Large scale assessment in reading: considerations on construct and testing method in SAEB and PISA
The present work investigates the reading construct of two large scale external assessments present in the Brazilian educational context The Brazilian System of Assessment for Basic Education (SAEB) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), focusing on its test...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade de Brasília (UnB) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Horizontes de Linguística Aplicada |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/25156 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/horizontesla/article/view/25156 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Reading Large scale assessment SAEB PISA construct analysis test methods leitura avaliação em larga escala análise de construto métodos de avaliar |
| Sumario: | The present work investigates the reading construct of two large scale external assessments present in the Brazilian educational context The Brazilian System of Assessment for Basic Education (SAEB) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), focusing on its testing methods (or tests formats). The objective is to contribute to a better understanding of reading in the assessment context, considering that both assessments have the potential to influence not only the political decisions but also the pedagogical practices. The theoretic basis comes from Applied Linguistics, in the ”‹”‹Language Assessment field. It has qualitative approach and based on the document analysis method. The differences in the constructs of the two assessment were emphasized, which are reinforced by the test formats: restricted to multiple choice items in SAEB and varied in PISA. In this sense, it should be noted that the international assessment presents greater proximity to reading situations and demands that are more consistent with real practices, which is not the case in the national assessment |
|---|