OSEP/NECTAC National Early Childhood Conference December 3, 2007 Washington, DC
OSEP Project Director’s Meeting Washington DC July 15-17, 2013
44
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
description
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. This Breakout Session. Contributing Sponsors. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of OSEP Project Director’s Meeting Washington DC July 15-17, 2013
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 DCJuly 15-17, 2013
2
This Breakout SessionTOPIC PRESENTER
Welcome Susan Weigert (Moderator), OSEP
GSEG Dissemination Edynn Sato (Lead), WestEdWiYA Symposium Renee Cameto, SRI
InternationalLearning Model Exemplar Sue Bechard, Inclusive Educ.
Asmt.Formative Instruction Karen Erickson (Lead), UNCDiscussion Patricia Almond, Univ. of OR
3
Contributing Sponsors
OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting 2013
4
SUSAN WEIGERTOSEP
Welcome & Orientation
5
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
EDYNN SATOWESTEDWASHINGTON, D.C.OCTOBER 26, 2012
Learning Models Colloquium
7
Colloquium on Learning Models, Instruction, and Next Generation Assessments that Include Special
Populations
October 26, 2012Washington Marriott at Metro Center
Washington, DC
8
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
1Learning Models Colloquium
9
Colloquium PurposeLearning 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
2Learning Models Colloquium
10
Learning Models: Foundation for AssessmentLearning 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).
3Learning Models Colloquium
11
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
12
Formative versus Summative?
ONE VIEWA common learning progression for both
formative and summative
assessments.
“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?”
13
Formative versus Summative?
ANOTHER VIEWThe foundation is the standards – the CCSS
assumed some progressions – an
embedded scope and sequence.
“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.”
14
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.
15
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?
16
RENEE CAMETOFEBRUARY 21-22, 2013SRI INTERNATIONAL
Within Year Assessments—W iYA for Students with Disabilities Symposium
17
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)
182013 Invitational Research Symposium
19
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
20
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
21
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
22
Persistently Low Performing
“ . . . students were defined as those who scored at the 10th percentile or
below for all three years. . . ”
Perie, Fincher, Payne, & Swaffield (2013)
an example of a data based definition of low performing students
23
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
24
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
SUE BECHARDINCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
Learning Model Exemplar:Dynamic Learning Maps
OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting 2013
What are Learning Maps? Network of
connected learning targets (nodes)
Maps students’ “knowledge terrain”
Making Nodes1. Review of
Literature2. Node Development
and Placement3. Connection
Placement
Dynamic Learning Maps help us visualize
The skills a student has acquired The path they took to get there And where they’re going next.
12 X 3 = 36
22 X 5 = 110
123 X 3 = 369
224 X 3 = 672
Multiple Paths
29
Alternate Paths
30
Identifying Conceptual Areas
31
Inference
mastered
mastered
Not mastered
Validation
ReviewsInternalTeacherExpert
Cognitive labsPilot studyField tests
KAREN ERICKSONUNIVERSITY OF N. CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILLCTR FOR LITERACY & DISABILITY STUDIES
Formative Instruction based on Learning Models
35
Whole-to-Part Model of the Constructs Underlying
Silent Reading Comprehension
Cunningham (1993)
Language Comprehension
Word Identification
Print Processing Beyond Word Identification
Silent Reading Comprehension
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
Elementary Pro-ficient (437)
Middle Proficient (393)
Elementary Level 1 (437)
Middle Level 1 (393)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
21%
29%
51%
26%
31%33%
36%
28%
45% 46%
27%
14%
2010 2011 2012
Elementary and Middle School Students Served in WTP
40
PATRICIA ALMONDCATE—UNIV OREGON
Questions for Discussion
41
Who is with us today? State Dept. of Educ. Researchers Organizations Family Members Professional
Development
42
Summary
ASMT for
INSTRUC-TION
Learning Models
Low Perf. SWD
Next Gen Asmt
43
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?
44
Contact Information Edynn Sato, [email protected] Karen Erickson,
[email protected] Susan Weigert, [email protected] Renee Cameto, [email protected] Sue Bechard, [email protected] Patricia Almond,
