AE  >> Vol. 3 No. 2 (April 2013)

    以全纳课程为本的香港融通学习成效量表(SCALE)之等级量尺分析检视
    Rasch Validation of the Inclusive Curriculum-Based SCALE Instrument in Hong Kong

  • 全文下载: PDF(536KB) HTML   XML   PP.41-50   DOI: 10.12677/AE.2013.32009  
  • 下载量: 1,821  浏览量: 5,821   科研立项经费支持

作者:  

曾君兰:香港教育学院特殊教育与辅导学系,香港;
谢宗义:香港大学属下融合与特殊教育研究发展中心,香港;
李启明:香港教育学院研究生院,香港

关键词:
课程本位评量智障学生等级量尺分析 Curriculum-Based Assessment; Pupils with Intellectual Disabilities; Rasch Analysis

摘要:

背景:过去的研究结果显示,需要为有特殊教育需要的学生发展一些具实用性的学与教套件,包括相关的评估、课程与教学策略,藉此促进全纳教育的发展。为响应此号召,香港9所特殊学校的教师团队为智障生研发了一套以连接特殊学校与主流学校的课程的评估工具,称为“融通学习成效量表(SCALE)”。目的:本研究目标,在于以等级量尺模式检视融通量表的信效度,验证近期研发的融通量表在评估具特殊教育需要的学生于香港主流课程中的四个主要学习领域的学习能力表现水平时是否达到其研发目的。方法:本研究采用了等级量尺模式来检视融通量表的信效度。依据受试者个人能力差异的逻辑函数判断答案正误的机率,检测使用融通量表之观察数据与等级量尺模式的预期数据匹配的适合程度、点数测量相关系数、个人/题项信度及主成因素构念向度分析。结果:从统计数据显示出融通量表拥有极高信效度,能将学生分为13个不同的学习能力水平级别,且题项难度范围足够将学生能力分为8~11个学习能力表现水平级别。所有的题项分数都与预期总分具非常高的相关性,证明融通量表具单一构念向度,也就是说,融通量表仅仅测量了学生的学习能力表现水平,而不是测量他们学习的其他方面。结论:从评估学习的角度,本文进一步讨论课程评估测量法的使用如何在绩效责任上产生作用;以及对于协助教师指导学习能力水平各有差异的学生的影响

Background: Past research has reflected the needs to develop measures in the area of assessment, curriculum and teaching strategies for pupils with special educational needs. The SCALE, an assessment instrument to align assessment with the central curriculum for pupils with intellectual disabilities was developed by a team of teacher leaders from nine special schools in Hong Kong. Aim: The objectives of this study are to critically evaluate the validity and reliability of the SCALE attainment scales for each strand in four key learning areas (KLA) of the central curriculum of Hong Kong using Rasch analysis. Method: The SCALE data was calibrated using the Rasch measurement model. By calculating the probability of a response by right or wrong answers in terms of a logistic function of the difference between the ability of the person taking the test, Rasch analyses on the assessment data were carried out in the form of model fit statistics, point-measure correlation coefficient, person / item reliability and principal component factor analysis on dimensionality. Results: The Rasch statistics indicate that SCALE possesses a high degree of validity and reliability. It can classify pupils into at least 13 levels of abilities, and that the range of item difficulty is capable of stratifying pupils’ abilities into at least 8 to 11 attainment levels. The result also supports the uni-dimensionality of the SCALE. That is, SCALE solely measures the attainment levels of the pupils but not other aspects of their learning. Conclusion: The use and the impact of SCALE in providing evidenced-based outcome data to document progress of pupils across their years in education, and, to inform school-based curriculum planning are further discussed.

文章引用:
曾君兰, 谢宗义, 李启明. 以全纳课程为本的香港融通学习成效量表(SCALE)之等级量尺分析检视[J]. 教育进展, 2013, 3(2): 41-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/AE.2013.32009

参考文献

[1] D. Browder, F. Spooner, L. Ahgrim-Delzell, C. Flowers, B. Algazzin and M. Karvonen. A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’ alternate assessment performance indicators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 2004, 28(4): 165-181.
[2] The SAME Curriculum Project. Key learning area curriculum guide supplement. Centre for Advancement in Special Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2008.
[3] K. Humphreys. Developing an inclusive curriculum: “Every teacher matters”. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 2009, 5(2): 43-54.
[4] A. M.-C. Li, A. C.-Y. Tse and M.-G. J. Lian. The SAME Project: A Hong Kong experience in enhancing accessibility of the central curriculum. Hong Kong Special Education Forum, 2008, 10: 1- 15.
[5] K. Jamentz. The instructional demands of standard reform. Wa- shington DC: American Federation of Teachers, 2003.
[6] R. F. Quenemoen, A. Carmilla, M. L. Thurlow and C. B. Mas- sanari. Pupils with disabilities in standards-based assessments and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and re- com-mendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2001. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED452654.pdf
[7] H. Beilin. Piaget’s contribution to developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 1992, 28(2): 191-204.
[8] T. G. Bond, C. M. Fox. Applying the Rasch Model—Fundamen- tal measurement in the human sciences. 2nd Edition, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2007.
[9] J. M. Linacre. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement software. Chicago: WINSTEPS, 2006.
[10] M. M. C. Mok. Self-directed learning oriented assessment: As- sessment that informs learning and empowers the learner. Hong Kong: Pace Publishing Limited, 2010.
[11] C. W. Chien, T. G. Bond. Measurement properties of fine motor scale of Peabody developmental motor scales. 2nd Edition: A Rasch analysis. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 2009, 88(5): 376-386.
[12] W. P. J. Fisher. Measurement-related problems in functional as- sessment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1993, 47: 331-338.
[13] M. M. C. Mok, Y. C. Cheng, P. J. Moore and K. J. Kennedy. The development and validation of the self-directed learning scales (SLS). Journal of Applied Measurement, 2006, 7: 418-449.
[14] R. M. Smith. Rasch measurement models: Interpreting WINSTEPS/BIGSTEPS and FACETS output. Chicago: MESA Press, 1999.
[15] E. K. Kontu, R. A. Pirttimaa. Teaching methods and curriculum models used in Finland in the education of pupils diagnosed with having severe/profound intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2011, 38(3): 175-179.
[16] M. M. Abell, D. K. Bauder and T. J. Simmons. Access to the general curriculum: A curriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 2005, 41(2): 82-86.
[17] A. Kurz, S. N. Elliot, J. H. Wehby and J. L. Smithson. Align- ment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 2009, 44: 131-144.
[18] P. R. Parrish, R. A. Stodden. Aligning assessment and instruction with state standards for children with significant disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2009: 46-56.
[19] L. B. Resnick, R. Rothman, J. B. Slattery and J. L. Vranek, Bench- marking and alignment of standards and testing. Educational Assessment, 2003, 9: 1-27.
[20] K. Humphreys. Empowering schools in planning for effective learning diversity with SCALE (Feature article of keynote pres- entation at the SCALE launch seminar presented at the Interna- tional Conference on Special Education). CASE News, 2010, 5(7): 4-7.