National Conference on Student Assessment June 21, 2013 CCSSO 2013 Presentation1.

National Conference on Student AssessmentJune 21, 2013

June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation 1

One state’s model for using published authors to generate quality reading texts for next-generation assessments◦ Michigan’s vision◦ Process and training◦ Authors’ perspectives


Andrew Middlestead, Test Development Manager, Michigan Department of Education

Kara Courtney, Data Recognition Corporation

Michael P. Spradlin, Author Shirley Neitzel, Author Patty McDivitt, Data Recognition

Corporation


—Andrew Middlestead Office of Standards and Assessment in the Michigan

Department of Education


Michigan currently has six assessment programs.◦ Michigan Educational Assessment Program

(MEAP)◦ Michigan Merit Examination (MME)◦ MEAP-Access (2%)◦ MI-Access (1%)◦ English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA)◦ Michigan’s Interim Assessment System

Five of these assessment programs use reading passages for the assessments.


Similar to many states, Michigan was purchasing permissions for contexts for all programs.

Leadership made a decision to charge the test development team with transitioning to 100% commissioned passages for all programs.

Michigan wanted to look to authors from Michigan to write pieces for Michigan’s assessments.


Cost Ability to modify the pieces at the time of

item writing and item review if necessary to produce high quality items and the required quantity of items

Ownership of the contexts (reduced effort in continually renewing or tracking copyright permissions)

Reduction in information transfer headaches during vendor changes!


Michigan has its own item banking and authoring system (IBS).◦ Includes a passage writing and reviewing module

Authors may work online in the IBS on-site where training takes place, or they may work elsewhere.

Authors may work in a word-processing system of their choice and then enter their work into the IBS.

Flexibility for the authors is key!◦ The reading contexts are automatically in the

same system in which items are written and tests are built.


Reduces information migration between various systems to get the context to the item-writing phase

Supports Michigan children’s authors Provides for flexibility with the contexts,

allowing Michigan to generate first-rate assessments for students

Reduces permissions cost and time


Authors took some time to learn the ins and outs of writing for assessments just as item writers do. (“Why can’t we write about certain topics?”)

We learned how to create context-writing training and work sessions differently than we would for item writing (flexibility, space, open “check-in” opportunities).


—Kara Courtney


List provided by Michigan Reading Association through the Michigan Department of Education contact◦ Letter of interest◦ Communications

13 published authors out of 23 committed to attend training

Over 60 quality contexts written within one month


Writing for assessments Context specifications

◦ Word counts◦ Readability programs and other resources◦ Content concerns

Bias and sensitivity training◦ Topics to avoid◦ Socioeconomic issues◦ Other sensitivity issues

Technology training◦ Web-based program


Michigan Item Bank System◦ Context authoring ability◦ External access

Benefits Challenges


Provides rich text for students Ownership of context Relationships built with the authors Cost-effective approach to passage

development Generation of topics for all Michigan

assessment programs


Published authors and assessments Working relationships Expanding the pool


—Michael P. Spradlin


Educators/administrators are unaware of the authorial talent that resides in each state.



Who better to write about Michigan than authors from Michigan?

Authors work at honing their ability to engage readers. Writing for assessments seems to be a natural progression.

Economic standpoint—keep money in Michigan.


Usually work within guidelines, restrictions based on age of readers, reading levels, etc.

Authors are used to being edited. Not all is new, but in some regards writing

for assessments can be a challenge. Working one-on-one with DRC and MDE staff


On-site training Individualized training for each assessment

area (MEAP, ELPA, Access all have some similarities and differences.)

Ability to dedicate time and effort to the specific program

Receive immediate feedback Writing two to four pieces a week Assignments can be completed at home


Digging into nonfiction topics Bringing forward unknown or unique stories

about Michigan and creating topics around them to engage readers


—Shirley Neitzel


Published writers connect with their readers.



Local authors are “repository for arcane information”

Authors want students to do well on assessment tests

Authors appreciate the working relationship with DRC and MDE


Training sessions are collegial

Assignments are specific

Topics are mutually agreed to before writing begins

Interesting, challenging work

Flexibility


On-site training

Prompt feedback

Off-site work


Supplemental income

Satisfaction of making a contribution to the education of students


—Patty McDivitt


Benefits◦ Developers can control for such considerations

as text complexity, fairness, sensitivity, and freedom from bias, quality of writing

◦ Develops passages that will truly lend themselves well to items

Key drivers for success◦ Training◦ Item banking/authoring system◦ Flexibility for writers


With careful planning and commitment, the goal of using the work of published authors can be achieved.



Date post:	19-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dennis-johnathan-howard
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

National Conference on Student Assessment June 21, 2013 CCSSO 2013 Presentation1.

Documents