1 / 26

Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards Student Population

Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards Student Population. Jacqueline F. Kearns, Ed.D. Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, MS. INTERPRETATION. OBSERVATION. COGNITION. The Assessment Triangle & Validity Evaluation Marion & Pellegrino (2006) . Assessment System Test Development

rivka
Download Presentation

Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards Student Population

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. Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement StandardsStudent Population Jacqueline F. Kearns, Ed.D. Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, MS

  2. INTERPRETATION OBSERVATION COGNITION The Assessment Triangle & Validity Evaluation Marion & Pellegrino (2006) • Assessment System • Test Development • Administration • Scoring • Reporting • Alignment • Item Analysis & DIF/Bias • Measurement error • Scaling and Equating • Standard Setting • VALIDITY EVALUATION • Empirical evidence • Theory & logic (argument) • Consequential features • Student Population • Academic content • Theory of Learning

  3. Cognition Vertex Validity Questions • Is the assessment appropriate for the students for whom it was intended? • Is the assessment being administered to the appropriate students? Both are important for the validity evaluation

  4. More Different Than Alike SOURCE: Education Week analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System, 2002-03

  5. Issues in Teaching/Assessing Students in Alternate Assessments Varied levels of symbolic communication Attention to salient features of stimuli Memory Limited motor response repertoire Generalization Self-Regulation Meta-cognition Skill Synthesis Sensory Deficits Special Health Care Needs Kleinert, H., Browder, D., & Towles-Reeves, E. (2005). The assessment triangle and students with significant cognitive disabilities: Models of student cognition. National Alternate Assessment Center, Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington. (PDF File)

  6. Previous Data • 165 Students across 7 states • Extensive documentation through 111 item inventory • Findings suggest: • 64% routinely use verbal language • 46% routinely understand pictures used to represent objects • 11% don’t understand pictures used to represent objects. • Almond & Bechard (2005) An In Depth Look at students who take alternate assessments: What do we know. Colorado EAG.

  7. Learner Characteristics Demographic Variables • Learner Characteristics (all on a continuum of skills): • Expressive Language • Receptive Language • Vision • Hearing • Motor • Engagement • Health Issues/Attendance • Reading • Mathematics • Use of an Augmentative Communication System (dichotomous variable)

  8. Methodology • Four partner states chose to participate • States 1, 2, and 3: • gathered data in the administration process for their AA-AAS via scannable document (i.e., bubble-sheet) • State 4: • gathered data using Zoomerang, an online survey package. • N= 7,075

  9. States & LCI Response Rates

  10. Alternate Assessment Participation Rates : % Total population

  11. “Most significant cognitive disabilities”

  12. Expressive Language

  13. Receptive Language

  14. Use of Augmented Communication

  15. Reading

  16. Mathematics

  17. Who are the Kids? • Represent ~1% or less of the total assessed population • All disability categories were represented but primarily 3 emerge, • Mental Retardation • Multiple Disabilities • Autism • Highly varied levels of expressive/receptive language use • Most students in the population use symbolic communication • Level of symbolic language distribution is similar across grade-bands • Only about 50% of the pre and emerging symbolic language users use ACS • Pre-symbolic expressive language users are more likely to have additional complex characteristics. • Most of the population read basic sight words and solve simple math problems with a calculator. • Lack of skill progression in reading across grade bands (elementary, middle & high) • Skill progression apparent in mathematics across grade bands but still small

  18. Limitations • Only four state participants • Small sample size • Global items in reading and math • Participation rates at 1% or less

  19. Cognition Vertex: Validity Evaluation Essential Questions Who is the population being assessed? How do we document and monitor the population? What do we know about how they learn (theory of learning) academic content? What do our assessment results tell us about how the population is learning academic content? Are our data about the population and theory of learning consistent with student performances on the assessment? If not, what assumptions are challenged? What adjustments should be made? Participation Theory of Learning Student Performance

  20. References • Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, Moore, & Martella, (1992). Effects of peer-delivered self-instructional training on a lunch-making task for students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 230-240. • Billingsley, F., Gallucci, C., Peck, C., Schwartz, I., & Staub, D. (1996).  "But those kids can't even do math:  An alternative conceptualization of outcomes in special education.  Special Education Leadership Review, 3 (1), 43-55. • Brown, L., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., Shiraga, B., York, J., Loomis, R. (1983). The critical need for non-school instruction in educational programs for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association of the Severely Handicapped. 8, 71-77. • CAST (2002). • Fox, (1989). Stimulus Generalization of skills and persons with profound mental handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24,219-299. • Haring, N. (1988). Generalization for students with severe handicaps: Strategies and solutions. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. • Hughes, C. & Agran, M. (1993). Teaching persons with severe disabilities to use self-instruction in community settings: An analysis of the applications. Journal of the Association for Persons with severe Handicaps, 18, 261-274. • Hughes, C., Hugo, K., & Blatt, J. (1996). Self-instructional intervention for teaching generalized problem-solving with a functional task sequence. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 100 565-579. • Westling, D., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching Students with Severe Disabilities. Columbus: Pearson (Merrell). • Whitman, T. L. (1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 347-362.

  21. Contact Information Jacqueline Kearns, Ed.D. Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, MS 1 Quality Street, Suite 722 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 859-257-7672 X 80255 859-323-1838 Liztowles-reeves@uky.edu • 1 Quality Street, Suite 722 • Lexington, Kentucky 40507 • 859-257-7672 X 80243 • 859-323-1838 • Jacqueline.kearns@uky.edu www.naacpartners.org

More Related