View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AZELLA Update
Marlene Johnston and Linda HarveyOELAS Conference
December 7, 2011
Agenda for Today
• Update on AZELLA Development Process
• Statewide ELL data
AZELLA RevisionUpdate
Framework for High-Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessment
Building on the best knowledge from relevant research and practice, the Framework provides criteria for high-quality ELP standards and aligned assessments.
Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services
Test Characteristics
• Criterion referenced test of ELP Standards• Grades K-12 tested in 5 Stages:
– K, 1-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12• 5 Proficiency Levels:
– Pre-emergent, Emergent, Basic, Intermediate, Proficient
• 4 Domains tested:– Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing
6
ELL Assessment History
School Years 2005-2006Statewide SELP implementation
School Years 2007-2009AZELLA Form AZ-1
School Year 2009-2012AZELLA Form AZ-2
Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services
Governing Statutes and Authority
Federal Title I Requirements for Assessment(20 U.S.C. Sec. 1111). (3) Academic Assessments.-State Plans(7) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
Provide for an annual assessment of English proficiency measuring the oral language, reading and writing skills in English of all ELL students.
Federal Title III Requirements for Assessment20 USC 6841 SEC. 3121 Evaluations(d) EVALUATION MEASURES
A state shall approve evaluation measures that are designed to assess the progress of children in attaining English proficiency, including a child’s level of comprehension, speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills in English.
Governing Statutes and Authority
Arizona Revised StatutesARS 15-756 (B)Identification of ELLs
The English language proficiency of all pupils with a primary or home language other than English shall be assessed through the administration of English language proficiency assessments in a manner prescribed by the superintendent of public instruction. The test scores adopted by the superintendent as indicating English language proficiency shall be based on the test publishers' designated scores. The department shall annually request an appropriation to pay for the purchase of all language proficiency assessments, scoring and ancillary materials as prescribed by the department for school districts and charter schools.
Adherence to Standards
AZELLA development follows Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999)
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association,
National Council on Measurement in Education
Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
ADE • Develop a valid and reliable test• Provide needed materials and training for
administration• Assure accurate test scoring and timely delivery
of test resultsLEAs• Timely and accurate administration of tests to
PHLOTE, ELL and FEP students
Who are Arizona’s ELL
students?
12
Demographics - Arizona
Approximately 10% of Arizona’s K-12 students are English Language Learners (ELL).
•116,506 ELL Students in 2010•76,320 ELL Students in 2011 (preliminary)
Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services
13
Percent of ELLsBy Grade Span
• K-2
• 3-5
• 6-8
• 9-12
• 47%
• 25%
• 15%
• 13%Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services
14
“Top Ten” Districts
10 Districts
42% of all ELLs statewide
Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services
15
Top 5 Languages in Arizona other than English
Spanish 80%
Navajo 2%
Vietnamese >1%
Arabic >1%
Somali >1%
Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services
16
Arizona ELL Data
about 70% of Arizona ELL students
are at Intermediate achievement level
Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services
Purpose of AZELLA
The purpose of AZELLA is to measure language proficiency in order to:
• determine student placement for ELL services.• measure student progress in English language
development.• establish exit criteria for students.• monitor the language proficiency of FEP
students.
Uses of AZELLA Data for Accountability
• Provides data for AMAO determinations at the district and state levels.– AMAO 1 - Making progress – AMAO 2 – Reclassification
• Contribute to Schools Labels A-F
• Longitudinal data analysis of ELL performance
Implications of AZELLA results
• Student placement for services• Student exit from program participation• District and school performance measures for
accountability purposes (federal and state)• Supplemental funding for ELL services• Indications of program effectiveness
Proficient 93,356 46%
Intermediate 62,397 31%
Basic 31,866 16%
Emergent 5,906 3%
Pre-Emergent 8,355 4%
Counts of ALL Tests AdministeredFY 2010 (Including IFEP/FEP, multiple administrations)
Source: ADE, Data Mart ELL 72 Table. All valid assessments, including multiple attempts by individual students are included. Data was drawn on 1/26/2011.
What is the Content?
• English Language Proficiency Standardshttp://www.azed.gov/english-language-learners/2011/07/20/finalized-english-language-proficiency-elp-standards/
• Link to Academic Standards and CCSShttp://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/common-core-state-standards/
What is English Language Proficiency ? (ELP)
English language proficient students demonstrate a “good working knowledge of English and are able to do regular school work in English.”
A.R.S. 15-752
English language proficiency as a single construct
• Arizona defines English Language Proficiency as a single construct.
• Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing are the four modalities that contribute to this construct.
• The relative contribution of each of the
modalities changes based on proficiency and grade. AZELLA blueprint reflects these changes.
Draft AZELLA Blueprint
• Stage I – Reading and Writing represent 53%
• Stage II – Reading and Writing represent 57%
• Stage III – Reading and Writing represent 57%
• Stage IV – Reading and Writing represent 60%
• Stage V - Reading and Writing represent 61%
Enhanced Assessment Grant
• The purpose is to examine the relative contributions of the modalities to one another and to English language proficiency.
• Reporting includes a statistical technique called confirmatory factor analysis to examine the contributions of the modalities.
• Reporting is based on 2009-2010 data using modality raw scores and AIMS scores where available.
Listen Speak Read
0.84
ELP
0.88
0.16 0.29 0.23
0.91
Write
0.94
0.11
Construct of ELP ELP is a good predictor of scores in sub-domains
This is one model for ELP that appears to fit AZ-2 data well and explains student performance on the modality test. Can be applied to all grades 2-12. Chart reflects Grade 9 examinees.
AZELLA Oral
ListenSpeak Read
0.210.82
AZELLA Comprehension
0.85
0.48
0.330.52 0.28
AIMS Language Arts
Read Write
0.86 0.68
0.540.27
0.92
0.48
0.57
Relationship between AZELLA Oral/ Comprehension/AIMS for Grade 5
There is a positive relationship between AZELLA AZ-2 comprehension and AIMS Language Arts
Goals of AZELLA Revision• Aligned to the new ELP Performance Indicators • New Blueprint reflects slight modification to weighting based on
ELP Standards – Kindergarten emphasis is Listening & Speaking– H.S. emphasis is Reading & Writing
• Own high performing items for 2 test versions• Kindergarten
– Placement Test– Exit test stronger alignment to 1st grade content
• FEP test – more efficient/based on Intermediate skills• Annual test in Spring testing window• Structured to allow for more uniformed administration• Publish sample items
Test Development
2011• Advisory Group Meetings• AZELLA test blueprints developed• Item specifications for AZELLA• Item Writing (over 1300 items)• Content & Bias Review• ADE/WestEd content experts review of itemsfor content and universal access considerations
Types of Items
• Reading – Multiple choice and short answer open-ended oral responses
• Writing – Multiple choice and extended open-ended responses
• Listening – Multiple choice responses• Speaking – Open-ended short and extended
responses
Field Test (What… Who… When)
What• A field test of new AZELLA test items is needed to ensure they
meet the expectations necessary for inclusion on the new AZELLA test.
• Results of the field test are not used to determine student English proficiency levels.
• No results of the field test provided to districts, charters, schools, parents, or teachers.
• Stages II-IV tests Fall 2011; Stage I tests Spring 2012
Field Test
Who • 310 districts; 1165 schools• Approximately 32,000 tests administered• ELLs identified in the sample plus a select
sample of non-ELLs (never ELL + FEP)
When• November 7, 2011 through December 2, 2011
Test Administration: General AZELLA Field Test Format
Session Domain Type of Administration Special Equipment for Administration
Session 1
Listening: Multiple Choice
Individually or group administered with paper and pencil
Audio CD and CD player
Break
Session 2
Writing: Writing Production
Individually or group administered with paper and pencil
None
Break
TADP. 3
Test Administration: General AZELLA Field Test Format (continued)
Session Domain Type of Administration Special Equipment for Administration
Session 3
Reading: Multiple Choice
Individually or group administered with paper and pencil
None
Break
Session 4
Speaking: Oral Response Individually administered
Speaker telephone
and computer
TADP. 4
Speaking Test Administration
• Collaborative development• Field test responses captured by telephone• Open ended items• Repeat items• Scored by trained human scorers based on
rubrics• Comparability study to determine reliability of
computer scoring
Upcoming/Scoring
• Scoring – Quality controlWriting
• Conventions • Open ended responses
– Scored at Pearson Scoring Center in San Antonio– Scorers trained during 3 week period beginning January 2012
» Use of rubrics
Speaking• Open ended responses
– Scored at Pearson Scoring Center in San Antonio– Scorers trained during 3 week period beginning January 2012
» Use of rubrics
Upcoming Activities
• Data Analysis – March 15-16, 2012
• Kindergarten field test– Spring 2012
• Standard Setting– March 2013
• Alignment Study– Spring 2013
Proposed Reporting Categories
• Summary – State/District/School• Student Level
• Composite• Listening • Speaking • Reading• Writing• Literacy score (reading and writing)• Comprehension (reading and listening)• Oral (speaking and listening)• Language Strand
Validity and Reliability
Measures of Validity• Internal structure—“the degree to which the relationships
among test items and test components conform to the construct on which the proposed test score interpretations are made.” (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999, p. 13) Each task in the assessment should contribute positively to the total result.
• Reliability is the degree to which scores remain consistent over an assessment procedure (Nitko, 2004). Data analysis and psychometric components will include measures that are essential to proper evaluation and use of the assessment.
Validity and Reliability (continued)
Other Elements of Validity• Content—test represents an appropriate sampling of skills,
knowledge, and understanding of the domain tested. Practical considerations for test length, administration time and effort, scoring time and cost
• Educator Input—ELL teacher committees promotes face validity. Content and bias review processes and item level data review contribute to validity.
• Universal design principles promote the inclusion of the widest ranges of student and support the validity of inferences about proficiency.
Validity and Reliability (continued)
Other Elements of Validity• Materials development and production
components utilize rigorous processes.• Strict attention to the development and refinement
of Directions for Administration are crucial to support validity.
• Open-Ended scoring utilizes detailed rubrics and rigorous training for scorers. Inter-rater reliability is controlled by read behinds and other quality control measures.
ResearchLanguage Test Construction and EvaluationJ. Charles Alderson, Caroline Clapham, Dianne Wall, Cambridge University Press
Language Testing in PracticeLyle F. Bachman, Adrian S. Palmer, Oxford University Press
The Language Demands of SchoolEdited by Alison L. Bailey, University of California, Los Angeles
Comment: Making an Argument for Design Validity Before Interpretive ValidityDerek C. Briggs, University of Colorado
Assessing ListeningGary Buck, University of Michigan, Lidget Green, Inc.
Designing and Analyzing Language TestsNathan T. Carr, California State University
ResearchDoes an Argument-Based Approach to Validity Make a Difference?Carol A. Chapelle, Iowa State University, Mary K. Enright, Educational Testing Service,
Joan Jamieson, Northern Arizona University
Threats to the Valid Use of AssessmentsTerry J. Crooks, University of Otago, Michael T. Kane, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Allan S. Cohen, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Handbook of Test DevelopmentEdited by Steven M. Downing, University of Illinois, Thomas M. Haladyna, Arizona
State University
An Argument-based Approach to ValidationMichael T. Kane, ACT
ResearchValidating High-Stakes Testing ProgramsMichael Kane, National Conference of Bar Examiners
Does an Argument-Based Approach to Validity Make a Difference?Carol A. Chapelle, Iowa State University, Mary K. Enright, Educational Testing Service, Joan
Jamieson, Northern Arizona University
Test Validity: A Matter of ConsequenceSamuel Messick
Consequences of Test Score Use as Validity Evidence: Roles and ResponsibilitiesPaul D. Nichols and Natasha Williams, Pearson
Evaluation of Validity and Validation: Quality criteria for the evaluation of validity and validation of tests.
Sakia Wools, CITO
AZELLA Testing TimelineDate(s) Test Purpose Test Instrument
November 7 to December 2, 2011 AZELLA Item Field Test – in selected schools
Fall 2011 AZELLA Field Test
February and March 2012 Monitored FEP1 and FEP2 students annual assessment
AZELLA Form AZ-2
March and April 2012 Continuing ELL students Stages I - V annual assessmentNote: tests must be submitted for scoring by 04-27-12
AZELLA Form AZ-2
April 23 to May 11, 2012 AZELLA Field Test of Kindergarten Stage I – in selected schools
Spring 2012 AZELLA Field Test
School Year 2012-2013 New student placements for Stage I AZELLA Kindergarten Screener
School Year 2012-2013 New student placements for Stages II - V
AZELLA Form AZ-2
January and February 2013 Testing of monitored FEP1 and FEP2 students
AZELLA Form AZ-2
January and February 2013 Testing of continuing ELL students Stages I - V
Revised AZELLA
Comments regarding
the field test
47
Statewide Evidence of
Success
Statewide Reclassification Rate
2005-2006 15%
2006-2007 12%
2007-2008 22%
2008-2009 29%
2009-2010 30%
2010-2011 33.5%
49
Description of SEI Students for this Study
• Students must have participated only in the SEI/ILLP program within the given year.
• Students must have a qualifying assessment.
• Students who are excluded from the research: withdrawn by parent request or by a specific special education determination.
• Cohort is defined as students who enter the SEI/ILLP program for the first time.
• Fiscal Year (FY) is defined as school year (e.g., FY08 is school year 2007-2008).
50
STATEWIDE ELL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
BY COHORT YEAR
51
Year Total Pre-Emergent Emergent Basic Intermediate Proficient
Cohort08 26313 741 660 3757 10601 10554
FY2009 *15018 45 86 1898 8622 4367
FY2010 10470 1 7 453 4005 6004
FY2011 4354 2 3 305 2875 1169
Total Proficient FY08-FY11 22094
Cohort 2008Defined as K-12 ELL students who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2007-2008 school year and stayed in the program until they either graduated, withdrew, or were classified proficient.
*The FY totals do not include students that graduated or tested proficient from the previous year.
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY20110
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
10554
14921
20925 22094
Number of Students Tested Proficient*Cohort 2008 – 26,313 students
Proficient(84% across years)
Cohort 2008Defined as K-12 ELL students who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2007-2008 school year and stayed in the program until they either graduated, withdrew, or were classified proficient.
*These are cumulative values across years
Year Total Pre-Emergent Emergent Basic Intermediate Proficient
Cohort09 24109 347 351 2118 8591 12702
FY2010 *10984 56 95 2261 5325 3247
FY2011 7636 10 18 610 3430 3568
Total Proficient FY09-FY11 19,517
Cohort 2009Defined as K-12 ELL students who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2008-2009 school year and stayed in the program until they either graduated, withdrew, or were classified proficient.
*The FY totals do not include students that graduated or tested proficient from the previous year.
FY2009 FY2010 FY20110
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
12702
1594919517
Number of Students Tested Proficient*
Cohort 2009 – 24,109 students
Proficient(81% across years)
Cohort 2009Defined as K-12 ELL students who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2008-2009 school year and stayed in the program until they either graduated, withdrew, or were classified proficient.
*These are cumulative values across years
Year Total Pre-Emergent Emergent Basic Intermediate Proficient
Cohort10 19828 678 581 5010 8479 5080
FY2011 *14541 316 259 2833 6962 4171
Total Proficient FY10-FY11 9251
Cohort 2010Defined as K-12 ELL students who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2009-2010 school year and stayed in the program until they either graduated, withdrew, or were classified proficient.
*The FY totals do not include students that graduated or tested proficient from the previous year.
FY2010 FY20110
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
05080
9251
Number of Students Tested Proficient*
Cohort 2010 – 19,828 students
Proficient47% across years
Cohort 2010Defined as K-12 ELL students who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2009-2010 school year and stayed in the program until they either graduated, withdrew, or were classified proficient.
*These are cumulative values across years
STATEWIDE ELL STUDENT PERFORMANCE
BY COHORT YEAR AND GRADE
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY20110
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
828310923
15875 16727
Number of Students Tested Proficient*
Cohort 2008: K-2 – 19,429 students
*These are cumulative values across years
Cohort 2008: K-2Defined as ELL students - Grades K-2 who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2007-2008 school year and stayed in the program until they either withdrew or were classified proficient.
Proficient86% across years
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY20110
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
868
1692
22182425
Number of Students Tested Proficient*Cohort 2008: 3-5 -- 2599 students
*These are cumulative values across years
Cohort 2008: 3-5Defined as ELL students - Grades 3-5 who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2007-2008 school year and stayed in the program until they either withdrew or were classified proficient.
Proficient93% across years
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY20110
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
793
13271690 1768
Number of Students Tested Proficient*
Cohort 2008: 6-8 -- 1959 students
*These are cumulative values across years
Cohort 2008: 6-8Defined as ELL students - Grades 6-8 who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2007-2008 school year and stayed in the program until they either withdrew or were classified proficient.
Proficient90% across years
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY20110
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
610979
1142 1174
Number of Students Tested Proficient*
Cohort 2008: HS -- 2326 students
*These are cumulative values across years
Cohort 2008: HSDefined as ELL students - Grades HS who entered the SEI/ILLP program in the 2007-2008 school year and stayed in the program until they either withdrew or were classified proficient.
Proficient50% across years
62
Source: Haas, E. (July 2010) Assessing Achievement of English Language Learners: Pass-Fail Status on Arizona’s Language and Content Tests REL West Analysis, WestEd
AZELLA / AIMS Correlation
63
Percent Passing AIMS 2010
Non-ELL (neither FEP nor ELL)
FEP All Years ELL
Subject Not Low-SES Low SES Not Low-SES Low SES Not Low-SES Low SES
Reading 85% 68% 79% 76% 24% 23%
Writing 82% 65% 73% 71% 25% 27%
Math 71% 49% 58% 56% 19% 19%
Large Achievement Gap Low Achievement Gap Low Achievement Gap
Arizona Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Services