• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>British Educational Research Journal >Measuring standards in primary English: the validity of PIRLS—a response to Mary Hilton
【24h】

Measuring standards in primary English: the validity of PIRLS—a response to Mary Hilton

机译：衡量主要英语水平的标准：PIRSS的有效性-回应玛丽·希尔顿

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Hilton (2006) criticises the PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) tests and the survey conduct, raising questions about the validity of international surveys of reading. Her criticisms fall into four broad areas: cultural validity, methodological issues, construct validity and the survey in England. However, her criticisms are shown to be mistaken. Her claim of forced unidimensionality in the tests is not supported by statistical analyses and her claims of cultural strangeness are contradicted by the involvement of all the countries involved. She is concerned about linguistic diversity but this is actually reflected in the ways countries organise their surveys. Finally, Hilton suggests that the English sample was biased, but fails to recognise the stringent sampling requirements or the monitoring roles of external assessors and the sampling referee. A careful study of the evidence concerning PIRLS shows that it is actually a fair and robust measure of reading attainment in different countries.
机译：希尔顿（2006）批评了PIRLS（国际阅读素养研究进展）测试和调查行为，从而对国际阅读调查的有效性提出了质疑。她的批评分为四个方面：文化有效性，方法论问题，建构有效性和英格兰的调查。但是，她的批评被证明是错误的。她声称在测试中被迫一维的说法并没有得到统计分析的支持，而且她所声称的文化陌生性与所有相关国家的参与相矛盾。她担心语言的多样性，但这实际上反映在各国组织调查的方式上。最后，希尔顿建议英国样本带有偏见，但未能认识到严格的样本要求或外部评估者和样本裁判员的监督作用。对有关PIRLS的证据进行的仔细研究表明，它实际上是对不同国家的阅读水平的公正而有力的衡量标准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号