ترجم ما يلى للغة العربية:Although the 
Evaluate for Instructional Efficacy step assumes that teachers are using the LP to guide 
instruction, the cycle does not include anything specific either about teachers’ interpretations of 
LPs or about examinations of whether teachers are using LPs to guide instruction. 
In order for an evaluation of instructional efficacy to provide meaningful information 
about the validity of an LP, we must first examine whether teachers are interpreting an LP as 
intended by its designers, and whether instruction is in accordance with the theory of learning 
that supports transitions to higher understanding. Recent work on the interpretation of an LP for 
linear functions indicated fair to substantial agreement among teachers on assigning LP levels to 
items and substantial to almost perfect agreement between the modal LP levels of teachers and 
that of test developers, even though there was limited time for training and the sample was small 
(van Rijn, Graf, Arieli-Attali, & Song, 2018). 
As another example, Wilson, Mojica, and Confrey (2013) found that as teachers gained 
experience with an LT for equipartitioning, their models of student thinking evolved. More work 
like this is needed on specific LPs as they are developed. 
14 
Proposed LP Validation Cycle: Version 2.0 
So far, we have described the rationale for the first version of the LP validation cycle and 
discussed some areas in which it could benefit from additions or changes, as suggested by 
experts who have used LPs formatively in their work, and as suggested by the Attali and ArieliAttali (2019) framework. Assessment is certainly a large part of the LP validation cycle, since 
empirical recovery of an LP necessarily requires selection of a psychometric model, task 
development, and rubric development. These components were not explicitly addressed by the 
Graf and van Rijn (2016) LP validation cycle, but we decided they are important to include in the 
revised cycle. Validating an LP also extends into teaching, and as was pointed out during the 
meeting, there is nothing in the cycle that explicitly addresses teachers’ interpretations of LPs or 
whether LP-based instruction is implemented as intended, though both are assumed by the 
Evaluate for Instructional Efficacy step. It is important to note that when we say “implemented 
as intended” we do not mean to imply that there is only one correct approach to instruction based 
on an LP. Teaching is a creative enterprise, and it is expected that teachers might find many 
ways to use an LP to guide instruction. LP-based interpretation of student work may initially be 
challenging; however, it may also develop with support (e.g., Wilson et al., 2013). Although LPs 
are domain specific, there are general teaching strategies that are in keeping with the intent of 
LP-based instruction. For example, an approach that recognizes that students might show 
evidence of different levels of thinking depending on the context, and therefore need to be 
assessed in several different contexts, is consistent with the intent of LP-based instruction. 
We conclude this section by presenting version 2.0 of the validation cycle (see Figure 1), 
which includes many of the discussed additions