Learning Models, Personalized Instruction, and Within Year Assessment for Low Performing SWD: Implications for Next Generation Comprehensive Assessment System OSEP Project Director’s Meeting Washington DC July 15-17, 2013
Contributing Sponsors OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting 2013
Welcome & Orientation Susan WeigertOSEP
OSEP US-DOE Projects General Supervision Enhancement Grants (GSEG) Learning Models and Learning Progressions Role of LMs and Formative Assessments To Promote Learning and Inform Teaching
Learning Models Colloquium Edynn SatoWestEdWashington, D.C.october 26, 2012
Colloquium on Learning Models, Instruction, and Next Generation Assessments that Include Special Populations October 26, 2012 Washington Marriott at Metro Center Washington, DC
Background: General Supervision Enhancement Grant • WestEd, the Kansas State Department of Education, and the Louisiana Department of Education (H373X070002) • Project Officer: Susan Weigert • Focus of grant (general): • Technical Assistance on Data Collection • Priority A––Modified Academic Achievement Standards • Dissemination Learning Models Colloquium 1
Colloquium Purpose Learning Models: in development in the U.S. proposed as the foundation for designing comprehensive next generation assessment systems—both formative and summative Colloquium will involve discussion of: what is known, what is in the works, and what needs to be known or investigated Learning Models Colloquium 2
Learning Models: Foundation for Assessment Learning progressions have been proposed for use in both large-scale and classroom assessments. In both cases, they may provide more detailed information about student thinking than more traditional models of assessment. This detailed information is particularly important in the classroom, where it can be used as the first step in a formative assessment process, to impact instructional decisions and provide feedback to students, ultimately improving student learning (Alonzo & Steedle, 2008, p. 419). Learning Models Colloquium 3
Organizing Themes Instruction/Formative Assessment Who Are the Students in Special Populations? Technical Considerations & Learning Analytics Race-to-the-Top General Supervision Enhancement Grants National Perspective
Formative versus Summative? “In CBAL they are integrated and based on a common set of models. There are strong reasons to use a common foundation for formative and summative assessment. How do you take the evidence from the formative assessment and use it in the classroom?” ONE VIEW A common learning progression for both formative and summative assessments.
Formative versus Summative? “But, the formative and summative could be different. The standards are common, but the learning progression may not be the same for both assessments. I see it halfway between both of you. A summative [assessment] requires a definition of the scope and sequence.” ANOTHER VIEW The foundation is the standards – the CCSS assumed some progressions – an embedded scope and sequence.
Selected Discussant Comments Next generation assessments need high correspondence between interpretation of how students’ progress given the model and the outcomes measurement model. If there are variations in student pathways, there should be correspondence in the measurement model. Few learning models have specifically addressed learning and progress for students with disabilities. Learning models need to support both instruction and assessment to inform instruction.
Additional Considerations In order to account for student thinking and learning across our heterogeneous student population, what range of models should be established to inform/support the effective instruction and valid assessment of our diverse learners? How do we best reconcile the “tension” between the number of models and pathways our heterogeneous student population likely necessitates and a viable number of models and pathways that can be appropriately applied (generalized) across the population?
Within Year Assessments—W iYA for Students with Disabilities Symposium Renee CametoFebruary 21-22, 2013SRI International
Organizers • Renee Cameto, SRI International • Sue Bechard, Inclusive Educational Assessment • Patricia Almond, CATE, University of Oregon • Jose Blackorby, SRI International • Mary Brownell, University of Florida • Steve Elliot, National Center on Assessment and Accountability for Special Education • Neal Kingston, University of Kansas • Sheryl Lazarus, National Center on Educational Outcomes • Edynn Sato, WestEd • Jerry Tindal, National Center on Assessment and Accountability for Special Education • Martha Thurlow, National Center on Educational Outcomes • Susan Weigert, OSEP
Sponsors SRI International WestEd National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation (CETE), University of Kansas National Center on Assessment and Accountability for Special Education (NCAASE) 2013 Invitational Research Symposium
Purpose of the Symposium • Better understand how learning progressions/maps apply to students in special populations • Discuss how learning progressions/maps will be used to develop assessments based on CCSS • Address three interrelated topics: • Why use learning progressions/maps for assessment? • How will all students be validly and reliably included? • What are the technical issues that must be addressed? • Provide support for researchers in these areas
Within Year Assessments (WiYA). . . formative assessment . . . Purposes: • Monitor progress, • Diagnose strengths and weaknesses of students, • Inform instruction, • Support personalized learning and instruction, and • Lead to improved achievement NOT: • primarily designed as a summative assessment for accountability
Low Performing Students With Disabilities Not AA-AAS eligible Could be AA-MAS eligible in the states where there is an AA-MAS Low performing students with disabilities in states that do not have an AA-MAS Low performing students with 504 plans Low performing students but not eligible for special education
Persistently Low Performing an example of a data based definition of low performing students Perie, Fincher, Payne, & Swaffield (2013) “ . . . students were defined as those who scored at the 10th percentile or below for all three years. . . ”
Symposium Participants will… • Share relevant experiences, research, and practices. Presentations on • Characteristics of low performing SWD • Opportunity for students to learn • Opportunity for teacher professional development • WiYA features • Identify common experiences, challenges, and lessons learned • Identify key issues and recommendations
Outcomes of the Symposium Inform current consortia and the broader educational community about issues and research recommendations related to key issues Move the field forward with greater understanding of the challenges and important considerations Present and publish in various venues
Learning Model Exemplar: Dynamic Learning Maps Sue BechardInclusive Educational Assessment
What areLearning Maps? • Network of connected learning targets (nodes) • Maps students’ “knowledge terrain”
Making Nodes Review of Literature Node Development and Placement Connection Placement
Dynamic Learning Maps help us visualize 12 X 3 = 36 22 X 5 = 110 123 X 3 = 369 224 X 3 = 672 The skills a student has acquired The path they took to get there And where they’re going next.
29 Multiple Paths
30 Alternate Paths
31 Identifying Conceptual Areas
Inference mastered mastered Not mastered
Validation • Reviews • Internal • Teacher • Expert • Cognitive labs • Pilot study • Field tests
Formative Instruction based on Learning Models Karen EricksonUniversity of N. Carolinaat Chapel hillCtr for Literacy & Disability Studies
Whole-to-Part Model of the Constructs Underlying Silent Reading Comprehension Cunningham (1993)
Silent Reading Comprehension Language Comprehension Word Identification Print Processing Beyond Word Identification
The Process • Identify all 3rd, 4th , and 5th grade students who are struggling in reading based on: • End of Grade & Benchmark Performance • Teacher Referral • Complete a Whole-to-Part Reading Assessment • Assign the student to an appropriate intervention group based on WTP results • Monitor progress and reassign as needed
Evidence that it works • Began district-wide in fall of 2009 • In 2011-12 a total of 593 students were served • Raising the floor: • Average Intervention Level: • 2009: 1.6 • 2011: 2.0 • Average Silent Reading Comprehension Level: • 2009: 2.4 • 2011: 3.2
Questions for Discussion Patricia AlmondCATE—univoregon
Who is with us today? • State Dept. of Educ. • Researchers • Organizations • Family Members • Professional Development
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS How might these considerations influence your work? What are next steps OSEP and the field of special education should consider taking? What do you see as our greatest strengths moving forward? Biggest challenges?
Contact Information Edynn Sato, firstname.lastname@example.org Karen Erickson, email@example.com Susan Weigert, firstname.lastname@example.org Renee Cameto, email@example.com Sue Bechard, firstname.lastname@example.org Patricia Almond, email@example.com