Mini-Project II

1. Mini-Project II Doug Glasshoff Greg Gaden Darin Kelberlau

2. Standard • 12.1.1 – By the end of twelfth grade, students will describe and compare the relationships between subsets of real numbers.

3. Quality Criterion One:The assessments reflect the state or local standards. A. The group who developed the test were math content experts. B. There were sufficient questions in a variety of formats including checklists, fill in the blank, and multiple choice to cover the standards that were determined by the group and the state to be relevant to the mastery of the skill.

4. Quality Criterion Two: Students have an opportunity to learn the content. • Representative panels of qualified teachers from the grade and content area have examined the curriculum to determine that students have the opportunity to learn the content prior to assessment. • The ESU identifies key stake holders in the area of math instruction. Then they would acquire experts from individual school districts in order to implement these instruments. • In the instructor’s lesson plans one was required to identify what standard was being met for each daily lesson.

5. Quality Criterion Three: The assessments are free from bias • The group participated in an orientation session facilitated by the Buros Institute. Each panel traded criteria reference assessment to determine that assessments were free of bias.

6. Quality Criterion Four: The level is appropriate for students. • A panel of expert math educators aligned the standards with appropriate items. The panel also evaluated the readability of the directions to insure the assessment was standardized. The questions were evaluated for clarity, consistency, and accuracy. • The evaluators had to insure that the assessment was consistent with the state standards, local curriculum, and at the appropriate grade level. • An additional panel of outside educational experts should be called upon to examine and evaluate the assessment instruments from a developmental perspective.

7. Quality Criterion Five: There is consistency in scoring. • The reliability was computed by using the KR21 and coefficient alpha internal consistency procedures.

8. Quality Criterion Six: Mastery levels are appropriate • The teacher makes a judgment based on a student’s previous performance on the curriculum content aligned with the standards during regular course work. • The assessment is given to the student and the scores are compared to the teacher’s prior judgment on the student’s performance. • The mastery level of the students are computed by using the assessment instrument developed by NDE and/or the Buros Institute.

9. Conclusions and Plans for the Future • The teachers need to reevaluate each assessment for reliability, validity, and curriculum alignment with the standards. • Strengths: • new consistent assessment instrument • Weaknesses: • lack of commitment on some staff members • lack of communication between NDE, ESUs, administration, etc

10. Conclusions and Plans for the Future • The assessment meets the standard in an effective way. • There are an adequate number of items in a variety of response formats. • On this particular assessment there appears to be no bias issues. • The only scoring concern is on questions #1,2. A scoring guide needs to be made and followed.