creator: Bennett, Randy Elliot
description- – This article describes selected results from the Math Online (MOL) study, one of three field investigations sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to explore the use of new technology in NAEP. Of particular interest in the MOL study was the comparability of scores from paper- and computer-based tests. A nationally representative sample of eighth-grade students was administered a computer-based mathematics test and a test of computer facility, among other measures. In addition, a randomly parallel group of students was administered a paper-based test containing the same math items as the computer-based test. Results showed that the computer-based mathematics test was significantly harder statistically than the paper-based test. In addition, computer facility predicted online mathematics test performance after controlling for performance on a paper-based mathematics test, suggesting that degree of familiarity with computers may matter when taking a computer-based mathematics test in NAEP.
subjectcollectiondatepublishercreatorformat description- – This study investigated the comparability of scores for paper and computer versions of a writing test administered to eighth grade students. Two essay prompts were given on paper to a nationally representative sample as part of the 2002 main NAEP writing assessment. The same two essay prompts were subsequently administered on computer to a second sample also selected to be nationally representative. Analyses looked at overall differences in performance between the delivery modes, interactions of delivery mode with group membership, differences in performance between those taking the computer test on different types of equipment (i.e., school machines vs. NAEP-supplied laptops), and whether computer familiarity was associated with online writing test performance. Results generally showed no significant mean score differences between paper and computer delivery. However, computer familiarity significantly predicted online writing test performance after controlling for paper writing skill. These results suggest that, for any given individual, a computer-based writing assessment may produce different results than a paper one, depending upon that individual's level of computer familiarity. Further, for purposes of estimating population performance, as long as substantial numbers of students write better on computer than on paper (or better on paper than on computer), conducting a writing assessment in either mode alone may underestimate the performance that would have resulted if students had been tested using the mode in which they wrote best.
subjectcollectiondatepublishercreatorformat description- – This study evaluated a "substantively driven" method for scoring NAEP writing assessments automatically. The study used variations of an existing commercial program, e-rater®, to compare the performance of three approaches to automated essay scoring: a brute-empirical approach in which variables are selected and weighted solely according to statistical criteria, a hybrid approach in which a fixed set of variables more closely tied to the characteristics of good writing was used but the weights were still statistically determined, and a substantively driven approach in which a fixed set of variables was weighted according to the judgments of two independent committees of writing experts. The research questions concerned (1) the reproducibility of weights across writing experts, (2) the comparison of scores generated by the three automated approaches, and (3) the extent to which models developed for scoring one NAEP prompt generalize to other NAEP prompts of the same genre. Data came from the 2002 NAEP Writing Online study and from the main NAEP 2002 writing assessment. Results showed that, in carrying out the substantively driven approach, experts initially assigned weights to writing dimensions that were highly similar across committees but that diverged from one another after committee 1 was shown the empirical weights for possible use in its judgments and committee 2 was not shown those weights. The substantively driven approach based on the judgments of committee 1 generally did not operate in a markedly different way from the brute empirical or hybrid approaches in most of the analyses conducted. In contrast, many consistent differences with those approaches were observed for the substantively driven approach based on the judgments of committee 2. This study suggests that empirical weights might provide a useful starting point for expert committees, with the understanding that the weights be moderated only somewhat to bring them more into line with substantive considerations. Under such circumstances, the results may turn out to be reasonable, though not necessarily as highly related to human ratings as statistically optimal approaches would produce.
subjectcollectiondatepublishercreatorformat
