![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The constructs that currently animate today’s dispositions movement are grit and growth mindset. However, the evidence for the reliability and instructional uses of such noncognitive factors in K-12 schools -- and of the surveys and tools that attempt to measure them -- is thin. After a look at the “logic of assessment” with its focus on cognition, observation, and interpretation, the author concludes that the noncognitive data and metrics used by reformers to support decisions to group schools by levels of grit or place students in particular interventions to improve mindset must be validated with common sense and a body of technical evidence.
References
Section:
|
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education . (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Bransford, J., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. & National Research Council . (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19 (1), 3–13. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Darling-Hammond, L., Abedi, J., Adamson, F., Chingos, J., Conley, D.T., Falk, B.. (2015). Beyond the bubble test in next generation assessment. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar | |
|
Duckor, B., Perlstein, D. (2014). Assessing habits of mind: Teaching to the test at Central Park East Secondary School. Teachers College Record, 116 (2), 1–33. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Duckworth, A.L., Yeager, D.S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44 (4), 237–251. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Embretson, S.E., Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar | |
|
Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T.S., Johnson, D.W., Beechum, N.O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance — A critical literature review. Chicago. Il: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Google Scholar | |
|
Kane, M. (2013). Validation as a pragmatic, scientific activity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50 (1), 115–122. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., Glaser, R. & National Research Council . (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Popham, W.J. (2004). A test is a test is a test — Not. Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 88–89. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Popham, W.J. (2007). Instructional insensitivity of tests: Accountability’s dire drawback. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 (2), 146–150. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Rees, N. (2013, 10 21). Grit: The new education flavor of the month? U.S. News & World Report. www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nina-rees/2013/10/21/macarthur-genius-angela-duckworth-grit-and-education-reform Google Scholar | |
|
Resnick, L.B., Resnick, D.P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In Gifford, B.R., Connor, M.C. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37–75). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
West, M.R. (2016). Should noncognitive skills be included in school accountability systems? Preliminary evidence from California’s Core districts. Brookings. Evidence Speaks Reports, 1 (13). www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2016/03/17-non-cognitive-skills-school-accountability-california-core-west Google Scholar | |
|
Wilson, M.R. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response theory approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar |
