Concepto y evolución de los modelos de valor añadido en educación

  1. Martínez Arias, María del Rosario
  2. Gaviria Soto, José Luis
  3. Castro Morera, María
Revista:
Revista de educación

ISSN: 0034-8082

Año de publicación: 2009

Título del ejemplar: El valor añadido en educación

Número: 348

Páginas: 15-46

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de educación

Resumen

Los modelos de valor añadido son un conjunto de técnicas estadísticas complejas que utilizan datos de puntuaciones de tests de los estudiantes de varios años, para estimar los efectos de las escuelas individuales. Los modelos intentan aislar la contribución de la escuela al desarrollo del aprendizaje de los alumnos. Existen diversas variaciones de los modelos que se utilizan en trabajos de investigación y en evaluaciones prácticas. En este artículo se presenta el concepto de valor añadido de la escuela y su historia y evolución. Se establece el origen y desarrollo de los modelos en torno a tres líneas principales: la investigación sobre la efectividad de las escuelas, las críticas derivadas de los informes actuales de rendición de cuentas y el desarrollo de los modelos estadísticos multinivel. Se explica la motivación de su uso para evitar algunos problemas frecuentes en las presentaciones de los resultados de las escuelas y en su ordenación, tal como sucede con las «Tablas de Liga en Inglaterra» y los informes de «Progreso Anual Adecuado» consecuencia de la aplicación de la No Child Left Behind en USA. Los principales problemas analizados son los relacionados con la metodología transversal de las evaluaciones y los sesgos de selección derivados de las características de los estudiantes en el ingreso, variables sociodemográficas y factores contextuales de las escuelas. En resumen, se exponen las principales aproximaciones existentes para medir los efectos de las escuelas y se concluye que la aplicación de los procedimientos de Valor Añadido representa una importante promesa para la evaluación de las escuelas.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • AITKIN, M. & LONGFORD, N. (1986). Statistical modeling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 149, 1-43.
  • BALLOU, D., SANDERS, W. & WRIGHT, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 37-65.
  • dateBETEBENNER, D.W./date (2005). Performance standards in measures of educational effectiveness. Boston College.Department of Educational Research,Measurement and Evaluation.
  • BRAUN, H. & KANJEE, A. (2006). Using assessment to improve education in developing nations. En H. BRAUN, A. KANJEE, BETTINGER, R. & KREMER, M. (eds.), Improving education through assessment, innovation, and evaluation (1-46). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
  • BURNSTEIN, L. (1980). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation. Review of Research in Education, 8, 158-233.
  • CAREY, K. (2004).The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher effectiveness to close achievement gap. Thinking K-16, 8, 1-42.
  • CARLSON, K., MARTÍNEZ, F., O'DAY, J., STECHER, B., TAYLOR, J. & COOK, A. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.Vol. III. Accountability under NCLB Interim report.Santa Mónica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
  • CHOI, K., GOLDSCHMIDT, P. & YAMASHIRO, K. (2006). Exploring models of school performance: From theory to practice (CSE Rep: No. 673). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  • CHOI, K. & SELTZER, M. (2005). Modeling Heterogeneity in Relationships between Initial Status and Rates of Change: Latent Variable Regression in a Three-Level Hierarchical Model. (CSE Rep. No 647). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  • CHOI, K., SELTZER, M., HERMAN, J. & YAMASHIRO, K. (2004). Children left behind in AYP and non-AYP schools: Using student progress and the distribution of student gains to validate AYP. (CSE Rep. No 637). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  • CIZEK,G.J.& BUNCH,M.B.(2007). Standard setting:a guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • COLEMAN, J.S., CAMPBELL, E.Q., HOBSON, C.J., MCPARTLAND, J., MOOD, A.M., WEINFELD, F.D. & YORK, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • CRONIN, J., KINGSBURY, G. G., MCCALL, M. S. & BOWE, B. (2005). The impact of No Child Left Behind act on student achievement and growth. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
  • DE LEEUW, J. & MEIJER, E. (2008a). Introduction to multilevel analysis. En J. DE LEEUW & E. MEIJER (eds.), Handbook of multilevel analysis (pp.1-75).New York: Springer.
  • DE LEEUW, J. & MEIJER, E. (2008b).Handbook of multilevel analysis. New York: Springer.
  • DORAN, H. & LOCKWOOD, J. R. (2006). Fitting value-added models in R. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 205-230.
  • DORAN, H.C. & IZUMI, L.T. (2004). Putting Education to the Test:A Value-Added Model for California. San Francisco,CA:Pacific Research Institute.
  • DRURY, D. & DORAN, H. (2003). The Value of Value-Added Analysis. NSBA Policy Research Brief, 3, 1-4.
  • EDMONDS, R.R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor.Educational Leadership, 37, 15-27.
  • FIELDING, A., YANG, M. & GOLDSTEIN, H. (2003).Multilevel ordinal models for examination grades. Statistical Modelling, 3, 127-153.
  • FITZ-GIBBON, C.T. (1997). The value-added national project: Final report: feasibility studies for a national system of value added indicators. London: School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
  • GAVIRIA, J.L. Y CASTRO, M. (2005). Los modelos jerárquicos lineales. Madrid: La Muralla.
  • GELMAN, A. & HILL, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York:Cambridge University Press.
  • GOLDSCHMIDT, P., CHOI, K. & MARTINEZ, F. (2004).Using Hierarchical Growth Models To Monitor School Performance Over Time:Comparing NCE to Scale Score Results (CSE Rep.No 618). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards,and Student Testing.
  • GOLDSTEIN, H. & SPIEGELHALTER, D. (1996). League Tables and Their Limitations:Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 159, 385-443.
  • GOLDSTEIN, H. & THOMAS, S (1996). Using Examination Results as Indicators of School and College Performance. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, A, 159, 149-163.
  • GOLDSTEIN, H., RASBASH, J., YANG, M., WOODHOUSE, G., PAN, H., NUTTALL, D. & THOMAS, S. (1993). A multilevel analysis of school examination results. Oxford Review of Education, 19, 425-433.
  • GOLDSTEIN, H. (1987a). Multilevel models in educational and social research. New York:Oxford University Press.
  • GOLDSTEIN, H. (2003b). Multilevel models. London:Arnold.
  • GOLDSTEIN, H., BURGESS, S. & MCCONNELL, B. (2007). Modelling the effect of pupil mobility on school differences in educational achievement. Journal of The Royal Statistical Society, A, 170, 941-954.
  • GRAY, J., JESSON, D., GOLDSTEIN, H., HEDGER, K. & RASBASH, J. (1995). A multilevel analysis of school improvement:changes in schools'performance over time. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 97-114.
  • HAMILTON, L. (2003).Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27,25-68.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. (1979a). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. Journal of Human Resources, 14, 351-388.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. (2003).The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal, 113, 64-98.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. (2005). The economics of school quality. German Economic Review, 6, 269-286.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. & RAYMOND, M. E. (2004).The Effect of School Accountability Systems on the Level and Distribution of Student Achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 406-415.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. & WOSSMANN, L. (2006).Does Early Tracking Affect Educational inequality and performance? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. Economic Journal, 116, 63-76.
  • HILL, R. & DEPASCALE, C. (2003). Reliability of No Child Left Behind accountability designs. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practices, 22(3), 12-20.
  • HILL, R., SCOTT, M., DE PASCALE, C., DUNN, J. & SIMPSON, M.A. (2006). Using value tables to explicitly value student growth. En R.LISSITZ (ed.), Longitudinal and value added models of student performance (255-290). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
  • HOX, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • JENCKS, C., SMITH, M. S., ACKLAND, H., BANE, M. J., COHEN, D., GRINTLIS, H., HEYNES, B. & MICHELSON, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York:Basic Books.
  • KANE, T. J. & STAIGER, D. O. (2002).The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 91-114.
  • KINGSBURY, G. G. & MCCALL, M. S. (2006). The hybrid success model: Theory and practice. En R. LISSITZ (ed.), Longitudinal and value added models of student performance (346-379). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
  • LADD, H. F. & WALSH, R. P. (2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness:Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21, 1-17.
  • LINN, R. L., BAKER, E.V. & BETEBENNER, D.W. (s.f.). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the no child left behind act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-16.
  • LINN, R. L. & HAUG, C. (2002). Stability of school building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 29-36.
  • LINN, R.L. (2004).Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-14.
  • LISSITZ, R., DORAN, H., SCHAFER, W. & WILLHOFT, J. (2006). Growth modeling, value-added modeling and linking:An introduction. En R.LISSITZ (ed.), Longitudinal and Value-Added Models of Student Performance (pp.1-46). Maple Grove, Minnesota: JAM Press.
  • LOCKWOOD, J.R. (2006). A case study of some practical challenges of longitudinal student achievement modeling: The RAND Mosaic II Study. En R. LISSITZ (ed.), Longitudinal and Value-Added Models of Student Performance (230-254). Maple Grove,Minnesota: JAM Press.
  • LOCKWOOD, J. R. & MCCAFFREY, D. F. (2007). Controling for individual heterogeneity in longitudinal models with applications to student achievement. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 1, 223-252.
  • LORD, F. M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 304-305.
  • MACBEATH, J. & MORTIMORE, P. (2001). Improving school effectiveness. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • MARCHESI, A. Y MARTÍNEZ ARIAS, R. (2006). Escuelas de éxito en España. Sugerencias e interrogantes a partir del informe PISA 2003. Madrid:Fundación Santillana.
  • HANUSHEK, E.A. Psicometría. Madrid:Alianza.
  • MCCAFFREY, D. F., LOCKWOOD, J. R., KORETZ, D. M. & HAMILTON, L. S. (2003). Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability. Santa Mónica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
  • MCCAFFREY, D.M., LOCKWOOD, J.R., KORETZ, D., LOUIS, T.A. & HAMILTON, L. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67-101.
  • MCCALL, M.S., KINGSBURY, G. G. & OLSON, A. (2004). Individual growth and school success. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
  • MORTIMORE, P., SAMMONS, P. & THOMAS, S. (1994) School Effectiveness and Value Added Measures, Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy y Practice, 1, 315-332.
  • MORTIMORE, P., SAMMONS, P., STOLL, L., LEWIS, D. & ECOB, R. (1988).The effects of school membership on pupils' educational outcomes. Research Papers in Education, 3(1), 3-26.
  • MUIJS, R. D. & REYNOLDS, D. (2000). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness: some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the Mathematics Enhancement Programme. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,11, 273-303.
  • NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 (2002). Public Law No.107-110, 115 Stat.1425.
  • NUTTALL, D. L., GOLDSTEIN, H., PROSSER, R. & RASBASH, J. (1989). Differential School Effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 13,769-776
  • O'DAY, J.A. & SMITH, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. En S. H. Fuhrman (ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (250-312). San Francisco:Jossey Bass.
  • PONISCIAK, S. M. & BRYK, A. S. (2005). Value-added analysis of the Chicago public schools:An application of hierarchical models. En R.LISSITZ (ed.), Value-Added models in education:Theory and applications (pp.40-79). Mapple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
  • RAUDENBUSH, S. (2004).What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 121-129.
  • RAUDENBUSH, S.W. & BRYK, A.S. (1986).A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education, 59, 1-17.
  • RAUDENBUSH, S.W. & BRYK, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models (2a ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • RAUDENBUSH, S.W. & WILLMS, J. D. (1995).The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 307-335.
  • RAY, A., EVANS, H. & MCCORMACK, T. (2008).The use of national value added models for school improvement in English schools. Revista de Educación, 348.
  • REYNOLDS, D. & CREEMERS, B. (1990). School Effectiveness and School Improvement: a Mission Statement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1, 1-3
  • ROBINSON, W. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.
  • ROGOSA, D. (1995). Myths about longitudinal research. En J. M. Gottman (ed.),The analysis of change (3-66). Mahwa, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • ROWE, K. J. (2000).Assessment, league tables and school effectiveness: Consider the issues and «Let's get real». Journal of Educational Enquiry, 1, 73-98.
  • RUBIN, D.B., STUART, E.A. & ZANUTTO, E.E. (2004). A potencial outcomes view of value-added assessment in education. Journal of Educational and behavioural Statistics, 29, 103-116.
  • RUMBERGER, R.W. & PALARDY, G. J. (2003). Multilevel models for school effectiveness research. En D. KAPLAN (ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences (235-258).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • SAMMONS, P. (1996). Complexities in the judgement of school effectiveness. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 113-49.
  • SAMMONS, P., HILLMAN, J. & MORTIMORE, P. (1995). Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: Office for Standards in Education.
  • SAMMONS, P. & REYNOLDS, D. (1997). A partisan Evaluation John Elliot of school effectiveness. Cambridge Journal of Education, 27, 123-36.
  • SANDERS, W. & HORN, S. (1994).The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation, 9, 299-311.
  • SANDERS, W. & HORN, S. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
  • SANDERS, W.L., SAXTON, A.M. & HORN, S.P. (1997). The Tennessee value-added assessment system:a quantitative,outcomes-based approach to educational assessment. En J. MILLMAN (ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools:Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp.137-162).Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
  • SAUNDERS, L. (1999). A brief history of educational «Value Added»: How did we get to where we are? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 233-256.
  • SCHAGEN, I. (2006).The use of standardized residuals to derive value-added measures of school performance. Educational Studies, 32, 119-32.
  • SCHEERENS, J. (2005). The quality imperative. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring report 2005. Review of school and instructional effectiveness research.
  • SCHEERENS, J. & BOSKER, R. J. (1997). The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness. Oxford:Elsevier.
  • STEVENS, J. (2005). The study of school effectiveness as a problem in research design. En R. LISSITZ (ed.), Value-Added models in education: Theory and applications (pp.166-208). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
  • TAYLOR, J. & NGUYEN, A.N. (2006). An Analysis of the Value Added by Secondary Schools in England: Is the Value Added Indicator of Any Value? Oxford Bulletin of Economics y Statistics, 68, 203-224.
  • TEDDLIE, C. & REYNOLDS, D. (2000). The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. New York:Falmer Press.
  • THUM, Y.M. (2002).Measuring student and school progress with the California API. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  • THUM, Y.M. (2003).Measuring progress toward a goal:estimating teacher productivity using a multivariate multilevel model for value-added analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 32, 153-207.
  • WANG, L., BECKETT, G.H. & BROWN, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 305-328.
  • WEBSTER, W.J. & MENDRO, R.L. (1997). The Dallas value-added accountability system. En J. MILLMAN (ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp.81-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • WEBSTER, W. J. (2005). The Dallas school level accountability model:The marriage of status and value-added approaches. En R.LISSITZ (ed.), Value added models in education: Theory and applications (pp.233-271). Maple Grove, MN:JAM Press.
  • WILLMS, J.D. & RAUDENBUSH, S.W. (1989).A longitudinal hierarchical linear model for estimating school effects and their stability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2, 209-232.
  • WRIGHT, S.P., SANDERS, W.L. & RIVERS, J.C. (2006).Measurement of academic growth of individual students toward variable and meaningful academic standards. En R.LISSITZ (ed.), Longitudinal and value added models of student performance (385- 406). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
  • YANG, M., GOLDSTEIN, H., RATH, T. & HILL, N. (1999). The use of assessment data for school improvement purposes. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 469-483.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet