Читательская грамотность. Минск: рикз, 2020. 201 с
Teaching practices and classroom support for reading growth and engagement
жүктеу/скачать 3,64 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Considerations for adaptive testing
| 182
Teaching practices and classroom support for reading growth and engagement 117. There is strong research evidence showing that classroom practices, such as the direct teaching of reading strategies, contribute to growth in reading skill (Pressley, 2000; Rosenshine & Meister, 1997; Waters & Schneider, 2010). In addition, teachers’ scaffolding and support for autonomy, competence and ownership improve students’ reading proficiency, awareness of strategies, and engagement in reading (Guthrie, Ho, & Klauda, 2013; Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012). While in most educational systems, reading is no longer taught as a subject matter to 15- year-old students in the same way as are mathematics and science, some reading instruction may be explicitly or incidentally given in language lessons and in other disciplines (e.g. social science, science, foreign languages, civic education, ICT). Yet the dispersed nature of reading instruction represents a challenge for articulating questions that capture the classroom practices and opportunities to learn to which students may be exposed. Despite these challenges, it is thought extremely important to capture through the student questionnaire the relevant instructional processes – opportunity-to-learn and teaching practices – that might support the development of students’ reading skills, practices and motivation. Considerations for adaptive testing 118. The deployment of computer-based assessment in PISA creates the opportunity to implement adaptive testing. Adaptive testing enables higher levels of measurement precision using fewer items per individual student. This is accomplished by targeting more items that are aligned to the ability range of students at different points in the ability distribution. 119. Adaptive testing has the potential to increase the resolution and sensitivity of the assessment, most particularly at the lower end of the distribution of student performance. For example, students who perform low on items that assess their ease and efficiency of reading (e.g. reading fluency) will likely struggle on highly complex multiple text items. Thus, there would be benefit in providing additional lower-level texts for those students to better assess specific aspects of their comprehension. |