1 / 14

PARA Field Test

PARA Field Test. Martha Thurlow, Deborah Dillon, Jamal Abedi, Marsha Brauen June 22, 2010 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA):

anson
Download Presentation

PARA Field Test

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PARA Field Test Martha Thurlow, Deborah Dillon, Jamal Abedi, Marsha Brauen June 22, 2010 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA): A collaboration between the University of Minnesota’sNational Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) and the Department of Curriculum & Instruction; CRESST, University of California, Davis; and Westat www.readingassessment.info

  2. Background Studies • Item Analyses • Segmenting Study • Reading Pen Study • Motivation Study

  3. Final “Accessible” Reading Assessment • High Interest Passages • Segmented Passages • Universal Design Considerations

  4. Measures • PARA Test Performance • State Reading Test Performance • Motivation to Read Questionnaire

  5. Design Pre-information on Each Student: Gender, Age, Reading level, State test score, and MRQ Survey Typical State Assessment (Proxy) Lower Interest No Segmenting of Passages PARA Accessible Assessment High Interest Segmented Passages

  6. Target Number of Students – in Grade 4 and in Grade 8

  7. Students With Disabilities Group A Group B Type of Assessment Accessible Reading Assessment “Regular” Assessment Hypothesized Outcome Higher Performance Lower Performance Hypotheses – Students with Disabilities

  8. Students Without Disabilities Group A Group B Type of Assessment “Regular” Assessment Accessible Reading Assessment Hypothesized Outcome No Difference Hypotheses – Students without Disabilities

  9. Results - Preliminary

  10. Distribution of Mean Scores on MRQ for Grade 8 – Preliminary Data

  11. Mean Scores on MRQ across Subgroups for N>=20 – Preliminary Data

  12. Scores on State Reading Test – Preliminary Data

  13. Teacher Assigned Reading Levels- Preliminary Data

  14. Analyses Underway • Attempting to obtain additional subjects • Administrations very positive – despite the time of year • Student persistence high Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment

More Related