade (2 classrooms at each grade level; N = 122) were recruited for the current study. Results indicated all 4 scoring methods were moderately correlated with measures of writing and mathematics. Holistic, analytic, and elements scoring were strongly correlated with each other, with slightly lower correlations for the MWS scoring. Confirmatory factor analysis further demonstrated adequate construct validity. All 4 scoring methods were reliable with an exception of lower reliability for writing components assessed by analytic scoring. Based on the validity, reliability, efficiency, and information provided by each scoring method, we recommend holistic scoring for summative assessments and elements scoring for formative assessments.

中文翻译:

比较和验证四种数学写作评分方法

摘要 当前的数学课程和评估强调学生以书面形式交流数学推理的能力。然而,关于数学写作 (MW) 是什么以及如何评估 MW 质量的研究有限。因此,基于我们对 MW 结构的定义,我们探索了 4 种对 MW 进行评分的方法:(a)整体评分对解释的整体质量;(b) 4 个组成部分(即数学内容、数学词汇、写作组织、写作语法)的分析评分标准;(c) 基于体裁的元素评分(根据韦克斯勒个性化成就测试的作文子测试使用的评分表修改);(d) 基于课程的测量数学写作序列 (MWS) 评分,包括对数字和符号进行评分的规则。本研究招募了来自三年级、四年级和五年级的 6 个教室(每个年级有 2 个教室;N = 122)的学生。结果表明,所有 4 种评分方法都与写作和数学测量呈中度相关。整体评分、分析评分和要素评分相互之间具有很强的相关性,而 MWS 评分的相关性略低。验证性因素分析进一步证明了足够的结构效度。除了通过分析评分评估的写作组件的可靠性较低之外,所有 4 种评分方法都是可靠的。根据每种评分方法提供的有效性、可靠性、效率和信息,我们建议总结性评估采用整体评分,形成性评估采用要素评分。和 5 年级(每个年级有 2 个教室;N = 122)被招募用于当前的研究。结果表明,所有 4 种评分方法都与写作和数学测量呈中度相关。整体评分、分析评分和要素评分相互之间具有很强的相关性,而 MWS 评分的相关性略低。验证性因素分析进一步证明了足够的结构效度。除了通过分析评分评估的写作组件的可靠性较低之外,所有 4 种评分方法都是可靠的。根据每种评分方法提供的有效性、可靠性、效率和信息,我们建议总结性评估采用整体评分,形成性评估采用要素评分。和 5 年级(每个年级有 2 个教室;N = 122)被招募用于当前的研究。结果表明,所有 4 种评分方法都与写作和数学测量呈中度相关。整体评分、分析评分和要素评分相互之间具有很强的相关性,而 MWS 评分的相关性略低。验证性因素分析进一步证明了足够的结构效度。除了通过分析评分评估的写作组件的可靠性较低之外,所有 4 种评分方法都是可靠的。根据每种评分方法提供的有效性、可靠性、效率和信息,我们建议总结性评估采用整体评分,形成性评估采用要素评分。结果表明,所有 4 种评分方法都与写作和数学测量呈中度相关。整体评分、分析评分和要素评分相互之间具有很强的相关性,而 MWS 评分的相关性略低。验证性因素分析进一步证明了足够的结构效度。除了通过分析评分评估的写作组件的可靠性较低之外,所有 4 种评分方法都是可靠的。根据每种评分方法提供的有效性、可靠性、效率和信息,我们建议总结性评估采用整体评分,形成性评估采用要素评分。结果表明,所有 4 种评分方法都与写作和数学测量呈中度相关。整体评分、分析评分和要素评分相互之间具有很强的相关性,而 MWS 评分的相关性略低。验证性因素分析进一步证明了足够的结构效度。除了通过分析评分评估的写作组件的可靠性较低之外,所有 4 种评分方法都是可靠的。根据每种评分方法提供的有效性、可靠性、效率和信息,我们建议总结性评估采用整体评分,形成性评估采用要素评分。验证性因素分析进一步证明了足够的结构效度。除了通过分析评分评估的写作组件的可靠性较低之外,所有 4 种评分方法都是可靠的。根据每种评分方法提供的有效性、可靠性、效率和信息,我们建议总结性评估采用整体评分,形成性评估采用要素评分。验证性因素分析进一步证明了足够的结构效度。除了通过分析评分评估的写作组件的可靠性较低之外,所有 4 种评分方法都是可靠的。根据每种评分方法提供的有效性、可靠性、效率和信息,我们建议总结性评估采用整体评分,形成性评估采用要素评分。
更新日期:2019-12-23
down
wechat
bug