View
216
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Aligning to standards from the "get go:"
Designing alternate assessments based on states’ standards, expanded
benchmarks, and universal design
Sue Bechard, Measured ProgressNCME, Montreal, April 14, 2005
Comparison of test development process for general and AAC
assessments
Figure 1. Test Development Process for General Large-Scale and AAC Alternate Assessments
General Large-Scale Process Alternate Assessment
1. NA
2. NA
3. NA
4. Build on state academic content standards
5. NA
6. Develop an assessment blueprint
7. Determine assessment item formats
8. Write items
9. Review items for bias and content
10. Revise items
11. Construct assessments
12. Field test assessments
13. Analyze field test data
1. Pool standards into consensus frameworks
2. Consider organization national standards
3. Identify key or essential concepts
4. Produce expanded benchmarks
5. PLT select concepts to assess
6. Development process with templates
7. CDTs identify activity, context, or materials
8. Write items linked to activity
9. Review assessments/items (bias & content)
10. Make changes abased on results of review
11. Finalize assessments
12. Pilot test assessments
13. Analyze pilot assessment data
Process used to develop aligned alternate assessments for the AAC
1. Develop crosswalks
2. Develop consensus frameworks
3. Develop expanded benchmarks
4. Develop two types of alternate assessments (performance tasks and instructionally embedded assessments)
Develop crosswalks
Collect state standards (nine states)Spreadsheet developed using structures suggested by national content organizations (NCTE, NCTM, NCES)
All state standards are compared by essential concepts/topics and grade level the topic was first introduced.
Develop Consensus Frameworks
Crosswalks were examined for consistency across states. Common topics were extrapolated.Mismatches were negotiated using consistent decision rules.Vocabulary was standardized.State content experts reviewed for coverageCAST examined for universal languagePLT reviewed and finalized
Develop Expanded Benchmarks
The consensus frameworks standards were expanded backward by grade spans (El., M.S., H.S.).
Assumes a learning continuum that has been defined by content experts.
Assumes all students pass similar learning milestones for acquisition of academic content.
Develop expanded benchmarks:Considerations of content
Content is described along a continuum in each essential concept/topic from least to most complex to capture the range of students in this population.
Content covers the small steps that typical students learn incidentally, but must be directly taught to students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Process for expanding benchmarks
1. Identify foundational skills to describe what are all students asked to do, e.g.:
Reading = comprehend graphic symbols
Writing = use graphics to convey meaning
2. Conduct task analysis, e.g., reading:Connect objects to words
Connect words to symbols
Connect symbols to print
Expanding benchmarks (cont.)
3. Lay out expanded benchmarks along learning continuum for each essential concept/topic, in measurable terms, using universal language.
4. Conduct reverse alignment from benchmarks back to standards.
Project leadership team determined content of assessments
Content area/grade level foci:Elementary/science: characteristics and structure of living things
Middle school/reading and writing: informational and functional text, write in a variety of genres, considering audience & purpose
High school/mathematics: patterns, relations, and functions of algebra.
Develop assessments:Considerations of context
Age – appropriate topics and materials are used:
Elementary students understand living vs. non-living using mealworms and conducting experiments with celery.Middle school students comprehend informational text using newspaper articles and biographies.High school students use manipulatives to build fences and bridges to demonstrate understanding related to linear equations.
Relationship of content and context in AAC alternate assessments
Considering content and context
High school
mathematics
Middle school English
language arts
Elementary science
Expanded benchmarks Expanded benchmarks Expanded benchmarks
Assigned
grade level
Content Context Content Context Content Context
11 X X
10 X X
9 X X
8 X X X
7 X X X
6 X X X
5 X X X X
4 X X X X
3 X X X X
2 X X X
1 X X X
K X X X
Pre-K X X X
Develop assessments: Considerations of learning modality
Principles of universal design used to construct tasks and activities.
Students with significant disabilities require multiple means of access.
Flexibility in adapting materials and providing response options is necessary for valid results.
Number of assistive technologies usedby students in AAC pilot
How many assistive technologies (AT) did the student use during day-to-day instruction?
Number of AT Items Selected
Number of Students Percent
1-4 49 29.9
5-7 41 25.0
8-11 46 28.0
12-20 28 17.1
Total164 100.0
How many words does the student communicate expressively by grade range?
(in any mode—speaking, writing, signing, gesturing,
pictures, symbols, or objects)?
Grade Range How many words does the student communicate expressively? Elementary Middle School High School Total No words Count 8 4 5 17 % within Grade Range 13.6% 8.0% 9.1% 10.4% 1-15 words Count 11 9 14 34 % within Grade Range 18.6% 18.0% 25.5% 20.7% 16-50 words Count 11 5 3 19 % within Grade Range 18.6% 10.0% 5.5% 11.6% 50-200 words Count 15 9 10 34 % within Grade Range 25.4% 18.0% 18.2% 20.7% 200+ words Count 14 23 23 60 % within Grade Range 23.7% 46.0% 41.8% 36.6% Total Count 59 50 55 164 % within Grade Range 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Develop Assessments (cont.)
Templates are used by PT for each step
Step 1: Materials Needed
Script
Indicators
Set-Up
Notes about scaffolding
Expanded Benchmarks Addressed
Notes about adaptations
Develop Assessments (cont.)
Templates are used by IEA for each dayDay 1: Instructional/Assessment Activities Benchmarks & Expanded Benchmarks
Activity 1: Activity 2: Activity 3: Teacher will: Student will:
Teacher will: Student will:
Materials Provided:
Materials Needed:
Accommodations Needed:
Assessment Types: Constructed Response Product Performance Process
Process: Product:
Write steps (PT) and days’ lessons (IEA) linked to activities -
Based on principles of universal design
To elicit measurable behaviors/products linked to benchmarks
With scoring rubrics in mind
Reviewed for bias
Scoring Rubrics
PT - Level of independenceRed Orange Yellow Green Blue
Responds independently Responds with clarification or fewer options
Responds with specific prompts
Responds given exact response
Inconclusive
IEA - Number of indicators with evidence of
independent student performance
Each content area had unique numbers of indicators listed in each of the rubric levels
Conclusions
The pilot assessments would have benefited from an assessment blueprint indicating specific expanded benchmarks.
Procedures can be followed to align alternate assessments to standards at the time of test development.
More research is needed to determine if students with significant cognitive disabilities acquire skills in a sequence that has been identified by content experts.
Recommended