On 9/2/07, Marg Epp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it tests kids on very literal comprehension, but it doesn't teach kids > about how to think about their reading which is something we are working on. > >
Is there anyone out there who uses AR in a way that supports "Mosaic of > Thought" thinking? (I warn you, it has to be a VERY good argument to > convince me!!!!). Here's what Renaissance Learning says about literal comprehension and higher-order thinking questions. http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/39.pdf [Q]uestions focusing on "higher-order" thinking skills are prone to bias, more so than questions focusing on literal comprehension. Higher-order thinking skills may reflect students' backgrounds rather than their achievement. As noted by Popham (1999), questions intending to measure higher-order thinking might measure what students already know instead of what they learn in class. Additionally, ACT (2006) discovered that literal and inferential understanding did not differentially affect average percent correct on the ACT. In fact, the relationship between these two comprehension categories and average percent correct was nearly identical. Thus, the assessment of literal understanding is closely tied to inferential comprehension or "higher-order" thinking and would provide just as much information as assessments on higher-order skills. Popham, J. (1999). Why standardized tests don't measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15. ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines:What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
