Bremer Key: The Development and Validation of a Child-Sensitive Language Competence Test for Teachers
Tamas Rotschild
The University of Bremen, Germany, Faculty 12: Pedagogy and Educational Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9244-2815
Abstrakt
Aim: Language is a powerful instrument of educators, yet it is anything but neutral, carrying nuanced meanings that extend beyond the literal. These nuances, laden with emotions and evaluations, exert a cumulative impact on the inner worlds of children. Therefore, a high level of child-sensitive language (CSL) competence is essential for teachers.
Method: To enhance prospective teachers’ language competence, a Situational Judgment Test (SJT) was developed and validated as part of doctoral research at the University of Bremen, Germany. The test items and response options were developed by a team of three in-service teachers, led by the doctoral researcher, and supported by two university professors with expertise in the field, following established development practices.
Results: Pilot testing involved 47 in-service teachers from multiple public schools and 55 university students across three institutions. Following iterative refinement, the test was finalized with 13 items, demonstrating strong internal consistency indicated by a computed value of ⍵ = 0.81. The test and its utility were positively evaluated by the participants.
Conclusion: The study concludes that this instrument can be utilized across various educational domains and teacher training programs to enhance educational practices and outcomes.
Słowa kluczowe:
language competence, child's perspective, Situational Judgment Test, educational assessment, teacher trainingBibliografia
Al Hashmi, W. A., & Klassen, R. M. (2020). Developing a situational judgement test for ad mission into initial teacher education in Oman: An exploratory study. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 8(Supplement 1), 187–198. https://doi. org/10.1080/21683603.2019.1630042
Crossref
Google Scholar
Berk, R. A. (1980). Conducting the Item Analysis. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), A Guide to criterion-referenced test construction (pp. 97–143). The John Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
Boland, R. J., Lester, N. A., & Williams, E. (2010). Writing multiple-choice questions. Academic Psychiatry, 34, 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.34.4.310
Crossref
Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language – The loaded weapon. Longman. Google Scholar
Burns, R. B. (1982). Self-concept development and education. Holt. Google Scholar
Carver, C. S. (1989). How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues illustrated by self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.577
Crossref
Google Scholar
Craven, R. G., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). The centrality of the self-concept construct for psychological well-being and unlocking human potential: Implications for child and educational psychologists. Educational & Child Psychology, 25 (2), 104–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2008.25.2.104
Crossref
Google Scholar
Delgado-Rico, E., Carrctero-Dios, H., & Ruch, W. (2012). Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12(3), 449–460. https://doaj.org/article/e3c64d10e477402ca1f9add91cb467d5 Google Scholar
Durksen, T. L., & Klassen, R. M. (2018). The development of a situational judgement test of personal attributes for quality teaching in rural and remote Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 45(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-0248-5
Crossref
Google Scholar
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E. (2013). On the inappropriateness of using items to calculate total scale score reliability via coefficient alpha for multidimensional scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000181
Crossref
Google Scholar
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (5–9 April, 1988). Functional distractors: Implications for test-item writing and test design [paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orlean, USA. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED293851.pdf Google Scholar
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
Crossref
Google Scholar
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Steven, M. (31 March–4 April, 1985). A quantitative review of research on multiple-choice item writing [paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, USA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED255580 Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Crossref
Google Scholar
Holland, J., & Stevens, N. (2021). Guidelines for the development of multiple-choice items & assessments. RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences. Google Scholar
Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words. Stenhouse. Google Scholar
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, Ch., H., Djurdjevic, E., & Taing, M. U. (2012). Recommendations for improving the construct clarity of higher-order multidimensional constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.006
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Routledge. Google Scholar
Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Mobley, W. M. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741–755. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255636
Crossref
Google Scholar
Lievens, F., Peeters, H., & Schollaert, E. (2008). Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research. Personnel Review, 37(4), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810877598
Crossref
Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6
Crossref
Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgement tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x
Crossref
Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00
Crossref
Google Scholar
Patterson, F., Zibarras, L., & Ashworth, V. (2015). Situational judgement tests in medical education and training: Research, theory and practice: AMEE Guide No. 100. Medical Teacher, 38(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2015.1072619
Crossref
Google Scholar
Pollard, S., & Cooper-Thomas, H. D. (2015). Best practice recommendations for Situational judgment tests. Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 8, e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/orp.2015.6
Crossref
Google Scholar
Raymond, M. R., Stevens, C., & Bucak, S. D. (2019). The optimal number of options for multiple-choice questions on high-stakes tests: Application of a revised index for detecting nonfunctional distractors. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(1), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9855-9
Crossref
Google Scholar
Reiser, S., Schacht, L., Thomm, E., Figalist, C., Janssen, L., Schick, K., Dörfler, E., Berberat, P. O., Gartmeier, M., & Bauer, J. (2022). A video-based situational judgement test of medical students' communication competence in patient encounters: Development and first evaluation. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(5), 1283–1289. https://doi.org/: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.08.020.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for Multiple‐Choice items: a Meta‐Analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement, 24(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x
Crossref
Google Scholar
Rotschild, T. (2023). Why and how to foster learning-disabled children’s emotional intelligence? Insights into Learning Disabilities, 20(2), 153–175. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1401946.pdf Google Scholar
Rotschild, T. (2024). The impact of communication: A practical guide for teachers in fostering positive self-concept in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 00, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471- 3802.12709.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Smith, K. J., Flaxman, C., Farland, M. Z., Thomas, A., Buring, S. M., Whalen, K., & Patterson, F. (2020). Development and validation of a situational judgement test to assess professionalism. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(7), Article 7771, 985–992. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7771
Crossref
Google Scholar
Smith, K. J., Neely, S., Dennis, V. C., Miller, M. M., & Medina, M. S. (2022). Use of situational judgment tests to teach empathy, assertiveness, communication, and ethics. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86(6), Article 8761. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8761
Crossref
Google Scholar
Watkins, M. W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: from alpha to omega. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(6–7), 1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364
Crossref
Google Scholar
Whetzel, D. L., Sullivan, T. S., & McCloy, R. A. (2020). Situational judgment tests: An overview of development practices and psychometric characteristics. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 6(1), Article 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2020.01.001
Crossref
Google Scholar
Ybrandt, H. (2007). The relation between self‐concept and social functioning in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 31(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.03.004
Crossref
Google Scholar
Zhang, N., He, G., Shi, D., Zhao, Z., & Li, J. (2022). Does a gender-neutral name associate with the research impact of a scientist? Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), Article 101251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101251
Crossref
Google Scholar
The University of Bremen, Germany, Faculty 12: Pedagogy and Educational Sciences
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9244-2815
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
