Presentation on theme: "Jim Pettersson, Ph.D. Utah Valley University."— Presentation transcript:
Jim Pettersson, Ph.D. Utah Valley University
MTELP/MTAC composite score at least 80. Passing courses.
Benefits Easy to gather data. Challenges As with exit criteria, MTELP/MTAC composite score problems (not balanced). A grade of C- was considered passing. Not rigorous enough. Students frequently challenge placement.
Raise the passing grade to at least C in each class and overall GPA of at least 2.0 in classes taken the previous semester. Allow an MTELP/MTAC retest within the first 2 weeks of the semester. Students interview with program coordinator and fill out an Exception to Standard Placement Form.
MTELP/MTAC- New formula for determining scores. Grades- Develop and implement grading guidelines. Use of CALT program for students who challenge level placement Teacher recommendations based on previous semester performance.
Benefits Multiple measures. 2 different tests to evaluate skills. More comprehensive measurement of skills. Grades more objective and reliable. Challenges Resources needed (CALT only 4 computers available). More time required to administer tests. Staff time to organize data for evaluation of students. Getting instructors to give reliable objective grades.
Transition from MELTEP/MTAC to CESL. Grades- Modified grade requirements. Teacher recommendations based on previous semester performance. Discontinue use of CALT.
Benefits Use of a nationally accepted testing technology. Simplified test administration. Quicker turn-around time for results. Being computer adaptive a larger corpus of questions is available to draw upon. Human error in scoring of tests reduced.
Challenges Development of reliable cut scores. Students fear of technology (comfort level). Equipment problems. Test security.
CESL scores- looked at subtest scores. Course grades- Previous semester. Must pass 3 of the 4 classes. Must have a cumulative GPA of at least 2.0. Exceptions require a learning contract with Program Coordinator or Program Director. Oral Interview. Writing sample. Grammar and reading test based upon grammar text used in the program.
Benefits Multiple measures. 2 different tests to evaluate skills. More comprehensive measures of skills. Use of a nationally accepted testing technology. Quicker turn-around time for results. CESL being computer adaptive, a larger corpus of test questions is available to draw upon. Human error in correcting of tests reduced. Allowed for criteria referenced test.
Challenges Time to administer oral interviews and writing samples. Time to train staff in administration of oral interviews and writing samples. Continuing challenge of reliable grades. Time for staff to meet and discuss student placement. Getting faculty to complete and submit placement recommendation forms. Getting reliable objective grades from instructors.
Composite score of 80 or higher on the MTELP/MTAC. Pass all Level 4 ESL classes.
Benefits Administered by Testing Services. Minimal cost to students ($15). Liberal retake policy. Reasonably quick term turn-around time to report scores. Flexible testing schedule. Only two measures to worry about.
Challenges Use of one standardized test score provided evaluation at only one point in the time. Disproportionate measure of test score: Security of test environment. Retakes allowed too frequently. MTAC40 questionsOne score MTELPR-20 questions One score V- 40 questions G- 40 questions Both scores added together and divided by 2 = composite score
New method of calculating MTELP/MTAC Composite score of 80 (testing allowed at beginning, middle, end). Course grades. CLAT 80 (testing allowed at beginning, middle, end). NSA- DRP scores and CWS scores. DRP CWS
Benefits Multiple measures (better picture of students skills and performance). Semester measure of students skills and performance. Could look at student performance on a class by class (skill) basis. Consideration given to MTELP/MTAC subtest scores. MTELP/MTAC paper pencil. CALT technology based assessment (computer based testing). NSA- hold students to native English speaker performance levels.
Challenges Lots of data to compile. Expanded testing schedule (time out of class, Students who missed testing). Convincing testing services of the appropriateness of the new MTELP/MTAC scoring procedure. Reliable grades- no sympathy grades. Development of grading guidelines. Time and equipment necessary to administer the CALT.
ReadingWritingGrammarL /S Attendance10% Vocabulary15%20% Tests and Quizzes20% Homework15% Lab15% 10% Paragraphs/Essays30% Research Paper20% Speeches15% Listening Activities15% Midterm Exam20% Final Exam20% Grading Guidelines
New MTELP/MTAC Scoring Formula MTAC Score80 x 1= 80 MTELP Score60 x 2= 120 Total= 200 / 3 = 66.7 Program Exit Recommendation Form NameCESLDRPCWSRecommendationProjected Final Grade L/SRdgWrtgGram Jose877385Exit ESLAA-B+A- Aya654918Repeat Level 4C+DD-E
Change from MTELP/MTAC to CESL. CESL score of at least 90 (testing limited to the beginning and end of the semester). Course grades. NSA (DRP changed to an untimed format). Teacher recommendations.
Benefits More reliable information (broad base of data). Quick access to test results. All subtest scores weighted equally in calculation of CESL score. Allowed for more direct teacher input. Challenges Test Security Determine reliable out-off scores Anxiety about use computer based testing format. Necessity of staff meeting to discuss students exiting the program. Highlighted need for better placement criteria. Reliable grades.
Minimum Grade Require in each class Initially a grade of “C” was required in each class. The first revision to the exit criteria changed this to a grade of a “B” in each class. After concerns were expressed by faculty members and administrators this was again changed to a grade of “C”.
MTELP/MTAC to CESL Cut-off Scores MTELP/MTACCESL Basic Level0-35 Level Level Level Level Out of ESL