SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
Lessons learned from adapting U.S. developed MKT measures for use in NorwayPresentation at the University of Huelva, SpainMay 27th, 2011<br />Arne Jakobsen<br />Department of Education<br />University of Stavanger, Norway<br />
Disposition<br />History and background (Norway)<br />Students (TIMSS, PISA,…)<br />Teachers’ knowledge is important for students achievement<br />Government decide to invest in Professional development <br />Professional development programs to meet teachers’ needs<br />Mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT)<br />Our project research question: What are the possibilities and challenges of using the MKT measures in Norway?<br /><ul><li>The project so far</li></ul>Translation of items <br />Pilot: 142 (150) teachers measured and 7 focus group interviews<br />
Tasks ofteachingwithitems.<br /> <br />Giving and evaluating explanations<br />Explaining a common procedure<br />Explain a concept or idea<br />Evaluating student explanations for evidence of understanding<br />Characterizing the quality of an explanation<br /> <br />Interpreting and evaluating non-standard methods/ideas and multiple solutions<br />Evaluating a particular non-standard method<br />Evaluating multiple possible solutions for a particular problem <br /> <br />Choosing examples and problems<br />Choosing examples to introduce a concept<br />Choosing examples that use or illustrate a particular idea<br />Choosing examples that lend themselves to particular strategies<br />Changing the context/numbers of a problem without changing the mathematical content<br />Designing a mathematically similar problem<br />Designing a simpler version of a problem<br />Designing a sequence of problems to teach an idea<br /> <br />
Tasks withitems (cont.)<br />Choosing and using representations<br />Representing a particular idea in multiple ways<br />Interpreting a particular representation in multiple ways<br />Choosing a diagram/story/model to represent and idea/concept/expression<br />Selecting a representation to match an instructional purpose<br />Analyzing student errors<br />Identifying errors of the same type<br />Evaluating difficulty<br />Choosing and using definitions<br />(+ more.) <br />
MKT - the «egg»<br />Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008, p. 403). <br />
Translation and adaptation<br />MKT, releaseditems<br />Mosvold, R., Fauskanger, J., Jakobsen, A., & Melhus, K. (2009). <br />
The multiple-choice format<br />Focusgroupinterviews.<br />How can Norwegian teachers’ reflections about the MKT items contribute to our understanding of challenges related to the multiple-choice format? <br />
Item ResponceTheory (IRT)<br />How can information about items psychometric properties give new insight when adapting U.S. developed MKT measure for use in Norway?<br />An item performance is described by an item characteristic function (with different difficulty and slopes).<br />Monotonically increasing function – as the MKT increase the probability of correct answer increase.<br />Slope and difficulty is of importance.<br />
IRT findings<br />We found that items can be divided into three groups:<br />Items that do not seem to function in Norway <br />Items that function well, but have relatively high difference in item characteristics in Norway compared to the U.S., and <br />Items that seem to function well and that have item characteristics close to what is reported in the U.S.<br />Quantitative + qualitative analyses!<br />
From IRT analyses ofthe data<br /><ul><li>Snippets from theresults
Aspectsofequivalence</li></li></ul><li>Teachers’ MKT<br />Focus group interviews:<br />We expected that teachers with strong MKT in one content area would be strong in other content areas relevant for their level of teaching.<br /> The teachers argued that some of the content areas were not relevant and more difficult compared to others<br /> - our motivation to study correlations<br />
Correlation between NCOP and GEOMETRY is 0.701 (p-value < 0.0005). <br />
Correlations (Pearson, p-value<0.005)<br />Correlations<br />Teachers’ MKT scores in differentcontent areas arecorrelated<br />All correlationsaresignificant – weakestcorrelationbetween PFA and NCOP<br />
Conclusion<br />We find that teachers’ MKT scores in the three content areas are correlated<br />Teachers with high MKT in one content area have high MKT in other content areas and vice versa <br />Despite comments from teachers that not finding PFA items relevant for their teaching, their PFA MKT is related to MKT in the other content areas<br />
Final comments<br /><ul><li>Psychometrically items seems to function well in Norway
Want to establish link between Norwegian teachers’ MKT and student achievements (UiO-TIMSS 2011)
Discussing items as part of professional development to learn more about teachers MKT?