Applying Design Thinking to systemic problems in educational assessment information management

The integrative process of design thinking provides a compelling framework for addressing problems in education involving coherent assessment and instruction. New possibilities for more meaningful developmental coherence within, horizontal coherence across, and vertical coherence between classroom formative and accountability assessments emerge by thinking through and enacting conceptual solutions that begin with the end in mind and that involve end users every step of the way. The nonlinear process involves empathy for students and teachers, the definition of a solvable problem (one with solutions that are feasible, viable, and desirable), the ideation of a brainstormed array of ideal "possibly impossible" resources for creativity (such as a very demanding measurement model and traceability to unit standards), the rapid development of an initial prototype expected to have limitations, and the first of an iterative series of tests that deliberately test the prototype en route to a recycling as needed through any other parts of the process. Applying Design Thinking may lead to new solutions to problems encountered in reconceiving and reconfiguring classrooms as meta-design ecosystem niches of creativity and innovation. An assessment outcome prototype drawn from recent work with teacher/educators that integrates developmental, horizontal, and vertical coherence is presented.

[1]  Georg Rasch,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests , 1981, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  Hülya Kelecioğlu,et al.  The Impact of Test Dimensionality, Common-Item Set Format, and Scale Linking Methods on Mixed-Format Test Equating * , 2016 .

[3]  A. Jackson Stenner,et al.  Causal Rasch models , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[4]  D. Andrich A rating formulation for ordered response categories , 1978 .

[5]  P. Bizouarn [Eco-epidemiology: towards epidemiology of complexity]. , 2016, Medecine sciences : M/S.

[6]  Randall L. Braddom Physical medicine and rehabilitation , 2013 .

[7]  Patrick Griffin,et al.  The Comfort of Competence and the Uncertainty of Assessment. , 2007 .

[8]  M Susser,et al.  Choosing a future for epidemiology: II. From black box to Chinese boxes and eco-epidemiology. , 1996, American journal of public health.

[9]  Karen Ruhleder,et al.  Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[10]  Leslie Pendrill,et al.  Counting and quantification: Comparing psychometric and metrological perspectives on visual perceptions of number , 2015 .

[11]  Theo L. Dawson,et al.  Assessing Intellectual Development: Three Approaches, One Sequence , 2004 .

[12]  Florence Thillet-Bice Pt Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2nd ed , 2001 .

[13]  Luca Mari,et al.  An introduction to the Rasch measurement approach for metrologists , 2014 .

[14]  Mark R. Wilson,et al.  Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability , 2004 .

[15]  S. Kraemer Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Gregory Bateson , 1993, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[16]  Marc Berg,et al.  Orders and Their Others: On the Constitution of Universalities in Medical Work , 2000 .

[17]  Matt Barney,et al.  Adaptive Measurement and Assessment , 2016 .

[18]  Db Demeritt,et al.  Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millenium , 1998 .

[19]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Inherent Measurement Challenges in the Next Generation Science Standards for Both Formative and Summative Assessment , 2013 .