Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Collaborating with Teachers for Next Generation Item Development National Conference on Student Assessment June 29, 2012.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Collaborating with Teachers for Next Generation Item Development National Conference on Student Assessment June 29, 2012."— Presentation transcript:

1 Collaborating with Teachers for Next Generation Item Development National Conference on Student Assessment June 29, 2012

2 Engaging teachers in the process of writing assessment items  Overview of each state’s program  Rationale for the approach involving teachers as item writers  Use of technology in the development process  Benefits including professional development  Lessons learned and next steps  Next-generation assessment systems Presentation Focus

3 John Moon, NeSA Project Director, Nebraska Department of Education Andrew Middlestead, Test Development Manager, Michigan Department of Education Patty McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation Presenters

4 John Moon NeSA Project Director Statewide Assessment Office Item Development by Nebraska Teachers

5 Overview of the Assessment Program: Nebraska State Accountability (NeSA) Summative Assessment administered in Spring Grades 3-8 and 11 for Reading and Math Grades 5, 8, and 11 for Science Grades 4, 8, and 11 for Writing Teacher Developed Items

6 Overview of the Assessment Program: Check4Learning (C4L) Summative/Formative Assessment System administered throughout the year State-level Item Bank of Multiple Choice Items For Reading, Math, and Science – all grades Practice Tests for Writing – all grades Teacher Developed Items

7 Classroom Assessment (C4L) Interim/Benchmark Assessments (C4L) Statewide Assessments (NeSA) Aligned to State Standards Balanced Assessment System

8 Both formative (C4L) and summative (C4L/NeSA) assessments are valuable and important Without both, the classroom assessment system is not balanced

9 BALANCED CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FORMATIVE (C4L) ASSESSMENTS SUMMATIVE (NESA & C4L) ASSESSMENTS A process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides immediate feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to help students improve their achievement of intended instructional outcomes. A tool used after instruction to measure student achievement which provides evidence of student competence or program effectiveness.

10 Overview of the Assessment Program Check4Learning: What is it? State-level item bank of multiple-choice items in reading, mathematics, and science that are stored in the C4L online system and used to generate online interim assessments to “wrap around” NeSA tests.

11 How can C4L be used? Teachers, principals, or central office staff can identify items to generate mini tests for use at point of instruction so that a check for learning can occur at any time throughout the year.

12 Organization of Item Writing Table of Specifications (TOS) – What’s needed?  Examine indicators with highest number of required items  Set grade level goals for the item writing sessions Item Bank – What do we have?  Inventory items at each grade by indicator  Identify indicators needing additional items  Examine DOK and difficulty levels for additional items

13 Rationale for the Approach: Work Session Item Development – NeSA and C4L To understand a balanced assessment system To develop quality items for tested indicators To identify the characteristics of quality multiple- choice items To acquire adequate information to support others on the balanced assessment system

14 A Quality Test... Accurately and appropriately measures what is relevant. Is consistent and precise. Does not put any group at a disadvantage. Validity Fairness Reliability

15 1.Assessments reflect the state standards. 2.The students have had an opportunity to learn the content. 3.Assessments are free from bias or offensive situations. 4.Assessment levels are appropriate for students. 5.The mastery levels are appropriate. Quality Assessment Criteria

16 Item Writing Guidelines Content Style Item Stems Response Options

17 It em Writing Guidelines - CONTENT Should be clearly aligned to the identified indicator Should not reference material or information presented in another item Should focus on one idea or concept Should test meaningful content

18 Item Writing Guidelines - STYLE Spell out acronyms Minimize the use of “NOT” and “EXCEPT” Avoid absolutes (e.g., always, never) and vague modifiers (e.g., best, worst) Use appropriate vocabulary Ensure correct grammar, punctuation, capitalization, spelling Use active voice and present tense

19 Item Writing Guidelines – ITEM STEMS State clearly and concisely Use complete sentences with ending punctuation in context Question appears at the end of the stem Use which before a noun and what before a verb Avoid negatives (capitalize if used) Do NOT use “Which of the following...”

20 Cognitive Demand The kind and level of thinking required of students to successfully engage with and solve a task Ways in which students interact with content

21 Three Different DOK Levels DOK 1- Describe three characteristics of metamorphic rocks. (Requires simple recall) DOK 2- Describe the difference between metamorphic and igneous rocks. (Requires cognitive processing to determine the differences in the two rock types) DOK 3- Describe a model that you might use to represent the relationships that exist within the rock cycle. (Requires deep understanding of rock cycle and a determination of how best to represent it)

22 Item Difficulty Difficulty is a reference to how many students answer a question correctly. “How many of you know the definition of exaggerate?” DOK 1 – recall If all of you know the definition, this question is an easy question. “How many of you know the definition of prescient?” DOK 1 – recall If most of you do not know the definition, this question is a difficult question.

23 Item Review Check List Item Stem ▫Content – alignment and focus ▫ Style – clear and concise Responses – plausible and homogenous Key – correct answer DOK – appropriate and correct Difficulty – appropriate and correct

24 Andrew Middlestead Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability in the Michigan Department of Education Item Development by Michigan Teachers

25 Overview of the Assessment Program  Michigan currently has 6 separate assessment programs which it develops and administers  Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)  Michigan Merit Examination (MME)  MEAP-Access (2% population)  MI-Access (1% population)  English Language Proficiency Assessment(ELPA)  Michigan Interim Assessments (K-12)

26 Overview of the Assessment Program Michigan uses Michigan educators throughout the development process of the majority of test items that are needed for all of these assessment programs.

27 Teacher-Written Items: Development Model  Michigan educators:  Write items based on Michigan content expectations and any guidance from Michigan and DRC staff  Review all items through both a Content and Bias/Sensitivity review session  Review field-test data from both a content and bias/sensitivity perspective

28 Teacher-Written Items: Development Model (continued)  Michigan educators:  Michigan published children’s authors:  Write commissioned passages for use in our assessments.

29 Rationale for the Approach Michigan has been using educators to write and review assessment items for up to 10 years. Having educators involved heavily in the test development provides some sense of ownership of the Michigan assessments their students see. (though it doesn’t mean they like it ) Items are only developed by state or contractor staff as a last resort in unique situations.

30 Use of Technology in the Teacher-Written Item Development Process Michigan has developed its own online Item Banking and Test Development system. Educators are able to work online in Item Writer Training sessions, or independently on tasks Tasks are able to be done quicker and more efficiently with far less paper (we use hardly any)

31 Use of Technology in the Teacher-Written Item Development Process

32 Benefits The largest benefit I see in having Michigan educators be so involved in our item development process is:  They can go back to their school and talk about the process to hopefully increase educator buy-in of the assessment program.

33 Benefits (continued) Benefits I see in having our item development online is:  Faster turn-around time from item writing, to reviewing, to consolidated comments.  Less paper  Consistent with the times.

34 Lessons Learned Importing items and their attributes from various sources into one item bank isn’t so easy. Transition time to realize efficiencies With such high educator involvement, regularly evaluate your training materials and methods

35 Future Plans and Next Steps  Goal of 100% commissioned passages  12 Michigan published children’s authors have been writing pieces across several assessment programs for the past 18 months  These authors are thrilled!  Commissioned work has it’s benefits!  Enhancing Michigan’s Item Banking System  To provide more flexibility in program and item types  Technology-based items

36 Patty McDivitt Data Recognition Corporation Summary

37 Two Models for Teacher-Developed Items  Nebraska  Centralized training and item writing workshops; immediate feedback provided  Decentralized training is not an option  Teachers use a user- friendly MS Word template; items imported into the item bank  Michigan  Centralized training and item writing workshops; immediate feedback provided  Decentralized training is an option  Teachers receive training and write directly inside the item banking system

38 Two Models for Teacher-Developed Items  Nebraska  External formatting of items for publication  Once the item is submitted and accepted, the involvement of the teacher in writing the item is done  Michigan  Internal formatting of items for publication  Once the item is submitted and accepted, the involvement of the teacher in writing the item is done

39 Role of the Vendor in Teacher- Developed Items Seek to provide support to the process Seek to ensure that the specific concerns of assessment such as source of challenge are considered without losing the intent of the writer Seek to ensure that the items adhere to style specifications and pre-determined technical quality

40 Next-Generation Assessment Systems Much as teachers have new and novel ways to approach instruction in the classroom, teachers as writers will display creativity in addressing the standards in new and novel ways, including becoming invested in the deep understanding of the standards and the development of the assessments helping to promote the link between assessment and instruction in the classroom, and viewing assessments in a more positive light due to peer involvement in the process.

41 Next-Generation Assessment Systems Teachers will become familiar with the use of templates and/or the entire item-banking process (shared item components). Teachers will use what they have learned in the item-writing workshops to develop classroom- based assessments.

42 Next-Generation Assessment Systems  Teachers will become familiar in the use of item- writing guidelines and item specifications.  Teachers will gain understanding in the structure of items designed to measure the standards, including  Evidence-based design items  Selected-response items  Technology-enhanced items  Other

43 Next-Generation Assessment Systems  Writer’s workshops (professional development)  Focus upon collaboration among teachers and/or the department  Engage teachers in direct writing; providing regular and direct feedback  Engage teachers is peer review  Empower teachers with responsibility and ownership of the development process

44 Questions and Answers


Download ppt "Collaborating with Teachers for Next Generation Item Development National Conference on Student Assessment June 29, 2012."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google