1. Everett, March 2010 Opening Meeting
SALT X
Everett, March 2010
Opening Meeting

2. Agenda Thursday: Friday Daily times: Start 8 a.m. Snack break: 10 a.m.
Information & updates
Item specification review
Friday
Complete reviews
Vertical alignment
Daily times:
Start 8 a.m.
Snack break: 10 a.m.
Lunch: 12 p.m.
Snack break: 2 p.m.
Adjourn: 5 p.m.

3. Agenda for Today Introductions Logistics
State of the Science MSP and HSPE
Current events in science beyond WA
Item specifications
Where they are now
Your assignment

4. Introductions
Name
Who pays you for what
How SALT-y are you?

5. Logistics
Travel expenses
Substitute reimbursement
Clock hours

6. General Updates PEPPER List New Website Future of SALT
Additional staff
Instructional Materials Review
Other?

7. State of Science in WA

8. From WASL to Measurements of Student Progress
Grade 5
2008
WASL
2009
2010
MSP
Multiple Choice 21 26
Short Answer 10 8 4
Extended Response 2
% Points from MC
43%
57%
76%

9. From WASL to Measurements of Student Progress
Grade 8
2008
WASL
2009
2010
MSP
Multiple Choice 28 30
Short Answer 11 7 5
Extended Response 3 2
% Points from MC
45%
56%
75%

10. More on Science MSP Align to Standards
2010 aligned to old content standards
2011 aligned to new content standards
Reduced Test Length
Grade 5: Single session ~75 minutes
Grade 8: Single session ~90 minutes
Fewer Constructed Response Items
No more than 25% of points
No extended response (4 pt) items
New Item Types:
Completion
Piloted in 2010
Operational in 2011
Later Test Window
May 12 to 28 for paper/pencil tests
Online Testing
Voluntary in grades 5 and 8 in 2011

11. Standard Setting: Summer 2011

12. Math Standard Setting Plan

13. “Contrasting Groups” method affords broader involvement in standard setting
Everyone in the state who teaches math in grades 3-8 is invited to help set standards on the new MSP-Math
Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs) are developed for “Basic” and “Proficient”
Web-based training on PLDs is provided to participating teachers
In April, participating teachers judge each of their students as being “Basic or below” or “At or above Proficient”
Two distributions of scores are produced: Scores obtained by students rated as “Basic”, and scores for “Proficient”
Where the two distributions merge represents the separation point between “Basic” and “Proficient.”

14. Students rated as “At or below Basic” using criteria in PLD for Basic

15. Students rated as “Proficient or above” using criteria in PLD for Proficient

16. Intersection indicates a region for where “Basic” separates from “Proficient”

17. From WASL to High School Proficiency Exam
2008
WASL
2009
2010
HSPE
Multiple Choice 28 35
Short Answer 11 5
Extended Response 3
% Points from MC
45%
78%

18. More on Science HSPE Align to Standards
2010 & 2011 aligned to old content standards
2012 aligned to new content standards
Reduced Test Length
HS: Single session ~ 120 minutes
Fewer Constructed Response Items
No more than 25% of points
No extended response (4 pt) items
New Item Types:
Completion
Piloted in 2011
Operational in 2012
Test Window
April 15, 2010
Online Testing
Still to be determined

19. Graduation Requirements
Class of 2013
Current 9th graders must pass all 4 HSPE’s
End of course assessments
EOC test in biology Spring 2012
Report on developing other EOCs to the Leg by Dec. 1, 2010
Final outcome after March 12
Requiring 3 years of high school science?
CORE 24 will require three years of science
Scheduled to be funded in 2018

20. So what do I do now with my science classes?
High School
HSPE for 2010 and 2011 is based on old standards
The Big Ideas in the new standards closely align with the Core Concepts in the old standards
EOC’s in physical and/or earth science may be coming down the road
Table Discussion
What’s happening in your classrooms and districts as a result of the changes in standards and testing?

21. New Item Types

22. Completion Items Prompt is in the form of a question
Responses require 1 to 3 words/numbers
There must be a finite number of correct responses.
Rubric includes list of “all” possible creditable responses from students
Scoring
By computer (blanks and matches)
By hand

23. Sample Completion

24. Online Testing Possibilities

26. Technical QA in a “typical year” 17 Equating Studies

27. Technical QA in 2010: Total of 46 “Comparability” studies

28. Online Testing Students will not be able to “draw” answers
Scenario procedures briefly describe how to set up experiment, instead of “…as shown in the Controlled Experiment Setup diagram.”
Response boxes do not contain diagrams
Potential new item formats

29. Online Testing (continued)

30. Online Testing (continued)
This question is intended as an example of a possible item type for the online assessments. This is not a Washington question.

31. Online Testing (continued)
This question is intended as an example of a possible item type for the online assessments. This is not a Washington question.

32. Online Testing (continued)
This question is intended as an example of a possible item type for the online assessments. This is not a Washington question.

33. Nationally in Science Ed.
Common Core Standards in ELA & Math
Race to the Top and the upcoming “Assessment” Grant
Reauthorization of ESEA
Development of a Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards
NAEP/TIMSS 2011

34. Upcoming events Range Finding Content Review
HS Operational in Cincinnati (April 27 & 28) [committee is set]
8 & 5 Operational in Cincinnati (June 7 & 8)
8 & 5 Pilot in Olympia (July & 19-23)
Content Review
5 & 8 in Olympia (June 21-25)
Scenario Writing Workshops
High School in Bellevue (July & August 2-6)
Content Review: June 21-25
Rangefinding—
Operational: HS—April 27 & 28; 5/8—June 7 & 8
Pilot: 5/8—July & 19-23
High School writing: July & August 2-6

35. Item Specifications

36. Science Assessment Development Cycle
Develop Item and Test Specifications
Scenario & Item Writing
You
are here
Scenario & Items Reviewed for Content & Bias/Sensitivity by Committees
Scenario & Items Reviewed for Content by OSPI
Scenario & Item Pilot Testing
Pilot Range Finding
Operational Testing
Data Review
Pilot Scoring
Operational Range Finding
Operational Scoring 36

37. Development of the Item Specs
Stakeholder initial reviews – April and Aug 2009
Assessable vs. non-assessable on MSP
Prioritize in terms of frequency on MSP
Draft item specs developed, reviewed and edited
Scenario and item writing workshop, July 2009
Content review, September 2009
Scenario and item writing workshop, February 2010
SALT X, March 2010
Content review, June 2010
Standards Revision Committee subgroup, July 2010

38. Reviewing the Item Specs
Does the item spec align with the content standard? The performance expectation?
Are examples or limitations needed?
Are item specs missing from a content standard?
Is the cognitive complexity indicated appropriate?
Are the formats (MC, CP, SA) indicated appropriate?
Record your suggestions/edits legibly on the spreadsheets

39. Cognitive Complexity (Depth of Knowledge based on Webb)
Level 1. Recall and reproduction
Recall of information such as a fact, definition, term, or a simple procedure.
Level 2. Skills and concepts
Require some processing beyond recalling or reproducing a response; requires some decisions as to how to approach the question or problem
Level 3. Strategic thinking
Reasoning, planning, using evidence; may have more than one possible answer, require students to justify their response.
Level 4. Extended thinking