Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Creating Innovative Tests: Applying Universal Design to Assessment Practices Assessment Colloquium November 30, 2007 Manju Banerjee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Creating Innovative Tests: Applying Universal Design to Assessment Practices Assessment Colloquium November 30, 2007 Manju Banerjee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor."— Presentation transcript:

1 Creating Innovative Tests: Applying Universal Design to Assessment Practices Assessment Colloquium November 30, 2007 Manju Banerjee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor in Residence Special Education

2 Just imagine --- If there were no tests, no assessment, no accountability as we know it? Student perspective: Teacher perspective: Policy maker perspective:

3 (Mislevy, Steinberg, & Almond, 1999, p.6) Opportunities borne of new technologies, desires borne of new understandings of learning ---- a new generation of assessment beckons. To realize the vision, we must reconceive how we think about assessment, from purposes and designs to production and delivery. (Mislevy, Steinberg, & Almond, 1999, p.6)

4 Computer-based tests (CBT) are the next frontier in high stakes assessment (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002)

5 UD is anchored in the belief that a design that works well for examinees with disabilities, improves usability for all individuals (Center for an Accessible Society, 2006) What is universal design? (Center for Universal Design, 1997) What makes a test universally designed? * Seven Elements of a universally designed test (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002) Opportunity to create tests that support accessibility needs of diverse test takers -- Universal Design (UD) What is the appeal of computer-based tests?

6 Maximum usability Widest range of consumers Without design adaptations Minimize construct irrelevant features Include test taking features Disabilities, ELL, Non-traditional age Built-in from the start Examinee choice is flexibility to access and express in the mode or methods that best suit the individual (Hall, 2005, p. 2) (Russell, Goldberg, & OConner, 2003) EXAMINEE CHOICE Application of Universal Design to High Stakes Tests

7 Inform product development of high stakes tests 1. Objective of Study Based on current research on features that support examinee choice in high stakes test design Test taking tools On-screen item display tools Access tools Goldberg & Pedula, 2002 Peak, 2005 Lunz & Bergstrom, 1994 Vispoel et al., 2000 Bridgeman, Lennon, & Jackenthal, 2002 Mazzeo & Harvey, 1988 Pommerich, 2004 Pommerich & Burden, 2004 Mandinach et al., 2005 Sireci, Li, & Scarpati, 2003 Tindal & Fuchs, 2000

8 II. Background Information Features of Examinee Choice Construct neutralConstruct related Tindal, 1998 CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2004 Test taking tools On-screen item display Access tools

9 II. Background Information (Cont.) U D increased accessibility for all examinees Accessibility is maximized when examinees have choice over features of test design Research on features of test design fall into three broad categories: (1)Test taking tools (2)Item Display (3) Access tools Some features are construct neutral/construct irrelevant; others are construct related (including test accommodations) Allowing examinees to choose features of test design based on individual preferences needs to be explored for a wide range of features including features that affect test construct U D suggest a framework but research is still emerging on the application of UD to high stakes CBTs.

10 1.What are college students stated preferences for features and combinations of features of test design from among test taking tools, on-screen item display, and access tools for the Passage Comprehension section of the GRE ? 2.Are stated preferences for features and combinations of features from among test-taking tools, on-screen item display, and access tools different among students with and without learning disabilities (LD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or both? Research questions III. Methodology and Procedures

11 Exploratory study - Survey design Participants responded to an online survey instrument (1) Student background questionnaire (2) Demonstration of selected features of CBT (3) Opportunity for practice (4) Two choice exercises * Rank-ordered choice exercise * Voluntary top feature choice exercise Two pilot studies Research Design, Instrumentation, Pilot Study III. Methodology and Procedures (cont.)

12 Attribute 1: Test taking tools Highlighting Tagging Strike-out Change answer Attribute 2: On-screen item display tools Font size Note pad Question reorder Attribute 3: Access tools Self-voicing less 20 points 50% extra time less 20 points Self-voicing less 40 points 50% extra time less 40 points Self-voicing less 60 points 50% extra time less 60 points No selection Instrumentation – Test Features III. Methodology and Procedures (contd.)

13 Instrumentation III. Methodology and Procedures (contd.) Introductionhttp://www.education.uconn.edu/jamison/highstakes testing/intro.cfm Highlighting feature testing/tool1video.cfm Strike out feature testing/tool3video.cfm

14 Instrumentation III. Methodology and Procedures (cont.) Choice exercise 1 testing/choice1.cfm Choice exercise 2 testing/choice2.cfm

15 Instrumentation- Creating the 1st choice exercise III. Methodology and Procedures (contd.) Given 4x3x7 (features) = 84 combinations Select a unique group of 4 from 84 combinations AttributeRange of occurrence of features Test taking tools On-screen item display tools Access tools "No selection feature 75 –

16 Research Question 1 Data Analysis Rank-ordered choice exercise data Voluntary top feature choice exercise data Rank-ordered Logit Regression Multinomial Logit Regression III. Methodology and Procedures (contd.) Research Question 2

17 Data Analysis – Rank-ordered logit regression III. Methodology and Procedures (contd.) Dependent variable - Ranks assigned to the combination of feature Independent variables - Features and attributes Utility/Preference * Non-significant baseline [rank is proxy for preference] * Non-significant zero probability of selection Relative Utility * One feature is dropped from each attribute for the model to be determinate

18 Data Analysis – Rank-ordered logit regression Three models were estimated: Model 1: Three attributes as independent variables Model 2: Three attributes as independent variables with no selection feature was omitted Model 3: Features within each attribute as independent variables III. Methodology and Procedures (contd.)

19 Data Analysis – Multinomial logit regression Dependent variable –Top pick feature within an attribute Independent variables – Demographic characteristics III. Methodology and Procedures (contd.)

20 IV. Results – Participant demographics

21 Demographic Characteristics Test-taking tools (SE) On-screen item display tools (SE) Access tools (SE) All participants.03(.06).04(.09).04(.03) No LD/ADHD.03(.07)-.03(.09).06(.03)** LD/ADHD -.06(.17).51(.24)**-0.12(.08)* Graduate -.03(.08).02(.11).11(.03)*** Undergraduate.10(.09).07(.14)-.05(.04) No disability.05(.07)-.03(.11).07(.03)** Disability -.02(.12).20(.15)-.02(.05) *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 IV. Results - Model 1

22 Demographic Characteristics Test-taking tools (SE) On-screen item display tools (SE) Access tools (SE) High GPA ( 3.0).04(.07)-.04(.09).04(.03) Low GPA (<3.0).004(.17).54(.26)**.06(.08) Prior CBT exp..05(.09)-.10(.12).09(.03)** No CBT exp..10(.08).15(.12).01(.04) Male.02(.11)-.01(.15).09(.04)** Female.04(.07).05(.10).01(.03) *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 IV. Results - Model 1 (contd.)

23 Demographic Characteristics Test-taking tools (SE) On-screen item display tools (SE) SV + Time (SE) All participants.03(.06).03(.09)-.19(.15) No LD/ADHD.03(.07)-.04(.09)-.24(.16) LD/ADHD -.04(.17).49(.24)**.40(.45) Graduate -.03(.08).02(.11)-.39(.19)** Undergraduate.10(.09).07(.14).12(.24) No disability.05(.07)-.04(.11)-.25(.18) Disability -.02(.11).02(.15).01(.26) *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 IV. Results - Model 2

24 Demographic Characteristics Test-taking tools (SE) On-screen item display tools (SE) SV + Time (SE) High GPA ( 3.0).03(.07)-.04(.09)-.24(.16) Low GPA (<3.0) -.01(.17).50(.26)**-.05(.43) Prior CBT exp. -.05(.09)-.10(.12)-.09(.04)** No CBT exp..10(.08).15(.12).01(.04) Male.02(.11)-.02(.15)-.55(.28)** Female.03(.11)-.02(.16)-.55(.31) *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 IV. Results - Model 2 (contd.)

25 Features above baseline preference Features at baseline preference Features below baseline preference Strike-out Tagging for review Highlighting Change answer Question reorder Extra time Font size SV less 20 pt. SV less 40 pt. AllLD/ADHDNo LD/ ADHD GradUndergrad IV. Results - Model 3 (contd.)

26 Features above baseline preference Features at baseline preference Features below baseline preference Tagging for review Highlighting Change answer Question reorder Extra time Note pad Strike-out SV less 40 pt. Extra time less 40 pt High GPA 3.0 Low GPA <3.0 Prior CBT experience No prior CBT experience MaleFemale IV. Results - Model 3 (contd.)

27 Test of equality of regression coefficients for LD/ADHD status Model 1On-screen item display Z = 2.107; p = 0.02 Model 2On-screen item display SV + ET Z= 2.07; p = 0.02 Z=1.34; p = 0.09 Model 3Tagging for later review Z= 1.76; p = 0.04 Strike-out Z= 2.40; p = 0.01 Self-voicing less 40 points Z= 2.30; p = 0.01 IV. Results (contd.)

28 IV. Results -Voluntary Top Feature Choice Exercise

29 College students preferences for combinations of features of test design varied by demographic strata At the attribute level (rank-ordered exercise): - Students with LD and/or ADHDAND students with low GPA indicated above baseline level of preference for on- screen item display relative to test-taking tools and access tools - Students without LD/ADHD, Graduates, No disabilities, With prior CBT experience and Males prefer Access Tools with no selection, BUT indicated below baseline preference when no selection is removed (except for those with no disabilities) V. Summary of Results and Discussion

30 At the features level (rank-ordered exercise) Strike-out, Tagging* (LD/ADHD; With disabilities Undergrad*; GPA* < 3.0) At the features level (voluntary top choice exercise) among Test-taking tools display Highlight (all participants*; No LD/ADHD; High GPA*; Graduates, Undergraduates, No disabilities, Male; Female*) V. Summary of Results and Discussion (contd.)

31 At the features level (voluntary top choice exercise) among On-screen item display Note pad (across all demographic strata) At the features level (voluntary top choice exercise) among Access tools Extra time (across all demographic strata) V. Summary of Results and Discussion (contd.)

32 Further investigation of examinee choice in high stakes computer-based test development Explore other features of test design Investigate concept of examinee choice with different college populations Expand UD in assessment to include construct irrelevant and construct related features. Provide examinee choice for features within high stakes test preparation material V. Implications for Future Research

33 Sample selection did not follow formal procedures for stratified random sampling (Levy & Lemeshow, 1991) Participants were all from a competitive Research One university (external validity) Focus on hypothetical choices rather than real time choices (stated vs. revealed preference) No way to determine if all participants clearly understood the trade-off exercise. (Notion of students with LD/ADHD and penalty) V. Limitations of Study

34 ***** END OF PRESENTATION


Download ppt "Creating Innovative Tests: Applying Universal Design to Assessment Practices Assessment Colloquium November 30, 2007 Manju Banerjee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google