160 likes | 300 Views
CTB CADDS Sally Valenzuela Director, Publishing Strategic Initiatives CTB/McGraw-Hill. Abstract. Evidence-based item development approaches require item authors to make explicit how items provide validity evidence to support claims.
E N D
CTB CADDSSally ValenzuelaDirector, Publishing Strategic InitiativesCTB/McGraw-Hill
Abstract • Evidence-based item development approaches require item authors to make explicit how items provide validity evidence to support claims. • Advances in technology require increased consideration of accessibility and interoperability during item authoring. • Refined item development processes are needed to meet these requirements.
CADDS • Serves as a bridge between standards and assessment • Provides opportunities for systematic unpacking of standards for item development • Documents steps in reaching assessment goals • Maintains focus at all steps on evidence to support interpretations and uses of test information
CADDS • Details information about the content to be assessed • Describes item types that will be used • Uses detailed specifications for each item/task • Increases direction for item writers
CADDS • Define the intended inferences and decisions to be based on test scores. • Define the achievement construct. • Draft performance level descriptors (expectations of students). • Define the evidence to be elicited by the item pool. • Complete item writer assignments to meet the item pool specification requirements. • Complete item creation (authoring and editing). • Field test assessment items and tasks. • Implement the operational test.
INFERENCE about students (Step 1) DEVELOPMENT DESIGN Pilot, field, operational testing (Step 7/8) Achievement Construct (Step 2) Assessment item/task creation (Step 6) Performance Level Descriptors (Step 3) Item Writer Assignments (Step 5) Item Pool Evidence (Step 4)
CADDS • Define intended inferences and uses of the assessment data. • Adoption of CCSS has created need for transition assessments. • Test designs are incorporating new item types. • Reporting requirements are changing. • “Alignment” issues abound.
CADDS • Define the test construct(s) that will become assessment targets. • What cognitive tasks are required by the standard? • How do we consider students progression of learning? • What is the instructional context for a given standard? • How do we incorporate performance levels?
CADDS • Develop initial proficiency level descriptors to guide development and interpretation of test scores. • Identify source(s) of PLDS. • Define the role of PLDs in item specifications and authoring.
CADDS • Define the evidence. • Item pool or test blueprint • Specifications • Item/task templates • Instructions to item writers • Develop items and performance tasks based on specifications. • specifications templates • cognitive task frameworks • tagging for accessibility and interoperability
CADDS • Refine items and tasks through collaborative review by stakeholders. • Field test items and tasks in appropriate small- or large-scale settings. • Implement the operational test and continue the design and specification validation process.
Implementation • Expansion of item specifications template
Implementation • Articulation of cognitive tasks during item development • Cognitive Task Frameworks • Traditional (DOK, Bloom’s) • Within CCSS (Conley) • Mathematical Practice Standards • Selected ELA standards • Cognitive Rigor Matrix (Hess)
Item Authoring • Clearly defined elements for authors • construct evidence requirements • parameters for student responses • options for item type, cognitive demand, other variable factors • Articulated focus on evidence, validity and accessibility
Model with Mathematics Above Proficient Above Proficient Above Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient CCSS Standard Modeling with Geometry G-MG Apply Geometric Concepts in Modeling Situations. Basic Basic Basic Make sense of problems. Item 1 Item 1 Item 1 Attend to precision. Item 2 Item 2 Item 2 Item 3 Item 3 Item 3
Item Development Implications • Explicit articulation of evidence to support claims • Rigorous specifications development • More direction for item writers • Clearer distinction among item attributes • Refinement of item development plans