alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards student population
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards Student Population

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards Student Population - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 152 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards Student Population' - rivka


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards student population

Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement StandardsStudent Population

Jacqueline F. Kearns, Ed.D.

Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, MS

slide2
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
cognition vertex validity questions
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

slide4
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

issues in teaching assessing students in alternate assessments
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)

previous data
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.
learner characteristics demographic variables
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)
methodology
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
who are the kids
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
limitations
Limitations
  • Only four state participants
  • Small sample size
  • Global items in reading and math
  • Participation rates at 1% or less
cognition vertex validity evaluation essential questions
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

references
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.
contact information
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

[email protected]

  • 1 Quality Street, Suite 722
  • Lexington, Kentucky 40507
  • 859-257-7672 X 80243
  • 859-323-1838
  • [email protected]

www.naacpartners.org

ad