Chapter 7 Formal Group Assessment: Focus on Accountability - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Chapter

7

Formal

Group Assessment: Focus on Accountability

Slide2

Introduction

What

Is

the Context for Formal, Standardized Assessment?

Characteristics

for Formal, Standardized

Testing

Group Achievement Tests for Instructional Planning and Progress Monitoring

High

-Stakes

Testing

Formal Group Achievement Testing for Accountability

The

NAEP and the NAAL

What do Group

Norm-referenced

Measures of Reading Look Like

?

Special Considerations for

Formal, Group Assessment of Adult

and

English Language Learners

Slide3

What

I

s

the Context for Formal, Standardized Assessment?

Slide4

Tips for Administering and Scoring Formal and Group Tests

Refer to Text Box 6.5 for tips.

Follow scripted directions in manual to prevent error.

Refer to Figure 6.1 to understand how various scores relate to each other on the “normal curve.”

Group formal tests can be useful for gross progress monitoring, limited instructional planning, screening and whole class comparisons.

Primary purpose is accountability.

Slide5

Figure 6.1

Slide6

Figure 7.1

Slide7

Figure 7.2

Slide8

Slide9

Group Achievement Tests for Instructional Planning and Progress Monitoring

Slide10

Brief Assessments of Oral Reading Fluency

Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency-2

Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency-2

Can be individually or group

administered (PRO-ED

)

Slide11

Figure 7.4

Slide12

Group Reading Tests: Some Examples

Gates-MacGinitie, 4

th

Edition (Riverside)

Gray Silent Reading Test (PRO-ED)

Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Riverside)

Slide13

Figure 7.5

Slide14

Figure 7.6

Slide15

Test of Adult Basic Education

Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE, 2014

)

TABE

is commonly used in adult education settings across the U.S. and provides a measure of

reading.

Teachers

are encouraged to first administer a locator test to help determine the most appropriate level of administration for entering

students.

Slide16

High-Stakes Testing

Slide17

How did high-stakes testing originate?

1946: U.S

. Chamber of Commerce called for an assessment system to ensure that schools prepared well-qualified workers for the post-World War II era (Fine, 1947).

Cold

War era of

1950s through 1970s:

nonflattering international comparisons of student performance combined with the fear of losing U.S. scientific and military superiority fueled a frenzy of educational reform (Postlethwaite, 1985

).

Slide18

Origins of high-stakes testing

Two additional motivating

influences:

In late

1960s and 1970s—the interest of state governments to provide evidence of teacher accountability

A

growing number of lawsuits brought by parents of semiliterate graduates against school systems for not properly educating their

children

(

Conley, 2005

)

Slide19

Guidelines for High-Stakes Testing

Elliott, Braden, & White (2001) provide suggestions for high-stakes testing:

Tie assessment to predetermined goals

Rely on multiple measures

Create reliable and valid tests for purposes intended

Slide20

Standards for Testing

Table 7.1

Sample

Standards from AERA, APA and NCME’s Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014)

Slide21

Should we Teach to the Test?

Popham’s Categories of Test Preparation Practices

1. Previous-form

preparation

allows students to practice test taking with items from old out-of-print versions of a test that is currently used.

2. Current-form

preparation

allows students to practice on items taken directly from a currently used version of a test.

(Popham, 2002)

Slide22

Popham’s Categories con’td

3. Generalized

test-taking preparation

allows simulation of test administration using a variety of test-preparation strategies to fit a variety of test formats (e.g., helping students schedule time optimally, modeling good calculated guessing strategies, and encouraging students to read the stem carefully before looking at the options of multiple-choice questions).

Slide23

Popham’s Categories cont’d

4. Same-format

preparation

allows students to practice responding only to items that represent the content of the actual test and mirror the format of the items from the test.

5. Varied-format

preparation

allows students to practice responding to items that represent directly the content of the actual test using a variety of item formats.

Slide24

Popham’s Recommendations

Which of the above are appropriate (i.e., educationally defensible and ethical)?

#3

(

Generalized

test-taking

preparation)

and #5 (Varied-format preparation)

Slide25

Controversies and Criticisms of

Group

Testing

Table 7.2

External

Testing Programs:

Criticisms

and

Solutions (Payne, 2003)

Slide26

High-stakes testing of students

with

disabilities

and English language

learners

Most take same group achievement tests as students without disabilities and/or whose first language is English.

Students with disabilities may have accommodations if documented in Individual Education Plans (IEP) or Section 504 Plans.

Slide27

Typical Accommodations for

Students

with Disabilities

(a) large

print

(b) oral instructions

(c

) calculators/mathematical

tables

(c

) flexible setting (e.g., individual versus small group versus study carrel

)

(

d) visual/tactile

aids

(e

) multiple testing sessions (within the same day

)

(

f) flexible

scheduling

(g

) use of a scribe/recording

device

Slide28

Typical Accommodations

(h) test booklet

marking

(i

) oral

self-reading

Other

accommodations, sometimes referred to as “special accommodations,” include: (a) extended time; (b) read aloud internal test instructions/items; (c) prompting, upon request; (d) use of an interpreter; (e) use of manipulatives for math tests; and (f) use of assistive technology.

Slide29

Formal Group Achievement Testing for Accountability

Two Well-Known Examples:

National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)

The

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)

Slide30

NAEP

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

/

Table

7.4

National

Association of Educational Progress Performance

Descriptions

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

Grades 4, 8, 12

Slide31

Trends in NAEP Performance

National

averages were 2 points higher in 2005 than in 1992

and

4 points higher in 2013 than 2005 at grade

4.

Similar trends for students in grade 8

S

cores

for

4

th

grade

Asian/Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites increased between 1992 and

2013. Students

within all four groups improved slightly from 2011 to 2013 and all improved significantly from 1992 to

2013

Gains by White and Black

8

th

grade

students parallel

4

th

grade; however

,

8

th

grade

Hispanic

students

gained 15 points from 1992 to

2013

versus

a 10 point

gain for

4

th

grade; 8

th

grade

Asian/Pacific Islander students gained 12 points

versus

19 points for

4

th

grade.

In spite of these gains

for 8

th

grade, Asian/Pacific

Islander students

scored

highest in 2013 (280 points), followed by White (276 points), Hispanic (256 points

),

and Black students (250 points

).

Slide32

Trends in NAEP Performance

M

ales seem

to be closing the reading

gap slowly.

25

% and 32% of

4

th

grade

males earned P

roficient

or better scores in reading in 1992 and 2013,

respectively.

32

% and 38

% of 4

th

grade females earned Proficient or better scores in reading in 1992 and 2013, respectively .

The

same trend is observed for

8

th

grade students.

P

ercentage

of Proficient or Above 12

th

grade students

decreased

slightly from 1992 to

2013.

Consequence of more students staying in school?

Slide33

Table 7.3

Achievement Level Results* from the National Assessment on Education Progress

 

Fourth Grade

Eighth Grade

Year

Below Basic

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

Below Basic

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1992

38

34

22

6

31

40

26

3

2011

33

34

26

8

24

42

30

3

2013

32

33

27

8

22

42

32

4

* in percentages

 

Slide34

NAAL

www.nces.ed.gov

Some gains from 1993 to 2003 were noted in adults’ quantitative literacy and document literacy.

But in 2003

:

30

million adults (14%) performed at

Below

Basic level (answered either none or only the most simple and concrete items

);

63

million (29%) were able to answer simple and everyday literacy-based

questions;

95

million (44%) were able to participate in moderately challenging literacy

activities;

28

million (13%) could perform complex and challenging literacy

activities.

Slide35

Common Core State Standards Assessment

In 2010, as part of the Race to the Top initiative, the U.S. Department of Education awarded $330 million to two

entities

to develop valid, fair, “next generation” assessments in English/Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics that would yield faster results than traditional group tests:

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)

http

://www.parcconline.org/

Smarter

Balanced Assessment

Consortium

http://www.smarterbalanced.org

/

Slide36

Common Core Assessments

Both have summative and formative assessments

Goal is to assess via computer technology

Smarter Balanced assessments are computer-adaptive

Slide37

What do Group Norm-Referenced Measures of Reading Look Like?

Slide38

Typical Group Achievement Test

Table 7.5

Scope

and Sequence

Chart from Stanford Achievement Test

Slide39

Figure 7.6

Slide40

Figure 7.7

Slide41

Assessment at a Glance:

Formal

,

Group Assessment

Tables

7.6

and 7.7

Characteristics

of Formal, Group and Norm-Referenced Assessments of

Reading

Psychometric Properties of Formal, Group, Norm-Referenced Assessment of Reading

Slide42

Special Considerations for Adults and English Language Learners

Slide43

Special Considerations for Group Assessment of

Adults

See Text

Box

7.1

Assess

adult learners’ educational histories, background experiences, and

interests,

as well as specific reading skills.

For those who score below 8

th

grade level on the Test of Adult Basic Education, further skill assessment is needed.

Multiple measures will likely be needed to gain a complete assessment of adult learners’ strengths and weaknesses.

Ensure that tests used for adults are normed for adults.

Adult learners may feel particularly conscious of their performance in a group testing situation; take special care to put them at ease and ensure confidentiality of scores.

Refer to the Adult Reading Components website to plug in scores and get educational recommendations for adult learners:

https://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/

Slide44

Special Considerations for Group Assessment of

ELLs

See Text

Box 7.2.

NCLB

requires that ELL students participate in group achievement testing for accountability purposes. Be familiar with the accommodations allowed in your state and school district. For example, some states allow directions to be read in the students’ native language; some allow for flexible grouping, etc.

Prepare ELL students for group assessment by providing practice sessions. Address their questions or concerns to relieve anxiety. (We like what one of our children’s teachers told her class—“This test is to show if I did a good job this year as your teacher. Just do your best and don’t worry about it.”)

Work with bilingual and English as Second Language instructors to inform parents about the purposes of group achievement

testing

to relieve

anxiety

and to ensure parental support.

Be aware of the limitations of testing students in a second language when interpreting assessment results.

Slide45

Assessment at a Glance:

Formal

, Group Assessment

Tables 7.6 and 7.7

Characteristics

of Formal,

Group and Norm-Referenced

Assessments of

Reading

Psychometric Properties of Formal,

Group and

Norm-Referenced Assessments of Reading

Slide46

Summary

What is the Context for Formal, Standardized Assessment?

Characteristics for Formal, Standardized Testing

Group Achievement Tests for Instructional Planning and Progress Monitoring

High-Stakes Testing

Formal Group Achievement Testing for Accountability

The

NAEP and the NAAL

What do Group Norm-Referenced Measures of Reading Look

Like?

Special

Considerations for Formal, Group Assessment of Adult and English Language Learners