close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
Oregon’s Alternate Assessment:
Past, Present, and Future Tense
Oregon Department of Education
Dianna Carrizales, PhD
Office of Student Learning and Partnerships
Office of Assessment and Instruction
In conjunction with
University of Oregon: Behavioral Research and Teaching Group
In the Beginning
• Accepting the NCLB challenge
– Meaningful assessment of students with
significant cognitive disabilities
• Defining the population
– Functional life skills
– Some academic skills
General Assessment
8
7
6
5
4
3
Extended K - 2
Extended CLRAS
Juried Assessment
Modified Assessment
Accommodated Assessment
10 CIM
10 CIM
8
7
6
5
4
3
Scaffolded Administration
•
Extended Assessment
2001-2005
Accommodated Assessment
•
Targeted Assessment
The Evolution of a System
2006-2007
Change and Refinements
• Accepting the peer review challenge
– Grade level content
– Comparability of forms
– Technical documentation
– Sound alternate achievement standards based
on research-based and documented
procedures
Current Conclusion
8
7
6
5
4
3
Extended Assessment
10 CIM
Scaffolded Administration
2007-2008
Accommodated Assessment
•
(2007-2008)
•
•
•
General Assessment
General Assessment with accommodations
Extended Assessment
–
–
–
•
Elementary
Middle
High
Scaffold Administration option of Extended
Assessment
Consider General Assessment (with or
without accommodations) if
• Student:
– Performs at or around grade level
– Has academic difficulties that primarily surround reading but may be
average or close to average in other subject areas
– Has academic difficulties in areas other than reading that are “mild to
moderate” and can typically be addressed by using simplified language
– Is reading within two to three grades of his or her enrolled level
• Instruction:
– Is primarily general curriculum instruction (but may also use a
specialized curriculum in some areas)
Consider Extended Assessment if
• Student:
– Performs well below grade level
– Is significantly below grade level in reading
– Has academic difficulties that are generalized (to all subject areas) and
are significant
– Benefits from specialized individual supports
• Instruction:
– Is primarily a specialized curriculum or
– From general curriculum must be significantly reduced in breadth,
depth, and complexity
Consider Scaffolded Administration of
Extended Assessment if:
• Student:
– Performance is significantly impacted by a disability
– Does not read
– Has academic, mobility, and receptive and expressive language
difficulties that are generalized and significant
– Relies on individual and significant supports to access reduced content
materials
• Instruction:
– Is from a specialized curriculum and has functional components and/or
– Includes academic goals that are significantly reduced in depth,
breadth, and complexity from grade level content
Participation by Subject
Subject
(2006-2007)
Elementary
Total number of
students
participating per
subject area
Middle/High
Total number Percentage of Total number Percentage of
of elementary
elementary
of middle/high
middle/high
participants per participants by participants per participants by
subject
subject
subject
subject
Reading
5444
3178
58%*
2266
42%
Mathematics
4720
2483
53%
2237
47%
Writing
2174
1006
46%
1168
54%
Science
1562
552
35%
1010
65%
*Read: 58% of students taking an Extended Reading Assessment were elementary students.
Participation by Gender
Gender
Elementary
(Reading exemplar)
Middle/High
N
%
N
%
Female
1077
34%*
827
36%
Male
2101
66%
1439
64%
*Read: 34% of the students taking Elementary Extended Reading are female.
2006-2007 Extended Assessment
Participation by Disability
• Elementary
– Mental Retardation (25.5%)
– Specific Learning Disabilities
(20.75%)
– Autism Spectrum Disorders
(16.5%)
– Communication Disorder
(12.25%)
• Middle/High
– Mental Retardation (42%)
– Autism Spectrum Disorder
(18%)
– Specific Learning Disabilities
(12.25%)
– Other Health
Impairments(9.5%)
Extended Assessment Description
• Performance assessment
• Individually administered
• Response options or selected response (not
•
multiple choice)
Scaffold vs. standard administrations
– Direct instruction principles
– “Multiple choice” options
– Accommodations research
• Based on grade level content
Development of Grade-Level Items
for Oregon’s Extended Assessment
• Grade-level content standards
– Reduction in Complexity (one slide)
– Reduction in breadth (one slide)
– Reduction in depth (one slide)
• http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/real/newspaper/
• Field and pilot testing
– Item level piloting (with individual students)
– Population piloting (filming and piloting)
Reduction in Complexity
• Development:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Select words with the lowest number of syllables
Reduce number words
Monitor clause structure
Allow opportunities for modeling
Provide more examples when possible
Test rules rather than exceptions
Monitor sequencing to avoid confusion
• Administration:
– Appropriate pacing
– Performance-neutral praise statements
Reduction in Depth
• Evaluate:
– Alignment between depth of knowledge in content
standards and depth of knowledge in assessment
items
– Representation of skill-sets required by each item
• Recognition and reproduction
• Skill or concept
• Strategic thinking
• Extended thinking
Reduction in Breadth
• Creation of grade bands by typical
• Vertical alignment of grade level
developmental divisions
– Elementary, grades 3 – 5
– Middle, grades 6 – 8
– High, grades 9 – 12 (10)
Identical
Grade 4
Identify and/or summarize
sequence of events, main
ideas, and supporting details
in literary selections.
content standards
– Standards that span the breadth
of the grades assessed
• Identical
• Progressive
Grade 5
Identify and/or summarize
sequence of events, main
ideas, and supporting details
in literary selections.
Grade 6
Identify and/or summarize
sequence of events, main
ideas, and supporting details
in literary selections.
Progressive
Grade 2
Read, write, order, model, and
compare whole numbers less
than 100
Grade 3
Read, write, order, model, and
compare whole numbers
less than one thousand.
Grade 4
Read, write, order, model, and
compare whole numbers to
one million, common fractions,
and decimals to hundredths.
Elementary Reading Example
Item
Con ten t P ro m p ts
Say: H ere are som e w ords w ith o ther w o rds tha t are related.
1
2
S how m e hap py. S h ow m e th e op posite of happ y.
[1 = either answ er correct / 2 = both answ ers correct]
S how m e over. S h ow m e the o pp osite of over.
[1 = either answ er correct / 2 = both answ ers correct]
3
S how m e sea/see . (Note: either w ord is correct as both sound the
sam e). S how m e ano th er w ord that so unds the sam e.
[1 = either answ er correct / 2 = both answ ers correct]
4
S how m e go. S ho w m e a nother w o rd tha t m eans go.
[1 = either answ er correct / 2 = both answ ers correct]
5
S he raised her han d so her teacher w o uld call on h er. S h ow m e
another w ord tha t m ean s raised.
[1 = reached out her hand / 2 = lifted her hand]
Test Description
• Content prompts: items reflecting content of the
•
•
•
test based on grade-level standards
Prerequisite skills: items taken as a lead-in to
the test to determine level of support
Access level: Permission of supports (other than
accommodations) that can be provided during
the performance assessment
Scaffold administration: to administer the
version with additional prompts, supportive
language, and graphics
Standard Setting
•
•
•
•
•
Book-marking selected
32 teachers, 3 days, board-approved
Standards set by grade
Rigorous outcomes
Unanswered Mathematics questions remain
– Difficulty
– Population
– Administration/training
Impact data
• Outcomes by grade
Extended Assessment Reading
Outcomes
Table 1: Extended Reading Impact by Grade, 2006-2007
Grade
Does Not
Yet
Meet
3
4
19%
29%
18%
15%
36%
32%
26%
24%
62%
56%
5
6
7
30%
30%
32%
18%
15%
18%
35%
31%
38%
17%
24%
12%
52%
54%
50%
8
38%
19%
31%
13%
43%
10
39%
24%
25%
13%
37%
Nearly
Meets
Meets
Exceeds
Meets or
Exceeds
Extended Assessment Mathematics
Outcomes
Table 2: Extended Mathematics Impact by Grade, 2006-2007
Grade
Does Not
Yet
Meet
3
4
28%
52%
36%
12%
24%
15%
12%
21%
36%
36%
5
6
7
54%
63%
69%
17%
23%
15%
19%
12%
14%
10%
3%
2%
28%
15%
16%
8
77%
13%
7%
2%
10%
10
78%
13%
9%
0%
9%
Nearly
Meets
Meets
Exceeds
Meets or
Exceeds
Extended Assessment Writing
Outcomes
Table 3: Extended Writing Impact by Grade, 2006-2007
Grade
Does Not
Yet
Meet
4
33%
27%
34%
6%
40%
7
67%
11%
16%
6%
22%
10
66%
3%
23%
9%
31%
Nearly
Meets
Meets
Exceeds
Meets or
Exceeds
Extended Assessment Science
Outcomes
Table 4: Extended Science Impact by Grade, 2006-2007
Grade
Does Not
Yet
Meet
5
32%
23%
37%
8%
45%
8
33%
48%
11%
9%
20%
10
40%
40%
13%
7%
21%
Nearly
Meets
Meets
Exceeds
Meets or
Exceeds
Training structure
• 2007-2008
– 8 regional trainings to train trainers (Oct-Nov)
– Held at host sites across the state
– 300 (2006-2007) assessors will be re-trained on the
assessment, decision-making principles, and webtraining system to train others in their home-districts
– Self-contained web-training site
– Data-base of trainers
– Training, self-testing, proficiency component
monitored at a state level
Challenges
• Instructional content vs. accountability
• Difficulty level
• Working with the field toward a new mode
of thinking about assessing students with
significant cognitive disabilities
• Who is/is not being tested with this
assessment?
Lessons learned
• Expectations can be increased
• Teachers are open to research-based change that is
•
results oriented
Biggest changes to the assessment since last year:
– Use of Prerequisite Skills
• Biggest changes to training since last year:
– Shorter
• The four “P’s”
–
–
–
–
Process
Population
Parallelism
Peer-review
New directions
• Possibly scaling to general assessment
• Reducing the number of items while
increasing the depth and breadth of
standards coverage
• Reporting
Contact Information
• [email protected]
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа