1 / 10

Michigan’s Lessons and Uses of the CTEAG

Michigan’s Lessons and Uses of the CTEAG. Adam Wyse and Steve Viger Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability. Michigan’s Part of CTEAG Study. Part of larger pilot study to develop a new 2% AA-MAS Focused on grade 6 ELA for CTEAG

samuel-hanson
Download Presentation

Michigan’s Lessons and Uses of the CTEAG

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. Michigan’s Lessons and Uses of the CTEAG Adam Wyse and Steve Viger Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability

  2. Michigan’s Part of CTEAG Study • Part of larger pilot study to develop a new 2% AA-MAS • Focused on grade 6 ELA for CTEAG • Investigated Scaffolding and Removing Answer Choices • Students in study took general assessment and modified 2% pilot test with scaffolding • Results from CTEAG suggested that scaffolding had a positive impact in grade 6

  3. Challenges Michigan Faced • Recruiting schools to do multiple separate administrations • Conducting a stand-alone administration • Flexibility to fit study within other state administrations and research initiatives • Changes in MI staff involved in different stages and parts of project • Timing of study • Need to provide data back to study participants

  4. Michigan’s 2% AA-MAS • Administered operationally for first time in Fall 2009 • Included scaffolding and fewer answer choices • Sample of students changed drastically from students identified and administered pilot version in Winter of 2009 • Found some technical challenges due to change in student population • Decided that additional revisions and modifications were needed before setting cut scores

  5. Michigan’s 2% AA-MAS • Even though revisions of AA-MAS needed still required to submit documents for peer review • Submitted results from CTEAG as evidence that MI investigated and will continue to investigate accommodations and modifications on its AA-MAS

  6. Future Steps for AA-MAS • Examined strategies other states are considering on their AA-MAS to increase student access • Convened panel of MI stakeholders for what strategies MI should consider • Stakeholders provided new recommendations for strategies which included scaffolding in ELA and several new approaches

  7. Future Steps for AA-MAS • New strategies suggested were applied to items and tried out in a cog lab study as part of redesign • Results from cog lab study were positive and scaffolding remained an important factor for increasing access in ELA • Planning to embed AA-MAS items and new formats on general assessment and top level of AA-AAS to further investigate their performance for a range of students

  8. Michigan’s Experience • Enjoyed project and working with researchers and people from other states • Challenged us to think about student accommodations and score comparability in greater depth • Learned quite a bit about accommodations and policies in other states

  9. Conclusions and Other Future Steps • Investigating additional approaches to examine score comparability for students with disabilities and students that receive different types of accommodations • Interested in working with other states and researchers on projects for AA-AAS and AA-MAS

  10. Contact Information Adam Wyse (517) 373-2435 WyseA@Michigan.gov Steve Viger (517) 241-2334 VigerS@Michigan.gov Michigan Department of Education608 W. Allegan St.Lansing, MI 48909

More Related