Upload
rachel-puckett
View
22
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Welcome!. CFAC Meeting July 24, 2014. Agenda/Topics to Be Covered. Breakfast Welcome/New Member Introductions Grant Update/Item Bank Update Schedule next CFAC meeting Project Needs, Current item writers Accessing items, planning for assessment development Survey: Clicker Use Break/Lunch. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
• Breakfast
• Welcome/New Member Introductions
• Grant Update/Item Bank Update
• Schedule next CFAC meeting
• Project Needs, Current item writers
• Accessing items, planning for assessment development
• Survey: Clicker Use
• Break/Lunch
Agenda/Topics to Be Covered
• Clarification of Eduphoria Use
• 1. If we release items with incorrect standards, what implications will that have for districts?
• The items will be linked to the old standards. Therefore, any tests built now will have the old standards. It will depend on how a district’s assessment platform handles updating standards on item bank items and any items included on a test. Please consult your vendor regarding how tests and items will be updated when new standards are made available. 2. Will they be able to be re-exported later, with the correct standards, to replace the items exported now?
• Yes, but the updated items will have the same ID number so it will be the responsibility of the receiving assessment platform to do the replacement.
Eduphoria Update
• 2. Once the standards are updated, what modifications will happen for the items in the bank?
• eduphoria! will crosswalk the items to the new standards in the database directly. They will simply appear to be connected to the new standard in the application.
• Will they disappear and be replaced with a copy of the item and the new standard?
• The old item will not disappear, as the standard connection is only an element of meta data for each item. Updating that meta data will only change the standards association.
• Will the standards be deleted and automatically updated?
• While the old standards will still exist in the eduphoria! database along with the new standards, the meta data that associates a standard to an item will be replaced with the new standard connection.
Eduphoria Updates
• 3. What is the time frame from the time the new standards are released to the updates being ready at the item level?
• After eduphoria! receives the CPALMS preK-12 course files (July 25 estimate), they will review the files (2-3 days). Then eduphoria! will provide an estimated date of completion. The CTE & ESE standards are “on hold” until CPALMS gets what is needed from the DOE.To date, eduphoria! has only provided item exports of grant-covered courses to the IBTP/Equella State Platform with direct instruction from CFAC. Any QTI Item Bank distribution will be managed and released by CFAC on a course-by-course basis to participating CFAC districts.
Eduphoria Update
• 1. Access for Districts to upload IBTP items into their own platforms seems a bit inconsistent. Smaller districts have inquired but have not received any response from the state.
• How is the decision to release items to District/classroom tiers being conducted? We are concerned that items from state-assessed courses are being released entirely at the teacher level. This would impose a financial burden on Districts who were counting on using the IBTP for their interims.
• For Districts who are allowed to export items into their own platforms, how is the security of the tired access being upheld? The security agreement Districts must agree to is quite broad and does not seem to protect the tiered access established by the FDOE.
• 8. Can a consortium (NEFEC) have one security agreement instead of individual agreements for each District in the consortium
• 9. Can the IBTP handle export of assessments in addition to export of items?
• 4. Are there plans to roll out a paper-based testing option for year 1?
• 5. We have been told that the current load testing is based on 100,000 simultaneous clicks. Is this realistic?
• 6. What is the timeline for implementation going forward with the IBTP?
• 7. Are we on track (August) for ability for CFAC to share tests and items in the IBTP to participating CFAC districts....these districts would need appropriate permissions to access tests and items.
• What does the item analysis for progress monitoring look like? Does it identify strength and weaknesses by standard for each student? Is it exportable into Excel?
• Is the platform compatible with FOCUS?
Category Sub-category ExampleClassification N/A Content area, item type, course
name Content Accessibility, Reasoning Clear wording, alignment with
standard, depth of knowledge, cognitive process dimension
Directions Stimulus, Accessibility Definition of expectations, scoring
rubric Style & Format
General, Accessibility Grammar/mechanics, readability, format, structure
Options (Selected Response Only)
General, Clueing Single answer key, distractor plausibility, distractor homogeneity
Research Project: Rubric
Content Area
Number of Tests
Number of
Teachers
Number of
Districts
Number of
Courses
Number of
Items
ELAR 18 18 12 9 294
Math 8 7 3 6 232
Total 26 25 12 15 526
Sample by Content
Content Area
Number of
Tests
Minimum
Number of
Items
Maximum
Number of
Items Mean SDELAR 18 1 60 16.3 13.7
Math 8 5 65 29.0 19.7
Total 26 1 65 20.2 16.5
Number of Test Items by Content Area
Content Area
Number of
Items
Percentage of Items Evaluated
Selected Response Constructed Response MC TF MA SA ER PT GR
ELAR 294 63.6 7.8 4.8 20.4 3.4 0 0
Math 232 69.0 0.0 1.3 11.6 0 1.7 16.4
Total
526 66.0 4.4 3.2 16.5 1.9 0.8 7.2
Item Type by Content Area
Content Area
# of Item
sPercentage of Items Evaluated
RememberUnderstan
d Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
ELAR 294 46.3 37.8 3.7 9.9 0.3 2.0
Math 232 4.7 28.9 61.2 5.2 0 0
Total
526 27.9 33.8 29.1 7.8 0.2 1.1
Cognitive Processes by Content Area
Content Area
# of Items
Percentage of Items Evaluated
Low/Level1Moderate/
Level 2High/
Level 3ELA 294 67.7 25.5 6.8
Math 232 33.2 61.6 5.2
Total 526 52.5 41.4 6.1
Cognitive Complexity by Content Area
Item Type Content Area
Low Complexity/
Level 1 N (%)
Moderate Complexity/Level 2 N(%)
High Complexity/
Level 3 N (%)Multiple Choice
ELAR 124 (66.3%) 60 (32.1%) 3 (1.6%)Math 52 (32.5%) 102 (63.8%) 6 (3.8%)
True/False ELAR 23 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Math - - -
Matching ELAR 14 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Math 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Short Answer
ELAR 34 (56.7%) 13 (21.7%) 13 (21.7%)Math 10 (38.5%) 17 (63.0%) 0 (0%)
Essay/Extended Response
ELAR 4 (40%) 2 (20%) 4 (40%)
Math - - -Performance Task
ELAR - -Math - 4 (100%) -
Gridded Response
ELAR - - -Math 12 (31.6%) 20 (52.6%) 6 (15.8%)
DOK by Item Type & Content Area
Content Area
Aligned to Standard
Not Aligned to Standard
Standard Not Identified by Teacher
Standard Correctly Identified by Teacher
Standard Incorrectly Identified by Teacher
ELAR173 (58.8%)
121 (41.2%)
262 (89.1%) 10 (3.4%) 22 (7.5%)
Math218 (94.0%)
14 (6.0%) 53(22.8%)
165 (71.1%) 14 (6.0%)
Standards Alignment
ELA Math TotalRubric Category Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDContenta .729 .445 .920 .272 .812 .391Directions/Stimulus/Stemb .814 .389 .903 .296 .852 .356
Style & Formatc .883 .321 .874 .332 .879 .326Options - Generald .831 .375 .831 .375 .848 .359
Options - Clueinge .956 .205 .971 .168 .962 .190
Overall .829 .376 .910 .286 .864 .343
Item Quality Results
• 1:00 FLDOE call
• Eduphoria Update
• CFAC Fiscal Agent Agreement
• ACCESS Assessment Update
• District Discussion/Sharing
Agenda: Afternoon Meeting
2014-2015 Course Codes: MS Advanced Reading
6th grade M/J Research 1 1700000A1700000B1700000C
7th grade M/J Research 2 1700010A1700010B1700010C
8th grade M/J Research 3 1700020A1700020B1700020C
6th grade M/J Exploratory Wheel 3
0600020A & 0600020B
7th grade M/J Exploratory Wheel 4
0600030A & 0600030B
8th grade M/J Exploratory Wheel 5
0600040A & 0600040B
2014-2015 Course Codes: MS Intensive Math