Closing the gap: On socioeconomic status influencing the results of educational assessment methods

As children start school, more and more emphasis is placed on their academic performance, their cognitive capabilities, and their intelligence. Current forms of intelligence testing – static testing and assessment – have been heavily scrutinised for being biased due to for example the influence of socioeconomic status (SES), leading to unequal educational outcomes. Therefore, different forms of testing – dynamic testing and assessment – are being investigated, with this study focusing on a new form of the Dynamic Screener (DS). This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the DS to increase children’s test performance. A second aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of SES for learning potential and DS outcomes. Participants included 52 children (mean age = 13.14) in the first year of secondary school. The study employed a single-session experimental test-training-test design. Half of the children (n= 27) received a graduated prompts training between the pre...Show moreAs children start school, more and more emphasis is placed on their academic performance, their cognitive capabilities, and their intelligence. Current forms of intelligence testing – static testing and assessment – have been heavily scrutinised for being biased due to for example the influence of socioeconomic status (SES), leading to unequal educational outcomes. Therefore, different forms of testing – dynamic testing and assessment – are being investigated, with this study focusing on a new form of the Dynamic Screener (DS). This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the DS to increase children’s test performance. A second aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of SES for learning potential and DS outcomes. Participants included 52 children (mean age = 13.14) in the first year of secondary school. The study employed a single-session experimental test-training-test design. Half of the children (n= 27) received a graduated prompts training between the pre-test and post-test, while the other half (n= 25) were the control group and did not receive the training. Five different tests were administered, including a test for working memory, mathematics, language, planning, and inductive reasoning. No significant results were found for trained participants’ performance in comparison with the control group on any of the subtests. Furthermore, no significant difference was found for the predictive value of SES for learning potential, nor for results on pre- versus post-test for the training group. Overall, no definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of the DS, nor on the predictive value of SES for learning potential and DS outcomes, can be drawn from the current study. Future research is needed to determine whether these results are due to the small sample size or are inherent to the DS.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

Closing the gap: On socioeconomic status influencing the results of educational assessment methods