Rapid Dynamic Assessment for Learning

Continuous dynamic diagnostic assessment without interfering with student learning is a challenging task since increased testing time would inevitably reduce instruction time. The suggested solutions to this problem are rapid diagnostic assessment (based on determining the level of most advanced domain-specific schemas a learner is capable of activating immediately on presentation of a test task) and using dynamic diagnostic assessment as an instructional means (based on integrating testing and learning so that students learn while being tested or are assessed while learning). This chapter describes the general idea of a rapid diagnostic assessment approach and its theoretical framework based on cognitive nature of expertise, schema-based assessment, and cognitive load theory. Specific implementations of this idea as rapid diagnostic methods are presented, as well as their possible integration with dynamic assessment methods (rapid dynamic assessment). The diagnostic power of such assessment may approach that of laboratory-based concurrent verbal reports, however achieved on a considerably shorter time scale.

[1]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Rapid Assessment of Learners’ Proficiency: A cognitive load approach , 2006 .

[2]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implica-tions , 1999 .

[3]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[4]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[5]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Rapid cognitive assessment of learners' knowledge structures , 2006 .

[6]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Long-term working memory. , 1995, Psychological review.

[7]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[8]  R. Glaser,et al.  Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment , 2001 .

[9]  Mark R. Wilson,et al.  Running Head: Measurement at the Knowledge Level. A Theory of the Measurement of Knowledge Content, Access, and Learning. , 1996 .

[10]  R. Sternberg,et al.  "Dynamic testing": Erratum. , 1998 .

[11]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Incorporating Learner Experience into the Design of Multimedia Instruction. , 2000 .

[12]  J. Sweller.  Instructional Design Consequences of an Analogy between Evolution by Natural Selection and Human Cognitive Architecture , 2004 .

[13]  K. Tatsuoka.  Toward an Integration of Item-Response Theory and Cognitive Error Diagnosis. , 1987 .

[14]  R. Almond,et al.  Making Sense of Data From Complex Assessments , 2002 .

[15]  Raymond J. Adams,et al.  The Multidimensional Random Coefficients Multinomial Logit Model , 1997 .

[16]  Magdalena Mo Ching 莫慕貞 Mok.  Self-directed learning oriented assessment: Assessment that informs learning & empowers the learner , 2010 .

[17]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Assessing Reading Skill With a Think-Aloud Procedure and Latent Semantic Analysis , 2003 .

[18]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Models of Competence in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  N. Charness,et al.  Expert Performance Its Structure and Acquisition , 2002 .

[20]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Measuring Knowledge to Optimize Cognitive Load Factors During Instruction. , 2004 .

[21]  L. R. Peterson,et al.  Short-term retention of individual verbal items. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  James W. Pellegrino,et al.  Addressing the "Two Disciplines" Problem: Linking Theories of Cognition and Learning With Assessment and Instructional Practice , 1957 .

[23]  H. Simon,et al.  Perception in chess , 1973 .

[24]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Michael Russell,et al.  Diagnosing students’ misconceptions in algebra: Results from an experimental pilot study , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[26]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Test Theory Reconceived , 1996 .

[27]  Slava Kalyuga.  Assessment of learners' organised knowledge structures in adaptive learning environments , 2006 .

[28]  Randy Elliot Bennett,et al.  Item generation and beyond: Applications of schema theory to mathematics assessment. , 2002 .

[29]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[30]  A. D. D. Groot.  Thought and Choice in Chess , 1978 .

[31]  Slava Kalyuga.  Instructing And Testing Advanced Learners: A Cognitive Load Approach , 2006 .

[32]  Sandra P. Marshall,et al.  Schemas in Problem Solving , 1995 .

[33]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  When Less Is More in Cognitive Diagnosis : A Rapid Online Method for Diagnosing Learner Task-Specific Expertise , 2008 .

[34]  R. Snow,et al.  Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. , 1989 .

[35]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[36]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Addressing the assessment challenge with an online system that tutors as it assesses , 2009, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[37]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

[38]  Matthew W. Lewis,et al.  Self-Explonations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[40]  Sandra P. Marshall.  Assessing Schema Knowledge , 2012 .

[41]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning , 2005 .

[42]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential , 2001 .