1 / 42

OSPI Mathematics Assessment Update for Grades 3-8 and High School

OSPI Mathematics Assessment Update for Grades 3-8 and High School. Karen Hall 2008 WERA. Guidance for Specifications. RCW 28A.305.215(3) “…The recommendations [for revised EALRs and GLEs in mathematics] shall be based on:

etta
Télécharger la présentation

OSPI Mathematics Assessment Update for Grades 3-8 and High School

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. OSPI Mathematics Assessment Update for Grades 3-8 and High School Karen Hall 2008 WERA

  2. Guidance for Specifications RCW 28A.305.215(3) “…The recommendations [for revised EALRs and GLEs in mathematics] shall be based on: (a) Considerations of clarity, rigor, content, depth, coherence from grade to grade, specificity, accessibility, and measurability.”

  3. Standards Curriculum Assessment

  4. Time Line for Grade 3-8 Assessments Aligned to New Standards • April 2008: New Grade 3-8 Math Standards approved • May - November 2008 • Develop Item Specifications for new grade-level standards • Align or revise items in existing test items to new grade-level standards • Write new items to fill in gaps • April-May 2009 • Last year of current Grade 3-8 math WASL • Pilot new and rewritten items • April-May 2010: First administration of new Grade 3-8 math WASL • July 2010: State Board adopts new performance standards on Gr. 3-8 math tests

  5. Time Line for High School Assessments Aligned to New Standards • August 2008: New High School Mathematics Standards approved • November 2008 –August 2009 • Align existing assessment items to new grade-level standards • Write new items to fill in gaps • 2009 and 2010: Pilot new and rewritten items • 2011: First administration of new HS End of Course Assessments • July 2011: State Board adopts new performance standards on High School End of Course Assessments

  6. Goal #1 Develop Item Specifications for Grades 3-8 while retaining clarity and specificity of Standards Document. 6

  7. Paragraph Descriptions 5.3. Core Content:Triangles and quadrilaterals (Geometry/Measurement, Algebra) Students focus on triangles and quadrilaterals to formalize and extend their understanding ofthese geometric shapes. They classify different types of triangles and quadrilaterals and develop formulas for their areas. In working with these formulas, students reinforce an important connection between algebra and geometry. They explore symmetry of these figures and use what they learn about triangles and quadrilaterals to solve a variety of problems in geometric contexts.

  8. Performance Expectation Numbering System Grade Level Area of Emphasis Expectation 5.3.D

  9. Development Task Identify which Performance Expectations to assess on WASL.

  10. Development Tasks • Identify restrictions, if any, for • Vocabulary • “Vocabulary First Used in Assessment Items” • “Measurement Vocabulary” • Computation • Number of addends • Denominators • Decimal places • Measurements

  11. Development Tasks • For each Performance Expectation Identify: • Cognitive Complexity (Webb’s model) • Item Type (MC or SA) • Contextual Situation or not • “Tools” or “No-Tools” day

  12. Performance Expectations with Restrictions

  13. Use Item Development Guidelines at the beginningof this document. • Answer choices will be stated in terms of the same system of measurement. • Items will not require students to convert betweenU.S. customary andmetric units. • Exponents will not be used to express square units. • Items may tell students to use a straight edge or a protractor. • Items will not require use of a particular strategyto determine a derived measurement. • Grids may be provided in items that require students to draw angles or figures. Stimulus, Stem, and Prompt Rules

  14. Items assessing 5.3.A may include parallelograms, kites, squares,rhombi, trapezoids, and rectangles. • Items assessing 5.3.C may require triangles to be classified by angles as acute, right obtuse or by sides as scalene, isosceles, or equilateral. • Items assessing 5.3.F may include side measures or may require students tomeasure sides of figures. Stimulus, Stem, and Prompt Rules

  15. Development Process

  16. Revisions to Draft Version Draft #8 • Summer Item Writing • 120 Item writers, ~900 items for grades 3-8 • Excellent feedback on item specifications • Content Review of New Items • 5 committees • 2 weeks

  17. Test Experts Recommendation: Assign Cognitive Complexity to each Performance Expectation

  18. Why Cognitive Complexity? • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires assessments to “measure the depth and breadth of the state academic content standards for a given grade level” (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. 12)

  19. Why Cognitive Complexity? • Mechanism to ensure that the intent of the standard and the level of student demonstration required by that standard matches the assessment items (required under NCLB) • Provides cognitive processing ceiling for item development

  20. Alignment Standards Standards Assessment Assess-ment Assessment Items Standards Assessment Standards Adapted from Norman Webb, 2005

  21. Develop assessment items to align with cognitive complexity of Performance Expectation

  22. Mathematical Complexity of ItemsNAEP 2005 Framework The demand on thinking the items requires: Low Complexity Relies heavily on the recall and recognition of previously learned concepts and principles. Moderate Complexity Involves more flexibility of thinking and choice among alternatives than do those in the low-complexity category. High Complexity Places heavy demands on students, who must engage in more abstract reasoning, planning, analysis, judgment, and creative thought.

  23. Depth of Knowledge (DOK) • Adapted from the model used by Norman Webb, University of Wisconsin, to align standards with assessments • Used by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) for assessment alignment in more than ten states

  24. The Depth of Knowledge is NOT determined by the verb, but the context in which the verb is used and the depth of thinking required.

  25. Depth of Knowledge (DOK) NOTE: Definitions with examples of skills at each level. Level 1 (Low) Recall Level 2 (Moderate) Skill/Concept Level 3 (High) Strategic Thinking Level 4 ExtendedThinking

  26. Recall and Reproduction: Level 1 DOK 1 requires recall of information, such as a fact, definition, term, or performance of a simple process or procedure. Answering a Level 1 item can involve following a simple, well-known procedure or formula. Simple skills and abilities or recall characterize DOK 1.

  27. Skills/Concepts: Level 2 DOK 2 includes the engagement of some mental processing beyond recalling or reproducing a response. Items require students to make some decisions as to how to approach the question or problem. These actions imply more than one mental or cognitive process/step.

  28. Strategic Thinking: Level 3 DOK 3 requires deep understanding as exhibited through planning, using evidence, and more demanding cognitive reasoning. The cognitive demands at Level 3 are complex and abstract. An assessment item that has more than one possible answer and requires students to justify the response they give would most likely be a Level 3.

  29. Extended Thinking: Level 4 DOK 4 requires high cognitive demand and is very complex. Students are expected to make connections and relate ideas within the content or among content areas—and have to select or devise one approach among many alternatives on how the situation can be solved. Due to the complexity of cognitive demand, DOK 4 often requires an extended period of time.

  30. However, extended time alone is not the distinguishing factor.

  31. Remember… • Depth of Knowledge (DOK) is a scale of cognitive demand. • DOK requires looking at the assessment item/standard order to determine the level. DOK is about the item/standard-not the student. • The context of the assessment item/standard must be considered to determine the DOK-not just a look at which verb was used.

  32. Read example items and discuss cognitive complexity of each item

  33. Develop Grades 3-8Test Maps

  34. Test Map (Blueprint) Total Number of points Total Number of Multiple-Choice Items Total Number of Short-Answer Items Distribution of Points by Area of Emphasis Distribution of Points by Cog. Complexity

  35. What we know! • 38 Points Total • 24 Multiple-Choice • 7 Short-Answer • 50 Points Total • 30 Multiple-Choice • 10 Short-Answer Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8

  36. Incomplete Test Map Grade 5

  37. Develop a Draft Test Map • Surveyed ~150 teachers, coaches and mathematics coordinators • Workgroup to distribute test points among areas of emphasis • Cathy Seeley, Dana Center • George Bright, OSPI, Mathematics Special Assistant • OSPI Teaching and Learning Mathematics • OSPI Mathematics Assessment • Test Map Review Committee • Standards Revision Team • Teachers, Coaches, Administrators

  38. Draft Test Maps Survey results Paragraphs in Standards Document Performance Expectations

  39. 40 Grade 5 Performance Expectations 34 BOLD text Performance Expectations 31 test questions 38 total points.

  40. Next Steps Use results of test map review to finalize test maps for grades 3-8 Submit test maps for approval to National Technical Advisory Committee on January 11, 2009 Post Grades 3-8 Test and Item Specification Document on OSPI website. Review and feedback of assessment restrictions for high school performance expectations – January Conference Write items to assess high school PEs

  41. Performance Expectation InformationGrades 3-8

More Related