A SSESSING THE C OMMON C ORE , C OMPREHENSIVE A SSESSMENT S YSTEMS C - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A SSESSING THE C OMMON C ORE , C OMPREHENSIVE A SSESSMENT S YSTEMS C OMPREHENSIVE A SSESSMENT S YSTEMS , AND S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES Opportunities and Consequences 1 Jan Sheinker June 21, 2010

T HE HE D ILEMMA FOR S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES ILEMMA FOR TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES THE CCS CCS IN IN THE THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  Making accessible for all Students with Disabilities the assessment of so many standards  Linking to CCSS and determining achievement descriptors for  Linking to CCSS and determining achievement descriptors for AA-AAS GLS Mathematic ELA s K 34 43 1 30 39 2 32 38 3 36 40 4 33 42 5 35 42 6 36 42 7 7 31 31 42 42 8 39 42 HS 75 GR 9-10 42 GR 11-12 GR 11-12 42 42 2 * Many standard incorporate multiple discrete content and skills.

C OMPREHENSIVE OMPREHENSIVE A SSESSMENT SSESSMENT S YSTEMS YSTEMS AND AND S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES IN IN THE THE THE CCS CCS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  A comprehensive assessment system that provides greater access for students with disabilities:  Formative assessments?  Interim assessments?  Through-course assessments? Through course assessments?  Summative assessments that are cumulative?  Alternate assessments that provide alternate ways to demonstrate proficiency? demonstrate proficiency? 3

M ULTIPLE ULTIPLE M EASURES AND S TUDENTS EASURES AND TUDENTS WITH WITH D ISABILITIES D ISABILITIES THE CCS THE CCS CCS CCS ISABILITIES IN ISABILITIES IN IN THE IN THE THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF OF THE OF THE  If multiple measures prove essential for measuring the essential for measuring the increased rigor of the CCS CCS  Does this mean revisiting the Another chance Another chance language density (pitfall for SWDs) l d it ( itf ll f SWD ) to get it right for associated with constructed students with response and performance tasks? disabilities?  Will innovative items/tasks Will inno ati e items/tasks increase or decrease access?  Will more complex items/tasks increase or decrease access? increase or decrease access? 4

F ORMATIVE ORMATIVE A SSESSMENTS AND S TUDENTS SSESSMENTS AND TUDENTS WITH WITH D ISABILITIES D ISABILITIES THE CCS THE CCS CCS CCS ISABILITIES IN ISABILITIES IN IN THE IN THE THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF OF THE OF THE  When FAs become institutionalized, what happens to:  The inherent informality of FAs in the course of instruction?  The flexibility in context, format, delivery, and setting y , , y, g that allows teachers to customize how the question is posed or the observation of performance structured, especially important to students with disabilities?  The allowance that less formalized FAs make for variance in learning progressions ? Students with disabilities may develop different cognitive pathways and learning progressions as a consequence of their disabilities. 5

I NTERIM NTERIM A SSESSMENTS AND S TUDENTS SSESSMENTS AND TUDENTS WITH WITH D D ISABILITIES THE CCS CCS CCS CCS ISABILITIES IN IN THE THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  Advantages for Students with Disabilities g  Closer to instruction  May better match how content is instructed with how it is assessed it is assessed  Provide greater flexibility in testing conditions and timing  Provide information useful for corrective instruction 6

I NTERIM NTERIM A SSESSMENTS AND S TUDENTS SSESSMENTS AND TUDENTS WITH WITH D D ISABILITIES THE CCS CCS CCS CCS ISABILITIES IN IN THE THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  Cautions:  May be  too adaptive (not predictive for how well SWDs are progressing toward the standards) or progressing toward the standards) or  too summative (not diagnostic enough to guide SWDs instruction in the standards).  Make assumptions that may not be true for SWDs Make assumptions that may not be true for SWDs  all students are taught in the same scope and sequence  learning progressions are common across all students 7

E MERGING MERGING M ODELS FOR S UMMATIVE ODELS FOR UMMATIVE A SSESSMENTS A SSESSMENTS AND S TUDENTS AND S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES WITH D ISABILITIES SSESSMENTS AND SSESSMENTS AND TUDENTS WITH TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES ISABILITIES THE CCS CCS IN IN THE THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  Different tests are administered at several different times during the school year and results compiled for summative scores. (Wise, 2010) BUT Does curriculum driven test design administered through end of unit type tests that includes all content “covered” so far dictate a uniform curriculum uniformly taught f di if i l if l h and uniformly timed ? 8

T HROUGH HROUGH -C C OURSE OURSE A SSESSMENTS AND S TUDENTS SSESSMENTS AND TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES WITH D ISABILITIES WITH WITH ISABILITIES IN ISABILITIES IN IN THE IN THE THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF OF THE OF THE THE THE CCS CCS  Advantages for Students with Disabilities g  Standards assessed closer to time of instruction  Multiple chances for success: Cumulative design provides time for corrective instruction p  Fewer standards assessed in the beginning  C  Cautions: ti  Results must be immediately available for use in instruction  Result need to be applied immediately to instruction R lt d t b li d i di t l t i t ti  No one yet knows the impact on students with disabilities of the many proposed designs  Possibility that students with disabilities will be P ibili h d i h di bili i ill b 9 assessed “later”

T ECHNOLOGY ECHNOLOGY E NHANCED NHANCED A SSESSMENTS SSESSMENTS AND AND S TUDENTS S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES WITH D ISABILITIES TUDENTS WITH TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES IN ISABILITIES IN IN THE IN THE THE THE THE CCS CCS ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE “The innovative approaches to assessment that TEAs make possible go beyond the limited representations of learning possible on t ti f l i ibl traditional assessments and provide a window into cognition that traditional assessments cannot. This is especially critical for students whose disabilities have prohibited them from demonstrating what they know and can do on demonstrating what they know and can do on traditional paper and pencil tests.” (Bechard et.al., 2010) 10

T ECHNOLOGY ECHNOLOGY E NHANCED NHANCED A SSESSMENTS SSESSMENTS AND AND S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES IN IN THE THE THE CCS CCS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  Potential Barriers for Students with Disabilities  Lack of familiarity with and fluency in the technology (confounding variable?)  Unknown impact of artifacts and technology tools (virtual p gy ( versus real)  Divergent cognitive pathways and learning progressions  Potential Access for Students with Disabilities  Accommodation tools at the student’s fingertips  Built in flexibility in presentation and response modes  Built in flexibility in presentation and response modes  Interactivity to accommodate different learning progressions 11

T ECHNOLOGY ECHNOLOGY E NHANCED NHANCED A SSESSMENTS SSESSMENTS AND AND S TUDENTS S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES WITH D ISABILITIES TUDENTS WITH TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES IN ISABILITIES IN IN THE IN THE THE THE THE CCS CCS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  Innovative item types yp  Interactive/Dynamic items and tasks  Allowing students to follow varying learning progressions (A project of Children’s Progress at Columbia University) (A j t f Child ’ P g t C l bi U i it )  Immersive virtual performance tasks  Through virtual environments that provide visual and auditory experiences (A project of the Harvard Graduate School of Education) 12

T ECHNOLOGY ECHNOLOGY E NHANCED NHANCED A SSESSMENTS SSESSMENTS AND AND S TUDENTS S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES WITH D ISABILITIES TUDENTS WITH TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES IN ISABILITIES IN IN THE IN THE THE THE THE CCS CCS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF OF THE  Innovative item types yp  Scaffolding items/tasks – for cognitive complexity and for difficulty  through “Assistment” (A project of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University)  through collections of inter-related items/tasks aligned  through collections of inter related items/tasks aligned with a standard (A Montana GSEG project)  From tasks that are easy to difficult  From deconstruction of a complex performance 13

T ECHNOLOGY ECHNOLOGY E NHANCED NHANCED A SSESSMENTS SSESSMENTS AND AND S TUDENTS S TUDENTS WITH D ISABILITIES WITH D ISABILITIES TUDENTS WITH TUDENTS WITH ISABILITIES IN ISABILITIES IN IN THE IN THE THE THE THE CCS CCS ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE  Challenges of building the platform g g p  Incorporating accommodations and assistive technology  Building them into every assessment  Researching their efficacy in this new environment  Expanding the toolkit TEA makes possible  Building in flexibility while maintaining standardization  Changing the “externals” without changing the “construct” g g g g  Applying and expanding the definition of UDA  Accounting for limitations of grid, hardware, and software 14