Pedagogy and Measurment Paradigm

Name: Shireen Zada
Roll no : 44271
Semester: BS 8th,
Assignment (4): summary of PEDAGOGY AND THE MEASUREMENT PARADIGM
Subject: Testing and Assessment
Submitted to: Sir Nazakat Awan

Summary of pedagogy and the measurement paradigm
In pedagogy and the measurement paradigm, I have gone through context, tasks and items, the
role of the assessor, designing and evaluating, assessment is performance-based,
Generalizability of meaning, and consequences. In the first topic i.e. context we have looked at
the relation between teacher and students, and relation between students and their class
environment. It is stated in “context” that every teacher has perception about their student. The
teachers know about the ability and the understanding of their students, as they practice so many
tasks. This is because of the context of the classroom, the tasks and activities, the learners and
teacher, the interactions and relationships. As Moss puts it, the classroom is a social situation, in
which our understanding of the learner is partly based on how they interact with their
environment and the others in it.
After “context” I have seen “tasks and items”. In this topic we read about arrangement of tasks in
classrooms and tests. In a traditional large-scale language test, learners may spend anything
between one hour and five hours responding to a large number of tasks and test items, sometimes
broken down into different ‘papers’, labelled by a ‘skill’ such as reading, or listening. It has
become accepted that the more tasks or items a test contains, the more reliable and valid it is
likely to be. This needs to be considered very carefully. In large-scale language tests the
assumption is that a fairly good picture of a learner’s ability can be achieved only if that learner
responds to many different items.
Thirdly, I have faced “the role of assessor”. From the role of assessor I have understood that in
many tests the test takers design the task that can be scored by machines. This accounts to some
degree for the on-going popularity of the multiple-choice item, along with the fact that it is the
most efficient item type in maximizing test information. Where human assessors or raters are
used, usually to evaluate performances in writing and speaking, it is usually expected that they
do not know the person whose performance they are rating. In the case of writing it is normally
expected that the scripts are graded anonymously. In direct tests of speaking a great deal of
research has been conducted into how the interlocutor(s) and raters are influenced by personal
and contextual factors, and how these can be controlled so that the humans do not become part of
the score meaning.
Furthermore, I have gone through “designing and evaluating”. I have learned in this topic that
the tasks in the text may or may not be same as to the tasks we usually do in the class. Tests
usually design teachers or the people who specialized in test designing. This is not because a test
task always looks different from a classroom task but because a test task is usually designed with
certain properties in mind.
Finally, we have seen the topic “consequences”. Consequences lead us to what Moss (2003) says
about the centrality of consequences for classroom assessment. It is worth quoting the relevant
section here.
”Whatever one’s definition of validity, with classroom assessment, understanding these effects is
crucial to sound practice. I might go so far as to argue that validity in classroom assessment –
where the focus is on enhancing students’ learning – is primarily about consequences. Assuming
interpretations are intended to inform instructional decisions and that instructional decisions
entail interpretations about students’ learning, it is on evidence of their (immediate, long-range,
and cumulative) effects on which their validity primarily rests. In short, does any assessment
undertaken lead to better learning? Unlike the language tester who works for a large test-
producing organization, the teacher is not a dispassionate collector of evidence. Rather, the
teacher collects a range of evidence to make a ‘holistic, integrative interpretation of collected
performances”.
(Moss, 1994: 7).

Pedagogy and Measurment Paradigm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pedagogy and Measurment Paradigm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pedagogy and Measurment Paradigm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Name: Shireen Zada

Assignment (4): summary of PEDAGOGY AND THE MEASUREMENT PARADIGM

Subject: Testing and Assessment

Submitted to: Sir Nazakat Awan

role of the assessor, designing and evaluating, assessment is performance-based,

environment and the others in it.

responds to many different items.

the score meaning.

certain properties in mind.

entail interpretations about students’ learning, it is on evidence of their (immediate, long-range,

(Moss, 1994: 7).

You might also like