0

tandfonline.com – Oral Exams: A More Meaningful Assessment of Students’ Understanding

tandfonline.com har udgivet en rapport under søgningen “Teacher Education Mathematics”: Abstract Abstract Compared to their written counterpart, oral assessments provide a wealth of information about student understanding. Instead of deciphering a static response, oral assessments provide instructors the opportunity to probe student explanations, obtaining a more complete picture of their understanding. Moreover, students explaining their conceptual reasoning is advocated in the 2016 GAISE guidelines. Additionally, oral exams allow for flexibility in how students can explain their thinking, potentially helping build students’ identities as statistical thinkers and speakers. Despite the facilities these assessments provide, oral assessments are rarely used in the statistics classroom. In this article I describe the important considerations to be attended to when implementing oral exams in the classroom, my experiences facilitating oral exams in my statistics courses,… Continue Reading

0

tandfonline.com – Development of the Malocclusion Impact Questionnaire (MIQ) to measure the oral health-related quality of life of young people with malocclusion: part 2 – cross-sectional validation

tandfonline.com har udgivet en rapport under søgningen “Teacher Education Mathematics”: Abstract Objective: To test the items, identified through qualitative inquiry that might form the basis of a new Malocclusion Impact Questionnaire (MIQ) to measure the oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) of young people with malocclusion. Methods: Piloting with 13 young people reduced the number of items from 37 to 28. Cross-sectional testing involved a convenience sample aged 10–16 years, attending the Orthodontic Department of the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield. The fit and function of the initial MIQ questions were examined using item response theory. Results: 184 participants (113 females; 71 males) completed a questionnaire (response 85%), seven participants were excluded due to missing responses. The mean age of participants was 12·9 years (SD 1·4) and they had a… Continue Reading