Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Jim Pettersson, Ph.D. Utah Valley University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Jim Pettersson, Ph.D. Utah Valley University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Jim Pettersson, Ph.D. Utah Valley University

2

3

4

5

6  MTELP/MTAC composite score at least 80.  Passing courses.

7 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.

8  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.

9  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.

10 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.

11  Transition from MELTEP/MTAC to CESL.  Grades- Modified grade requirements.  Teacher recommendations based on previous semester performance.  Discontinue use of CALT.

12 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.

13 Challenges  Development of reliable cut scores.  Students fear of technology (comfort level).  Equipment problems.  Test security.

14  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.

15 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.

16 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.

17

18  Composite score of 80 or higher on the MTELP/MTAC.  Pass all Level 4 ESL classes.

19 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.

20 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

21  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

22 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.

23 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.

24 ReadingWritingGrammarL /S Attendance10% Vocabulary15%20% Tests and Quizzes20% Homework15% Lab15% 10% Paragraphs/Essays30% Research Paper20% Speeches15% Listening Activities15% Midterm Exam20% Final Exam20% Grading Guidelines

25 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

26  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.

27 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.

28 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”.

29 MTELP/MTAC to CESL Cut-off Scores MTELP/MTACCESL Basic Level0-35 Level Level Level Level Out of ESL

30


Download ppt "Jim Pettersson, Ph.D. Utah Valley University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google