Yöntem Karşılaştırma
Seçtiğiniz yöntemleri yan yana inceleyin; farklı satırlar vurgulanır.
| Many-Facet Rasch Measurement× | Portfolio Assessment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Alan | Education | Education |
| Aile≠ | Latent structure | Process / pipeline |
| Köken yılı≠ | 1989 | 1992 |
| Köken≠ | John Michael Linacre | Performance-assessment tradition (Arter & Spandel; Koretz; Vermont/Kentucky programs) |
| Tür≠ | Rasch model extension adding rater and other facets to person and item | Assessment based on a purposeful collection of student work over time |
| Seminal kaynak≠ | Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-Facet Rasch Measurement. MESA Press. ISBN: 9780941938020 | Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 36–44. DOI ↗ |
| Diğer adlar | MFRM, Many-Faceted Rasch Model, Facets Model, Linacre Facets Model | Educational Portfolio Assessment, Student Portfolio Evaluation, Showcase / Working Portfolio Assessment, Portfolio-Based Assessment |
| İlişkili | 4 | 4 |
| Özet≠ | Many-facet Rasch measurement (MFRM) extends the basic Rasch model to assessments mediated by raters. Beyond examinee ability and item difficulty, it adds explicit parameters for rater severity and for any other facet of the rating situation — task, occasion, rating criterion — placing them all on one common logit scale. Developed by John Michael Linacre, MFRM lets analysts estimate and adjust for the fact that some raters are systematically harsh and others lenient, producing 'fair' ability estimates that do not penalize an examinee for happening to draw a severe judge. | Portfolio assessment evaluates learning through a purposeful collection of a student's work assembled over time rather than through a single test. The portfolio may showcase best work, document growth, or demonstrate mastery against standards, and typically includes student selection and reflection. Articulated for education by Arter and Spandel and stress-tested in large-scale programs analyzed by Koretz, it captures authentic, complex performance that on-demand testing misses, while raising distinctive challenges for the reliability and comparability of scores. |
| ScholarGateVeri seti ↗ |
|
|