Learning Progressions Designed to Support Growth in ......Skilled readers tend to refer to the...
Transcript of Learning Progressions Designed to Support Growth in ......Skilled readers tend to refer to the...
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Learning Progressions Designed to Support Growth in Reading
Competency Across the Curriculum
Kathleen M. Sheehan Educational Testing Service
CCSSO, National Conference on Student Assessment, June 2011, Orlando, FL
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Cognitively-Based Assessment of, for and as Learning
•
A balanced system of assessments intended to provide
–
evidence “of learning”•
information about what students’
know and can do
for use in accountability systems
–
evidence “for learning”•
feedback that teachers can use to plan and
adjust instruction
–
assessment “as learning”•
complex tasks structured to promote learning
during the process of taking the assessment
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Key Features•
Linked summative and formative assessments based
on a common theory of domain competency•
Extended, scenario‐based tasks
designed to support
teaching and learning •
A subset of items built around hypothesized
Learning Progressions•
Individual progressions draw from both –
a Building Blocks perspective (Popham, 2008)
–
and a Developmental Perspective (Heritage, 2008)
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
•
Progression #1: Use knowledge of Text Structure
to further comprehension of expository text
(CCSS, Grade 7 Reading, Standard 5)
•
Progression #2: Integrate Prose &
Graphical Representations
to further comprehension of expository text
(CCSS, Grades 6‐8, Reading in History/SS, Standard 7)
•
Each progression is defined relative to a grade‐appropriate
range of text complexity
(consistent with the CCSS)
Sample Learning Progressions(With Relevance Across Multiple Curricular Areas)
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Theoretical Basis: The CBAL Reading Competency Model
(O’Reilly & Sheehan, 2009)
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Earlier LaterInferences involving concrete events, objects
Inferences involving abstract, events, ideas
Inferences involving external events, situations
Inferences involving internal events (goals, emotions)
Inferences that focus on individual events, so that relevant information is concentrated at specific locations in the text
Inferences that focus on clusters of events, so that relevant information is spread out in the text
Developmental Trendsin Inference Making
(van den Broek, et al., 2005)
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Research Consistent with the “Building Blocks” Perspective
•
Skilled readers tend to refer to the organizational structure of
a passage more frequently than do less skilled readers
(Meyer, Brandt & Bluth, 1980)
Lack of knowledge about common organizational structures may be a stumbling block for some readers
•
Interventions that involved training students to recognize
common organizational structures were effective at
improving comprehension (Meyer & Poon, 2001;
Meyer & Wijekumar, 2007; Williams, 2007)
Copyright (c) 2009 by Educational Testing Service
The Text Structure Progression
The target curricular
goal
A sequenced set of
subskills
Inferences focused on clusters of events, located further apart in the text
Inferences focused on discrete events, closely co-located in the text
Target Curricular Goal:
Analyze a text’s organizational structure including how major sections contribute to the whole (Grade 7 Reading, Std. 5)
Level 1: Classify details into a
given set of super-
ordinate categories
Level 2: Infer superordinate
categories that capture the structure of the text
Starting Point:
Mastery of Critical Prerequisite Skills
Level 3: Infer superordinate
categories that span 2 or more texts
PAA #11 of 23
Your team must select a project to present at the annual science
fair. The team is currently considering two possibilities:
(1) Mapping Ocean Currents, and
(2) The Brazil Nut Effect
Complete the following tasks to learn more about each topic and help your team prepare a winning project plan.
Click NEXT to begin.
●
Examples drawn from a CBAL Reading Assessment targeted at middle-school readers
●
Each CBAL assessment begins with an introductory scenario designed to give students an engaging purpose for reading a collection of related texts.
PAA #11 of 23
Your team must select a project to present at the annual science
fair. The team is currently considering two possibilities:
(1) Mapping Ocean Currents, and
(2) The Brazil Nut Effect
Complete the following tasks to learn more about each topic and help your team prepare a winning project plan.
Click NEXT to begin.
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Item Presentation Order
•
Present the Level 2 item first, followed by the Level 1 item
•
Rationale–
Since the CBAL item administration software does not
allow examinees to refer back to previously completed
items, this sequencing ensures that responses to earlier,
less scaffolded
items are not influenced by responses to
later, more scaffolded
items
PAA #11 of 23 50
First Item in the “Text Structure” LP
Level = 2, Infer superordinate categories that reflect the text’s organizational structure
Why an eclipse was visible in
one city but not another
Things that Franklin
Investigated?
Type your Heading here.
Your team decided to summarize the passage as shown below. The left column shows things that Franklin puzzled over and decided to investigate. What should the right column show? Think of a heading for the right column and type it into the response box below the chart
Hint: Choose a column heading that reflects the overall structure of the passage.
Why the ocean is warmer in some places & cooler
in others
Your team decided to update the chart as shown below. Follow the instructions to complete the chart.
PAA #12 of 23 50
A chart showing the path of the Gulf Stream
How lightning rods conduct electricity
A model of hail formation A model of storm movement in the northern hemisphere
Why an eclipse was visible in
one city but not another
Things that Franklin
Investigated
Instructions: Move the two
best
phrases from the list below into the correct boxes.
Scientific Discoveries
that Resulted from Franklin’s
Experiments
Why the ocean is warmer in some places & cooler
in others
Second Item in the “Text Structure” LP
Level = 1, Classify details into a given set of superordinate categories
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Pilot Data for Levels 1 and 2 (Classify Details & Infer Categories)
00 10 11 01
010
2030
4050
60
Observed Pattern
Per
cent
25
30
39
6
94% of the observed response vectors are consistent with the
hypothesized progression
Both Wrong Only Level 1 Correct Both Correct Only Level 2 Correct
®
Copyright (c) 2009 by Educational Testing Service
The Integrate Graphical Representations Progression
The target curricular
goal
A sequenced set of
subskills
Requires facility at translating between representations
Requires metacognitive
awareness
Target Curricular Goal:
Integrate graphical information with words in text to further comprehension (Gr
6-8, Reading in History/SS, Std. 7)
Level 1: Translate between prose and graphical
representations
Level 2: Develop graphical
representations that reflect an argument or
explanation
Starting Point:
Mastery of Critical Prerequisite Skills
Level 3: Locate sections of
text that are confusing, difficult in need of
explanation
Requires knowledge of graphical techniques
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Sample Items
•
The sample items focus on a particularly difficult sentence in the “Keen Observer”
passage:
–
“He noticed that it took two weeks longer for ships to travel from Falmouth, England, to New
York, than from London to Rhode Island, even though the second trip involved a longer
distance.”
®
First Item in the “Integrate Graphical Representations” LP
Level = 2, Generate a graphical representation
®
Second Item of the “Integrate Graphical Representations” LP
Level = 1, Translate between prose & graphical representations
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Individual Progressions are Defined Relative to a Grade-Appropriate
Range of Text Complexity
• Rationale–
“Even experienced readers may fail to make inferences
that they would ordinarily make without a problem
when text materials are very challenging”
(van den Broek, 2005, p. 116)
• Approach–
Use the SourceRater
System
to select, analyze, and
adapt texts
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
SourceRater•
Measures variation relative to 8 Dimensions
•
Provides complexity classifications that are closely aligned
with the classifications given in Appendix B of the Standards
Common Core Grade Band
Mea
n S
ourc
eRat
er G
L S
core
2 4 6 8 10 12
24
68
1012
LiteraryInformational
102 Common Core Texts
(Sheehan, et al., 2010)
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Summary•
LPs designed to support growth in reading competency
could prove useful across the curriculum
•
CBAL LPs–
Incorporate a view of reading as a strategic activity
–
Provide intermediate goals designed to help students
organize and chunk information, learn strategies for
addressing common comprehension roadblocks
–
Encourage readers to address stumbling blocks via
graphical representations (tables, charts, timelines)
–
Make use of automated tools (SourceRater) to ensure that
texts are consistent with targeted complexity standards
–
Require validation via additional research21
Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment.Retrieved February 15, 2009 from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationsID=366
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for readingcomprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
Meyer, B. J. F, & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of the structure strategy and signaling on recall of the text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141-159.
Meyer, B.J.F, & Wijekumar, K. (2007). A web based tutoring system for the structure strategy: theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theory, Interventions, and Technologies (pp. 347-374). Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
O'Reilly, T., & Sheehan, K. M. (2009). Cognitively based assessment of, for and as learning: A framework for assessing reading competency. (ETS RR-09-26). Princeton, NJ: ETS
Popham, W.J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sheehan, K.M., Kostin, I, Futagi, Y. and Flor, M. (2010). Generating automated text complexity classifications that are aligned with published text complexity standards. (ETS RR-10-28). Princeton, NJ:Educational
Testing Service.van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., Kremer, K., Lynch, J., Butler, J.; White, M.J. & Lorch, E.P. (2005).
Assessment of comprehension abilities in young children. In
S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. (pp 107-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2 & 3), 299-316.
Williams, J. (2007). Literacy in the curriculum: Integrating text structure and content area instruction. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theory, Interventions, and Technologies (pp 199-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
References