Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Testing of English- and French-Speaking Students in Canada / Évaluation des élèves anglophones et des élèves francophones au Canada. Kadriye Ercikan, UBC, Marielle Simon, uOttawa, Maria Elena Oliveri, UBC & Normand Dufour, MÉLS Canadian Society for the Study of Education
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Kadriye Ercikan, UBC, Marielle Simon, uOttawa, Maria Elena Oliveri, UBC & Normand Dufour, MÉLS
Canadian Society for the Study of Education
Canadian Education Researchers Association
May-June 2010, Concordia University, Montreal
Describe the context, challenges, actual procedures, other solutions and implications for achieving comparability of English and French student test results on large-scale assessments (LSAs) in Canada
French Immersion programs are made widely available in all the provinces
Comparative comments often made: “As was the case in PISA 200o and PISA 2003, students enrolled in the French-language school systems in Nova Scotia, New-Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba performed significantly lower in reading than did students in the English-language systems in the same provinces” (Government of Canada, 2008 web site).
Test scores are used for obtaining diploma, scholarship decisions, university entrance selection, etc.
7 out of 10 jurisdictions surveyed in 2007 said comparability was intended
1 jurisdiction’s tests are developed and administered independently
Holistic scoring by teachers in 1 jurisdiction needs validation committees to ensure comparability
The two language versions of a test may be developed based on different target curricula, content specifications or teaching resources
Ideal conditions for scores to be comparable:
Equivalence of tests
Equivalence of scores
through parallel tests
Comparability of scores through linking procedures
anchor item linking
Use parallel, successive (Rogers et al, 2003), concurrent (Solano-Flores et al, 2002) or simultaneous (Tanzer, 2005) test development strategies
Content (Bolwes et al, 2008)
Linguistic (for equivalence of meaning, cognitive requirements, difficulty of vocabulary and expressions and cue given to answer items)
Psychometric evidence based on
Classical test theory
Unidimensionality analyses (Oliveri et al, in press)
Identification of DIF and its sources
Student cognitive processes using think aloud processes (TAPs) (Ercikan et al, 2010)