1,721,274 research outputs found
Teacher assessment literacy: a systematic review
Full text linkTeacher assessment literacy, generally defined as a set of knowledge and skills a teacher needs to effectively enact assessment in the classroom, has been a priority in the educational policy and educational research agenda for decades. For a long time, it has been identified with standardized measurement and classroom testing. The interest in this topic is related not only to the accountability pressures and the identification of assessment as a lever for school and system reform but also to the need for teachers to support student learning by developing and implementing responsive assessments within their classrooms. Considerable efforts have been made to prepare novice and expert teachers in understanding how to deal with aspects of assessment practice and how to use the assessment results. Although the research on teacher assessment literacy is quite wide, it continues to demonstrate how teachers struggle with assessment, especially when they are required to transfer new approaches and theories into the actual classroom context. This systematic review synthetizes the literature on teacher assessment literacy considering how it has been defined and studied over the last 10 years (2013-2022). Documenting and comparing the different expressions and definitions of assessment literacy used in the 42 selected studies, this systematic review offers a detailed overview of the changes that occurred in the conceptualizations of assessment literacy. Along with the analysis of the theoretical/conceptual frameworks and research methods used to investigate teacher assessment literacy, the scrutiny of its foundational components represents a useful base to orient pre- and in-service teacher education. Against the backdrop of strengths and weaknesses of this review, research priorities and practical implications of the findings are discussed
Development of a portable instrument for non-destructive characterization of the polymers viscoelastic properties
No full textThe non-destructive quantification of the mechanical properties of solid materials is a growing research topic for many applications. It could be used for monitoring material performance during the whole lifecycle of a component, for when sampling is limited or impossible or for applications that require sample identification. In this paper a portable instrument for non-destructive viscoelastic characterization of polymers, based on instrumented indentation, is presented, its aim is to allow a real-time assessment of viscoelastic storage and loss moduli (E’ and E”) directly in-situ. The designed architecture of the device is described in details alongside the procedure adopted for testing polymers, the corresponding signal processing procedure for the identification of materials stiffness and damping parameters is also described. For the scope of this paper the aforementioned procedure was tested on two different rubber compounds. Finally, the storage and loss moduli are calculated based on the linear viscoelasticity theory and the results are compared to the ones obtained with the standard Dynamic Mechanical Analysis technique (DMA): both these approaches show the same relative ranking between the compounds and a different trend in temperature due to the reached indentation depth. To overcome this limitation of linear viscoelasticity theory, normally valid for low indentation depths, a generalized formulation is proposed that takes into account the indentation depth on the moduli estimation. The results obtained with the generalized formulation show that this approach allows to evaluate accurately the trends and rankings of viscoelastic moduli, giving reliable results
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
