ap teacher rubric for nontimed essay

how to show current employment on resume

The Memory Stick memory card or MS card is a removable digital data storage device. It offers a maximum storage of 32 GB SinceSony has gradually abandoned its card format. There are three main categories of Memory Stick:. There are several generations of Memory Stick:. We will write for you an essay on any given topic for 3 hours. Examples of non-volatile memory technology are Read Only Memory ROMflash memory, most types of magnetic computer storage devices such as hard disks, floppy disks and magnetic tape.

Ap teacher rubric for nontimed essay resume format for mba

Ap teacher rubric for nontimed essay

To collect evidence about student competence with respect to the framework, Swiss officials identified a set of experts to develop assessments. From the outset, this group emphasized that traditional approaches to assessment e. One of the performance tasks used for defining standards in science education in Switzerland is shown in Figure , and, for use in this report, has been translated from German to English. This task was one of several designed for use with students in 2nd grade.

As part of the data collection activities, the tasks were given to students; each student responded to two tasks and were given 30 minutes per task. The full task consisted of eight questions. Figure shows an excerpt from the portion of the task that involves the ship see Table for the specific disciplinary core ideas, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts assessed.

In the excerpt shown in the figure, the first two activities ask students to observe a weighted ship floating on water and to describe their observations. Students were given a cup half full of water, a small ship, four metal discs two large discs and two small discs , and a candle. The test proctor read the instructions out loud to the students and demonstrated how the discs should be placed in the ship and how the ship should be put into the water.

The task included two additional activities. For one, students were asked to formulate a question and carry out an experiment to answer it. In the final section of the task, students were asked a series of questions about the type of information that could be learned from the experiments in the tasks.

The figure shows the rubric and scoring criteria for the open-ended questions and the answer key for the final question. Sample responses are shown for the second activity. Instead, students had to recognize that the phenomenon to observe is about floating and sinking—more specifically, that when weights are placed off center in the ship, they cause the ship to float at an inclined angle or even to sink.

Moreover, they were expected to recognize the way in which the off-center. Thus, the task provides an example of a set of questions that emphasize the integration of core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and practices. The task set could include assessment questions that use a variety of formats, such as some selected-response or short-answer questions and some constructed-response questions, all of which lead to producing an extended response for a complex performance task.

The short-answer questions would help students work through the steps involved in completing the task set. See below for a discussion of ways to use technological approaches to design, administer, and score performance events. Each of the performance events could be designed to yield outcome scores based on the different formats: a performance task, short constructed-response tasks, and short-answer and selected-response questions. Each of these would be related to one or two practices, core ideas, or crosscutting concepts.

A performance event would be administered over 2 to 3 days of class time. The first day could be spent on setting up the problem and answering most or all of the short- and long-answer constructed-response questions. This session could be timed or untimed. The subsequent day s would be spent conducting the laboratory or other investigation and writing up the results. Ideally, three or four of these performance assessments would be administered during an academic year, which would allow the task sets to cover a wide range of topics.

The use of multiple items and multiple response types would help to address the reliability concerns that are often associated with the scores reported for performance tasks see Dunbar et al. Use of multiple task sets also opens up other design possibilities, such as using a hybrid task sampling design discussed above in which all students at a grade level receive one common performance task, and the other tasks are given to different groups of students using matrix sampling.

This design allows the common performance task to be used as a link for the matrix tasks so that student scores could be based on all of the tasks they complete. This design has the shortcoming of focusing the link among all the tasks on one particular task—thus opening up the linkage quality to weaknesses due to the specifics of that task.

A better design would be to use all the tasks as linking tasks, varying the common task across many classrooms. Although there are many advantages to matrix-sampling approaches, identifying the appropriate matrix design will take careful consideration. For example, unless all the performance tasks are computer-based, the logistical and student-time burden of administering multiple tasks in the same classroom could be prohibitive.

There are also risks associated with using all the tasks in an assessment in each classroom, such as security and memorability, which could limit the reuse of the tasks for subsequent assessments. The assessment strategies discussed above have varying degrees of overlap with the assessment plans that are currently in place for mathematics and language arts in the two Race to the Top Assessment Program consortia, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium see Chapter 1.

Both are planning to use a mixed model with both performance tasks and computer-based selected-response and construct-response tasks K Center at Educational Testing Service, The different task types will be separated in time with respect to administration and in most grades the total testing time will be 2 or more hours. Classroom-Embedded Assessment Components.

As noted above, one component of a monitoring system could involve classroom-embedded tasks and performances that might be administered at different times in a given academic year so as to align with the completion of major units of instruction. These instructional units and assessments would be targeted at various sets of standards, such as those associated with one or more core ideas in the life sciences.

Such a classroom-embedded assessment would be designed to cover more selective aspects of the NGSS and would be composed of tasks that require written constructed responses, performance activities, or both. We discuss three. Replacement units are curricular units that have been approved centrally by the state or district and made available to schools. They cover material or concepts that are already part of the curriculum, but they teach the material in a way that addresses the NGSS and promotes deeper learning.

They are not intended to add topics to the existing curriculum, but rather to replace existing units in a way that is educative for teachers and students. The idea of replacement units builds from Marion and Shepard Given the huge curricular, instructional, and assessment challenges associated with implementing the NGSS, replacement units would be designed to be used locally as meaningful examples to support capacity to implement the NGSS, as well as to provide evidence of student performance on the NGSS.

The end-of-unit standardized assessment in the replacement unit would include performance tasks and perhaps short constructed-response tasks that could be used to provide data for monitoring student performance. The assessments could be scored locally by teachers or a central or regional scoring mechanism could be devised. The units could be designed, for instance, by state consortia, regional labs, commercial vendors, or other groups of educators and subject-matter experts around a high-priority topic for a given grade level.

Each replacement unit would include instructional supports for educators, formative assessment probes, and end-of-unit assessments. The supports embedded in the replacement units would serve as a useful model for trying to improve classroom assessment practices at a relatively large scale.

In addition, the end-of-unit assessments, although not necessarily useful for short-term formative purposes, may serve additional instructional uses that affect the learning of future students or even for planning changes to instruction or curriculum for current students after the unit has been completed.

Collections of Performance Tasks. A second option would be for a state or district or its contractors to design standardized performance tasks that would be made available for teachers to use as designated points in curriculum programs. Classroom teachers could be trained to score these tasks, or student products could be submitted to the district or state.

Results would be aggregated at the school, district, or state level to support monitoring purposes. The QCAT consists of performance tasks in English, mathematics, and science that are administered in grades 4, 6, and 9. They are designed to engage students in solving meaningful problems.

The structure of the Queensland system gives schools and teachers more control over assessment decisions than is currently the case in the United States. Schools have the option of using either centrally devised QCATs, which have been developed by the Queensland Studies Authority QSA , with common requirements and parameters and graded according to a common guide, or school-devised tasks, which are developed by schools in accord with QSA design specifications. The QCATs are not on-demand tests i.

The scores are used for low-stakes purposes. Aggregate school-level scores are reported to the QSA, but they are not used to compare the performance of students in one school with the performance of students in other schools. The scores are considered to be unsuitable for making comparisons across schools see Queensland Studies Authority, b, p.

Teachers make decisions about administration times one, two, or more testing sessions and when during the administration period to give the assessments, and they participate in the scoring process. Assessment Task Example 11, Plate Tectonics: An example of a performance task that might be used for monitoring purposes is one that was administered in a classroom after students had covered major aspects of the earth and space science standards.

It is taken from a program for middle school children in the United States that provided professional development based on A Framework for K Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas National Research Council, a and training in the use of curriculum materials aligned. It was designed and tested as part of an evaluation of a set of curriculum materials and associated professional development. The task was given to middle school students studying a unit on plate tectonics and large-scale system interactions similar to one of the disciplinary core ideas in the NGSS.

The assessment targets two performance expectations linked to that disciplinary core idea. The task, part of a longer assessment designed to be completed in two class periods, is one of several designed to be given in the course of a unit of study. The task asks students to construct models of geologic processes to explain what happens over hot spots or at plate boundaries that leads to the formation of volcanoes.

The students are given these instructions:. In parts A and B of the task, students are expected to construct a model of a volcano forming over a hot spot using drawings and scientific labels, and they are to use this model to explain that hot spot volcanoes are formed when a plate moves over a stationary plume of magma or mantle material.

In parts B and C, students are expected to construct a model of a volcano forming at a plate boundary using drawings and scientific labels and then use this model to explain volcano formation at either a subduction zone or divergent boundary. The developers drew on research on learning progressions to articulate the constructs to be assessed. The team developed a construct map a diagram of. The question being addressed in the evaluation was whether the professional development is more effective when the curriculum materials are included than when they are not.

The research team used evidence from the task discussed in this report, in combination with other evidence, to evaluate the integrated program of professional development and curriculum. The scoring rubric in Table shows how the task yields evidence related to the two performance expectations.

The developers noted that the task could also be used to generate evidence of student understanding of the crosscutting concepts of pattern and scale, although that aspect is not covered in this rubric. The scoring rubric addressed the middle school performance expectations, as well as the range of student responses generated from a field test of the task.

Scores on the component sections of the task set were used to produce a single overall score the individual parts of the item are not independent, so the task does not generate usable subscores. To earn a top score for parts A and B, not only must students label key parts of their models crust, plates, magma, and mantle with arrows showing the mechanism involved, they must also provide an explanation of or clearly show how volcanoes form over a hot spot. The drawing on the left received a combined score of 4 points of a possible total of 5 for constructing a model because it includes labels for the mantle, magma, crust, volcano, and a hot spot.

However, the student did not write or draw about the plate moving across the hot spot while the hot spot stays in the same place, so the model is incomplete. The drawing on the right received only 1 point for parts A and B. A score on this task contributes one piece of evidence related to the performance expectations. A similar rubric is used to score parts C and D.

These scores are combined with those on other tasks, given on other days, to provide evidence of student learning for the entire unit. No attempt is made to generate separate scores for the practice developing models and the knowledge because the model is a part of the way students are representing their knowledge in response to the task: these two aspects of practice and knowledge are not separable.

A third option for classroom-embedded assessments would be for a state or district to provide criteria and specifications for a set of performance tasks to be completed and assembled as work samples at set times during the year. The tasks might include assignments completed during a school day or homework assignments or both. The state or local school system would determine the scoring rubric and criteria for the work samples.

Classroom teachers could be trained to. An alternative or complement to specifying a set of performance tasks as a work sample would be for a state or district to provide specifications for students to complete one or more projects. In these programs, the work project is a component of the examination system.

The projects require students to investigate problems and design solutions, conduct research, analyze data, write extended papers, and deliver oral presentations describing their results. Some tasks also include collaboration among students in both the investigations and the presentations Darling-Hammond et al.

Maintaining the Quality of Classroom-Embedded Components. The options described above for classroom administration as part of a monitoring assessment program introduce the possibility of local district or school control over certain aspects of the assessments, such as developing the assessments and involving teachers in administration or scoring the results.

For these approaches to work in a monitoring context, procedures are needed to ensure that the assessments are developed, administered, and scored as intended and that they meet high-quality technical standards. If the results are to be used to make comparisons across classrooms, schools, or districts, strategies are needed to ensure that the assessments are conducted in a standardized way that supports such comparisons.

Therefore, techniques for standardizing or auditing across classrooms, schools, and districts, as well as for auditing the quality of locally administered assessments, have to be part of the system. Several models suggest possible ways to design quality control measures. The state articulated design principles for the assessments and allowed districts to create the measures by which students would demonstrate their mastery of graduation requirements. The quality of the.

In writing, the portfolios are used, not to generate student scores, but as part of an evaluation of classroom practices. Moderation is a set of processes designed to ensure that assessment results for the courses that are required for graduation or any other high-stakes decision match the requirements of the syllabus. The aim of moderation is to ensure comparability; that is, that students who take the same subject in different schools or with different teachers and who attain the same standards through assessment programs on a common syllabus will be recognized as at the same level of achievement.

This approach does not imply that two students who are recognized as at the same level of achievement have had exactly the same collection of experiences or have achieved equally in any one aspect of the course: rather, it means that they have on balance reached the same broad standards. One example is the Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research Center, in which moderation is used not only as part of assessments of student understanding in science and mathematics, but also in the design of curriculum systems, educational programs, and teacher professional development.

The New Zealand Quality Assurance system provides another example. Assessment is determined in the classroom. Participating in consensus moderation meetings or regional review panel meetings is a core activity for teachers. In such meetings, they examine evidence about student performance from multiple schools, judge that evidence on the basis of the curricular standards, and give advice to schools about appropriate grades.

Teachers secure significant professional recognition through participation in moderation panels. Over time, repeated participation in the moderation process provides professional development for teachers around critical issues of learning and of assessment.

Moderation procedures have also been used in the IB Program, which offers a diploma program worldwide for students ages 16 to The external assessments used for the sciences consist of three written paper-and-pencil tests that account for 76 percent of the final score. The internal assessment accounts for 24 percent of the final score. The internal assessments are scored by teachers and externally moderated by the International Baccalaureate Organization IBO.

Grading of the internal assessments is based on assessment criteria published by the International Baccalaureate Organization For each criterion, there are descriptors that reflect different levels of achievement on student work products to guide grading. This is a two-step process in which 1 the moderator checks that the teacher applied the criteria provided for scoring of the internal assessment for a sample of students from different schools; and 2 the grades assigned by the teachers are adjusted by the IB Assessment Center whenever differences in interpretation or use of the criteria are identified International Baccalaureate Organization, , p.

The grades assigned by the teacher may be raised, lowered, or left unchanged as a result of the moderation process. Grades may be raised as a consequence of the remoderation process, but they cannot be lowered International Baccalaureate Organization, , p. Schools receive feedback on the suitability of the investigations they used as internal assessments and on the grades their teachers assigned, based on the assessment criteria.

As in Queensland, this process is also regarded by the IB system as an essential component of teacher professionalism and professional development. Our review of research and development of assessments designed for monitoring purposes, through either an on-demand or a classroom-embedded assessment component, has identified a number of important ways that both new and existing technologies can support the development of NGSS-aligned assessments.

Mobile devices, computers, and other forms of technology can be used with any of the assessments we have described. Adapting assessments to technology-based enhancements opens up new possibilities for assessment tasks and for scoring and interpreting the results of tasks that assess three-dimensional science learning. Technology enhancements allow more opportunities for students to interact with. Rich media digital technology that allows for complex user interactions with a range of devices has expanded the possibilities for simulations of situations that cannot easily be created in a classroom.

New technology and platforms that support further upgrades make it much easier than in the past to accumulate, share, store, and transmit information. Such possibilities will make it easier to work with evidence collected in systems of assessment that are composed of multiple elements. Scoring can take into account student actions and choices made in the course of an activity, as well as student responses to set tasks. All of these possibilities are likely to make it easier to assess constructs that are difficult to assess using paper-and-pencil tests.

For example, using mathematics and computational thinking may be especially well suited to being assessed with technology. However, there is a critical interplay between technology capability and task design: what the student can see and do with the technology and what actions or responses can be recorded. These elements can allow or deny particular aspects of tasks.

In addition, care must be taken that all students being assessed have sufficient opportunity to familiarize themselves with the capabilities of the technology before being asked to use it in a testing situation. This is an important equity issue, as students from different backgrounds may have had very different levels of experience with such technologies both in and outside of their classrooms. Technology also opens up new strategies for validly assessing students who are developing their language skills or who have other special needs, by making it easier to offer supports or accommodations and interfaces that use universal design principles to provide better access to the content of an assessment.

Such universal design elements include audio reading of passages, translation of words or phrases, user-controlled pacing, varied size of text and volume, and multiple tools to reduce cognitive load and assist in organizing information. Variations in Item-Response Formats.

Technology expands the types of response formats that can be used in assessment tasks. Scalise and Gifford Scalise, , ; Scalise and Gifford, have developed a taxonomy that shows the variety of types of response formats that can be used in tasks presented on the computer. Item-response formats range from fully constrained such as the conventional multiple-choice format shown in cell 1C to fully unconstrained such as the traditional essay shown in cell 6D.

Intermediate constraint items are more open ended than fully multiple-choice formats, but they allow students to respond in a way that is machine scorable. For instance, option 4A in the taxonomy is referred to as an interlinear option. This is an alternative to a traditional fill-in-the-blank format. With this format, a student is presented with a brief written passage that contains a few blanks.

Using technology, a set of choices is offered for each blank, and the student clicks on his or her choice. Option 4B is referred to as the sore finger option: the student is presented with a model and asked to identify the incorrect part by placing an X on the incorrect piece of the model. Thus, the question does not simply offer a set of options of models for the student to choose from as would be the case in a multiple-choice format , nor does it require the student to draw the model from scratch.

Other cells of the taxonomy represent additional options. Option 3B, categorizing, is a format that allows students to drag-and-drop items so that they are properly classified. The ranking and sequencing option in 3C asks students to put a series of events in proper order. The various item-response formats shown in the table provide a variety of alternatives to the traditional multiple-choice and fully open-response formats. Technology is a crucial component of a number of these response formats.

Using the options in the above taxonomy—or other approaches to innovative formats—technology-enhanced assessments can be designed to address particular assessment challenges. Using assessment design approaches that draw on. FIGURE The intermediate constraint taxonomy, a categorization of 28 innovative item types useful in computer-based assessment. A hypothetical example of this is shown in Figures through In Figures through , we have adapted it for use in a technology-enhanced environment.

The delivery environment shown here, into which the example task has been integrated, is drawn from an example presented recently for assessing hard-to-measure constructs in the Common Core State Standards Barton and Schultz, In this example, an interactive graph has been created that the student adjusts to answer the question. The format type 6A—see Figure , above is open ended multiple-choice.

Rather than having only a few choices, as in a traditional multiple-choice format, in this format all or a large portion of the possible outcome space is available for the student. In other words, by sliding the points on the display to any location, students create their own version of the graph, similar to a constructed response on paper.

This format contrasts with the selected-response format used for traditional multiple-choice questions, in which perhaps four or five versions of a graph are provided from which the student would select the graph display that best answers the question. Furthermore, when a limited range of answer choices is provided, student thinking may be prompted by the visual displays provided in the. NOTE: The student has adjusted the first four points for temperatures of 20 to 23 degrees.

Open ended multiple choice, by contrast, is still a type of selection—students select points and move them to new positions—but the prompting and possibilities for backsolving are reduced by not displaying answer choices. Furthermore, as an intermediate constraint format, it is readily scorable by computer. Also, task variants with unique starting points for the display, for instance, can easily be created.

This assessment, given to national samples of students in the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades, was designed to produce national results for each grade. For each grade level, each student is assigned three computer-interactive tasks, two.

NOTE: When finished, the points should reflect the most likely graph, given the points in the data table. The tasks make use of a variety of response formats, including multiple choice, short answers, and drag-and-drop procedures. For example, in one of the 4th-grade tasks, students were asked to investigate the effects of the temperature changes on a concrete sidewalk. In completing the task, the students are asked to make observations, develop explanations that they support with.

The students complete the task by generating a written remedy for preventing further cracking of the concrete. One of the 8th-grade tasks asked students to evaluate the environmental effects associated with developing a new recreation area. The simulation then asks students to use the information from the food web to explain or predict what would happen if the population of certain animals decreased and to apply that information to the problem of evaluating the environmental effects of locating the recreation area in each of the three environments.

This part of the simulation takes students through the task of creating and explaining a set of graphs. The task concludes by asking students to write a recommendation for the location of the recreation area, justify the recommendation with evidence, and discuss the environmental effects. It is important to point out that although these tasks do involve new ways of assessing science learning, they were not designed to measure the type of three-dimensional science learning that is in the NGSS.

But they do demonstrate some of the capabilities in large-scale assessment that become possible with simulations and other technological approaches. Assessing Challenging Constructs. Technology can also make more evidence available for hard-to-measure constructs, such as demonstrating proficiency in planning and carrying out investigations, through the use of simulations, animations, video, and external resources with scientific data and results. An example of a task that makes use of innovative technologies is provided by an assessment module called the Arctic Trek scenario developed by Wilson and colleagues for the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills ATC21S project.

The module provides access to various pages, and the student teams are to determine which webpages provide the information needed to respond to the questions. The teams assign themselves roles in responding to the tasks e.

Figure shows a screenshot that introduces the module to the students. An example of a question from the module is shown in Figure The student. NOTE: To answer the question, the student must determine which of the websites from the list on the right will provide the needed information, click on the website needed to answer the question, and find the needed information.

If a student does not know how to the answer the question, the student can request a hint and this can be repeated. Figure shows the question with a hint. An actual task is shown in Figure , in which a student would read through an online display.

Here the student has been asked to examine a map that shows where polar bears are found and must describe the way information is conveyed on the map. Each student responds to this task individually and then shares her or his response with the team. The technology also allows the teacher to track their interactions and responses and to provide assistance when needed.

Although this task is designed to measure social interaction and teamwork, the approach could easily be adapted to allow students to demonstrate their proficiency with various scientific and engineering practices. The module is designed for group work, with close monitoring by the teacher, but it could easily be adapted to be used for summative assessment purposes.

FIGURE Information box for a teacher to record the level of assistance a student required for the polar bear task. In the context of technology-enhanced assessment, a task surround is a set of small software programs that work together to create a set of activities, such as for a research or inquiry activity, which can be readily populated with new content Scalise, , p.

A task surround can be used to develop additional tasks that all use the same technology. A task surround provides a computer-based, hands-on, or remote lab instructional platform with common interfaces for a variety of routine tasks, such as running simulations, graphing results, viewing animations, and consulting reference materials and links Buckley et al.

A surround is more than a basic interface in that it can be changed to represent different standards and domains or to produce a range of task variants within a standard or domain. The task surround can be varied in the range of functionalities provided from one task to the next to fit different design patterns see the pinball car example in Chapter 3 , constructs, or goals and objectives of measurements. When the task surround incorporates new content intended to address the same goals and objectives of the original content, it is called a task variant.

Task variants can be used to develop alternative forms of an assessment. When the task surround is populated with prompts and materials intended to be quite different from the original version, it is an example of technology-enhanced generalization. Reuse of a surround can serve many different purposes: each purpose can use the same programming and technology investment.

For large-scale assessment, numerous technology-enhanced approaches built around interactive scenarios, reusable components, and task surrounds are emerging. Race to the Top Assessment Program consortia see Chapter 1. The pinball car example discussed in Chapter 3 provides an example of a task surround.

The design pattern see Figure lays out the key elements for the task and could be used to generate a number of different tasks that use the same technology, software, or both. Our review of various strategies for administering assessments of three-dimensional science learning in formats that will yield results to support system monitoring makes clear that there are tradeoffs with a number of competing goals. One goal is to use assessments composed principally of performance tasks, particularly those that allow students to actually demonstrate their skills using hands-on tasks.

But another goal is to minimize the amount of time students spend on assessment in order to leave more time for instruction. Yet another goal is to have assessments that produce scores that are sufficiently reliable and valid to support high-stakes uses and sufficiently comparable to provide information about cross-group and cross-time comparisons, such as to answer the questions in Table above. Still another goal is to achieve the desired assessment at a reasonable cost level relative to the intended measurement benefits.

The measurement field has progressed considerably since the s when performance tasks and portfolios were last tried on a large scale. Much has been learned from those prior attempts, and more possibilities are now available with technology. More is known about ways to develop tasks, standardize the way that they are administered, and score them accurately and reliably. In addition, the field now acknowledges that reliability statistics for individual-level scores and decisions are different from those for higher levels of aggregations, for example, at the school or district level.

Technological innovations provide platforms for presenting tasks in more realistic ways, measuring constructs that could not previously be measured, incorporating features to make tasks more accessible to all. Nevertheless, a number of challenges remain.

As noted above, it will not be possible to cover all of the performance expectations for a given grade in one testing session. Even with multiple testing sessions, external on-demand assessments alone will not be sufficient to fully assess the breadth and depth of the performance expectations. These assessments will need to be designed so that they produce information that is appropriate and valid to support a specific monitoring purpose.

The use of classroom-embedded assessments means that some of the testing decisions will have to be made locally by schools or districts. Those decisions include the timing and conditions of the administration and, possibly, the scoring procedures. These procedures will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that they are implemented as intended and produce high-quality data.

In the past decade, matrix sampling has not been widely used on external assessments used for monitoring purposes because of the intense focus on individual student scores under NCLB. However, it can be a useful and powerful tool in developing assessments of the NGSS and to meet certain monitoring purposes.

The approaches we propose for designing monitoring assessments that include performance tasks and portfolios may not yield the level of comparability. However, we also think that focused research on strategies for enhancing the comparability of results from the approaches we propose will yield improvements in this area. Appropriate use of such strategies will need to include acceptance of alternative concepts and varying degrees of comparability among assessments according to their usage.

Such research should build on the existing literature base of prior and current efforts to enhance the comparability of scores for these types of assessments, including studies of approaches used in other countries. Innovations in technology and in assessment design hold promise for addressing some of the challenges associated with the assessment approaches we suggest and should be considered to the extent that they produce valid and reliable outcomes.

To the extent that they facilitate achieving valid and reliable outcomes, available technological approaches should be used in designing, administering, and scoring science assessments. As the field moves forward with these innovations, it will be important to verify that they meet the necessary technical standards. Assessments, understood as tools for tracking what and how well students have learned, play a critical role in the classroom.

These documents are brand new and the changes they call for are barely under way, but the new assessments will be needed as soon as states and districts begin the process of implementing the NGSS and changing their approach to science education. The new Framework and the NGSS are designed to guide educators in significantly altering the way K science is taught.

The Framework is aimed at making science education more closely resemble the way scientists actually work and think, and making instruction reflect research on learning that demonstrates the importance of building coherent understandings over time. It structures science education around three dimensions - the practices through which scientists and engineers do their work, the key crosscutting concepts that cut across disciplines, and the core ideas of the disciplines - and argues that they should be interwoven in every aspect of science education, building in sophistication as students progress through grades K Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards recommends strategies for developing assessments that yield valid measures of student proficiency in science as described in the new Framework.

This report reviews recent and current work in science assessment to determine which aspects of the Framework's vision can be assessed with available techniques and what additional research and development will be needed to support an assessment system that fully meets that vision.

The report offers a systems approach to science assessment, in which a range of assessment strategies are designed to answer different kinds of questions with appropriate degrees of specificity and provide results that complement one another. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards makes the case that a science assessment system that meets the Framework's vision should consist of assessments designed to support classroom instruction, assessments designed to monitor science learning on a broader scale, and indicators designed to track opportunity to learn.

New standards for science education make clear that new modes of assessment designed to measure the integrated learning they promote are essential. The recommendations of this report will be key to making sure that the dramatic changes in curriculum and instruction signaled by Framework and the NGSS reduce inequities in science education and raise the level of science education for all students.

Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website. Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book. Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text. To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

Need help with a writing assignment? Need help with that college essay? Come to the Lit Lab! Located in Not sure how to write a DBQ? We'll walk you through the complete process of preparing for and writing one of these tricky AP essays. Did you use the rubric to evaluate your essay? Find colleges and universities that offer credit or placement for AP scores. Begin your search by entering the name of the institution belowYahoo! All rights reserved.

A teacher website to communicate with students and parents. It is vital that students of all ages demonstrate the skills of reading Incoming Freshman Parent Night Jan. Edmodo is an easy way to get your students connected so they can safely collaborate, get and stay organized, and access assignments, grades, and school Love Imgur?

Join our team! Use new design Back to the top.

Good, top reflective essay writing site for mba consider, that

TEACHING ELEMENTARY STUDENTS HOW TO WRITE PARAGRAPHS

Already structure mice men essay gcse are

GRADE 6 ESSAY TOPICS

We recognize that the approaches we suggest for gathering assessment information may not yield the level of comparability of results that educators, policy makers, researchers, and other users of assessment data have been accustomed to, particularly at the individual student level. Thus, our third assumption is that developing assessments that validly measure the NGSS is more important than achieving strict comparability.

There are tradeoffs to be considered. The new approaches that we propose for consideration see below involve hybrid designs employing performance tasks that may not yield strictly comparable results, which will make it difficult to make some of the comparisons required for certain monitoring purposes.

Fourth, we assume that the use of technology can address some of the challenges discussed above and below. Nevertheless, technology alone is unlikely to solve problems of score reliability or of equating, among other challenges. Finally, we assume that matrix sampling will be an important tool in the design of assessments for monitoring purposes to ensure that there is proper coverage of the broad domain of the NGSS.

Matrix sampling as a design principle may be extremely important even when individual scores are needed as part of the monitoring process. This assumption includes hybrid designs in which all students respond to the same core set of tasks that are mixed with matrix-sampled tasks to ensure representativeness of the NGSS for monitoring inferences about student learning at higher levels of aggregation see the second, third, and fourth columns in Table , above.

Examples include the United Kingdom system of assessment at the high school level and functions served by their monitoring body, called the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulations Ofqual , to ensure comparability across different examination programs all tied to the same curricular frameworks. Two Classes of Design Options. With these assumptions in mind, we suggest two broad classes of design options. The first involves the use of on-demand assessment components and the second makes use of classroom-embedded assessment components.

For each class, we provide a general description of options, illustrating the options with one or more operational assessment programs. For selective cases, we also provide examples of the types of performance tasks that might be used as part of the design option. It should be noted that our two general classes of design options are not being presented as an either-or contrast. Rather, they should be seen as options that might be creatively and selectively combined, with varying weighting, to produce a monitoring assessment that appropriately and adequately reflects the depth and breadth of the NGSS.

On-Demand Assessment Components. As noted above, one component of a monitoring system could include an on-demand assessment that might be administered in one or more sessions toward the end of a given academic year. Such an assessment would be designed to cover multiple aspects of the NGSS and might typically be composed of mixed-item formats with either written constructed responses or performance tasks or both. A mixed-item format containing multiple-choice and short and extended constructed-response questions characterizes certain monitoring assessments.

As an example, we can consider the revised AP assessment for biology College Board, ; Huff et al. Though administered on a large scale, the tests for AP courses are aligned to a centrally developed curriculum, the AP framework, which is also used to develop instructional materials for the course College Board, Most AP courses are for 1 year, and students take a 3-hour exam at the end of the course. Students are also allowed to take the exam without having taken the associated course.

Scores on the exam can be used to obtain college credit, as well as to meet high school graduation requirements. This structure parallels that of the core ideas and science practices. And like what is advocated in the K science framework see National Research Council, a and realized in the NGSS, a set of performance expectations or learning objectives was defined for the biology discipline.

Each learning objective is designed to help teachers integrate science practices with specific content and to provide them with information about how students will be expected to demonstrate their knowledge and abilities College Board, a, p. Learning objectives guide instruction and also serve as a guide for developing the assessment questions since they constitute the claim components in the College Board system for AP assessment development.

Through the use of evidence-centered design, sets of claim-evidence pairs were elaborated in biology that guide development of assessment tasks for the new AP biology exam. Assessment Task Example 9, Photosynthesis and Plant Evolution: An example task from the new AP biology assessment demonstrates the use of a mixed-item formats with written responses.

As shown in Figure , this task makes use of both multiple-choice questions and free-response questions. The latter include both short-answer and extended constructed responses. It was given as part of a set of eight free-response questions six short-answer questions and two extended constructed-response questions during a testing session that lasted 90 minutes. The instructions to students suggested that this question would require 22 minutes to answer.

The example task has multiple components in which students make use of data in two graphs and a table to respond to questions about light absorption. It asks students to work with scientific theory and evidence to explain how the processes of natural selection and evolution could have resulted in different photosynthetic organisms that absorb light in different ranges of the visible light spectrum.

Students were asked to use experimental data absorption spectra to identify two different photosynthetic pigments and to explain how the data support their identification. Students were then presented with a description of an experiment for investigating how the wavelength of available light affects the rate of photosynthe-. Students were asked to predict the relative rates of photosynthesis in three treatment groups, each exposed to a different wavelength of light, and to justify their prediction using their knowledge and understanding about the transfer of energy in photosynthesis.

Finally, students were asked to propose a possible evolutionary history of plants by connecting differences in resource availability with different selective pressures that drive the process of evolution through natural selection. Collectively, the multiple components in this task are designed to provide evidence relevant to the nine learning objectives, which are shown in Box The student is able to connect scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines to support the modern concept of evolution.

The student is able to describe a model that represents evolution within a population. The student is able to analyze data to identify possible patterns and relationships between a biotic or abiotic factor and a biological system cells, organisms, populations, communities, or ecosystems.

The student is able to construct explanations of the mechanisms and structural features of cells that allow organisms to capture, store or use free energy. The student is able to make a prediction about the interactions of subcellular organelles. The student is able to construct explanations based on scientific evidence as to how interactions of subcellular structures provide essential functions. The student is able to use representations and models to analyze situations qualitatively to describe how interactions of subcellular structures, which possess specialized functions, provide essential functions.

Note that in the case of responses that require an explanation or justification, the scoring rubric includes examples of the acceptable evidence in the written responses. Figure shows two different student responses to this task: one in which the student earned all 10 possible points and one in which the student earned 6 points 3 points for Part a; 3 points for Part b; and 0 points for Part c.

Two current assessment programs use a mixed-item format with performance tasks. Both assessments are designed to measure inquiry skills as envisioned in the science standards that predate the new science framework and the NGSS. Thus, they are not fully aligned with the NGSS performance expectations.

We highlight these two assessments not because of the specific kinds of questions that they use, but because the assessments require that students demonstrate science practices and interpret the results. The assessment includes three types of items: multiple-choice questions, short constructed-response questions, and performance tasks. The performance-based tasks present students with a research question. Students work in groups to conduct an investigation in order to gather the data they need to address the research question and then work individually to prepare their own written responses to the assessment questions.

A second example is the statewide science assessment administered to the 4th and 8th grades in New York. The assessment includes both multiple-choice and performance tasks. For the performance part of the assessment, the classroom teacher sets up stations in the classroom according to specific instructions in the assessment manual.

Students rotate from station to station to perform the task, record data from the experiment or demonstration, and answer specific. Assessment Task Example 10, Floating and Sinking: To create standards for science education in Switzerland, a framework was designed that is similar to the U.

Assessments aligned with the Swiss framework were developed and administered to samples of students in order to obtain empirical data for specifying the standards. Like the U. The domain dimension includes eight themes central to science, technology, society, and the environment e. The skills dimension covers scientific skills similar to the scientific practices listed in the U.

For each skill, several subskills are specified. To collect evidence about student competence with respect to the framework, Swiss officials identified a set of experts to develop assessments. From the outset, this group emphasized that traditional approaches to assessment e. One of the performance tasks used for defining standards in science education in Switzerland is shown in Figure , and, for use in this report, has been translated from German to English.

This task was one of several designed for use with students in 2nd grade. As part of the data collection activities, the tasks were given to students; each student responded to two tasks and were given 30 minutes per task. The full task consisted of eight questions. Figure shows an excerpt from the portion of the task that involves the ship see Table for the specific disciplinary core ideas, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts assessed.

In the excerpt shown in the figure, the first two activities ask students to observe a weighted ship floating on water and to describe their observations. Students were given a cup half full of water, a small ship, four metal discs two large discs and two small discs , and a candle. The test proctor read the instructions out loud to the students and demonstrated how the discs should be placed in the ship and how the ship should be put into the water.

The task included two additional activities. For one, students were asked to formulate a question and carry out an experiment to answer it. In the final section of the task, students were asked a series of questions about the type of information that could be learned from the experiments in the tasks.

The figure shows the rubric and scoring criteria for the open-ended questions and the answer key for the final question. Sample responses are shown for the second activity. Instead, students had to recognize that the phenomenon to observe is about floating and sinking—more specifically, that when weights are placed off center in the ship, they cause the ship to float at an inclined angle or even to sink. Moreover, they were expected to recognize the way in which the off-center.

Thus, the task provides an example of a set of questions that emphasize the integration of core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and practices. The task set could include assessment questions that use a variety of formats, such as some selected-response or short-answer questions and some constructed-response questions, all of which lead to producing an extended response for a complex performance task.

The short-answer questions would help students work through the steps involved in completing the task set. See below for a discussion of ways to use technological approaches to design, administer, and score performance events.

Each of the performance events could be designed to yield outcome scores based on the different formats: a performance task, short constructed-response tasks, and short-answer and selected-response questions. Each of these would be related to one or two practices, core ideas, or crosscutting concepts.

A performance event would be administered over 2 to 3 days of class time. The first day could be spent on setting up the problem and answering most or all of the short- and long-answer constructed-response questions. This session could be timed or untimed. The subsequent day s would be spent conducting the laboratory or other investigation and writing up the results. Ideally, three or four of these performance assessments would be administered during an academic year, which would allow the task sets to cover a wide range of topics.

The use of multiple items and multiple response types would help to address the reliability concerns that are often associated with the scores reported for performance tasks see Dunbar et al. Use of multiple task sets also opens up other design possibilities, such as using a hybrid task sampling design discussed above in which all students at a grade level receive one common performance task, and the other tasks are given to different groups of students using matrix sampling.

This design allows the common performance task to be used as a link for the matrix tasks so that student scores could be based on all of the tasks they complete. This design has the shortcoming of focusing the link among all the tasks on one particular task—thus opening up the linkage quality to weaknesses due to the specifics of that task. A better design would be to use all the tasks as linking tasks, varying the common task across many classrooms.

Although there are many advantages to matrix-sampling approaches, identifying the appropriate matrix design will take careful consideration. For example, unless all the performance tasks are computer-based, the logistical and student-time burden of administering multiple tasks in the same classroom could be prohibitive. There are also risks associated with using all the tasks in an assessment in each classroom, such as security and memorability, which could limit the reuse of the tasks for subsequent assessments.

The assessment strategies discussed above have varying degrees of overlap with the assessment plans that are currently in place for mathematics and language arts in the two Race to the Top Assessment Program consortia, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium see Chapter 1. Both are planning to use a mixed model with both performance tasks and computer-based selected-response and construct-response tasks K Center at Educational Testing Service, The different task types will be separated in time with respect to administration and in most grades the total testing time will be 2 or more hours.

Classroom-Embedded Assessment Components. As noted above, one component of a monitoring system could involve classroom-embedded tasks and performances that might be administered at different times in a given academic year so as to align with the completion of major units of instruction. These instructional units and assessments would be targeted at various sets of standards, such as those associated with one or more core ideas in the life sciences.

Such a classroom-embedded assessment would be designed to cover more selective aspects of the NGSS and would be composed of tasks that require written constructed responses, performance activities, or both. We discuss three. Replacement units are curricular units that have been approved centrally by the state or district and made available to schools. They cover material or concepts that are already part of the curriculum, but they teach the material in a way that addresses the NGSS and promotes deeper learning.

They are not intended to add topics to the existing curriculum, but rather to replace existing units in a way that is educative for teachers and students. The idea of replacement units builds from Marion and Shepard Given the huge curricular, instructional, and assessment challenges associated with implementing the NGSS, replacement units would be designed to be used locally as meaningful examples to support capacity to implement the NGSS, as well as to provide evidence of student performance on the NGSS.

The end-of-unit standardized assessment in the replacement unit would include performance tasks and perhaps short constructed-response tasks that could be used to provide data for monitoring student performance. The assessments could be scored locally by teachers or a central or regional scoring mechanism could be devised.

The units could be designed, for instance, by state consortia, regional labs, commercial vendors, or other groups of educators and subject-matter experts around a high-priority topic for a given grade level.

Each replacement unit would include instructional supports for educators, formative assessment probes, and end-of-unit assessments. The supports embedded in the replacement units would serve as a useful model for trying to improve classroom assessment practices at a relatively large scale. In addition, the end-of-unit assessments, although not necessarily useful for short-term formative purposes, may serve additional instructional uses that affect the learning of future students or even for planning changes to instruction or curriculum for current students after the unit has been completed.

Collections of Performance Tasks. A second option would be for a state or district or its contractors to design standardized performance tasks that would be made available for teachers to use as designated points in curriculum programs. Classroom teachers could be trained to score these tasks, or student products could be submitted to the district or state. Results would be aggregated at the school, district, or state level to support monitoring purposes.

The QCAT consists of performance tasks in English, mathematics, and science that are administered in grades 4, 6, and 9. They are designed to engage students in solving meaningful problems. The structure of the Queensland system gives schools and teachers more control over assessment decisions than is currently the case in the United States.

Schools have the option of using either centrally devised QCATs, which have been developed by the Queensland Studies Authority QSA , with common requirements and parameters and graded according to a common guide, or school-devised tasks, which are developed by schools in accord with QSA design specifications. The QCATs are not on-demand tests i. The scores are used for low-stakes purposes.

Aggregate school-level scores are reported to the QSA, but they are not used to compare the performance of students in one school with the performance of students in other schools. The scores are considered to be unsuitable for making comparisons across schools see Queensland Studies Authority, b, p. Teachers make decisions about administration times one, two, or more testing sessions and when during the administration period to give the assessments, and they participate in the scoring process.

Assessment Task Example 11, Plate Tectonics: An example of a performance task that might be used for monitoring purposes is one that was administered in a classroom after students had covered major aspects of the earth and space science standards. It is taken from a program for middle school children in the United States that provided professional development based on A Framework for K Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas National Research Council, a and training in the use of curriculum materials aligned.

It was designed and tested as part of an evaluation of a set of curriculum materials and associated professional development. The task was given to middle school students studying a unit on plate tectonics and large-scale system interactions similar to one of the disciplinary core ideas in the NGSS. The assessment targets two performance expectations linked to that disciplinary core idea. The task, part of a longer assessment designed to be completed in two class periods, is one of several designed to be given in the course of a unit of study.

The task asks students to construct models of geologic processes to explain what happens over hot spots or at plate boundaries that leads to the formation of volcanoes. The students are given these instructions:. In parts A and B of the task, students are expected to construct a model of a volcano forming over a hot spot using drawings and scientific labels, and they are to use this model to explain that hot spot volcanoes are formed when a plate moves over a stationary plume of magma or mantle material.

In parts B and C, students are expected to construct a model of a volcano forming at a plate boundary using drawings and scientific labels and then use this model to explain volcano formation at either a subduction zone or divergent boundary. The developers drew on research on learning progressions to articulate the constructs to be assessed.

The team developed a construct map a diagram of. The question being addressed in the evaluation was whether the professional development is more effective when the curriculum materials are included than when they are not. The research team used evidence from the task discussed in this report, in combination with other evidence, to evaluate the integrated program of professional development and curriculum. The scoring rubric in Table shows how the task yields evidence related to the two performance expectations.

The developers noted that the task could also be used to generate evidence of student understanding of the crosscutting concepts of pattern and scale, although that aspect is not covered in this rubric. The scoring rubric addressed the middle school performance expectations, as well as the range of student responses generated from a field test of the task.

Scores on the component sections of the task set were used to produce a single overall score the individual parts of the item are not independent, so the task does not generate usable subscores. To earn a top score for parts A and B, not only must students label key parts of their models crust, plates, magma, and mantle with arrows showing the mechanism involved, they must also provide an explanation of or clearly show how volcanoes form over a hot spot.

The drawing on the left received a combined score of 4 points of a possible total of 5 for constructing a model because it includes labels for the mantle, magma, crust, volcano, and a hot spot. However, the student did not write or draw about the plate moving across the hot spot while the hot spot stays in the same place, so the model is incomplete.

The drawing on the right received only 1 point for parts A and B. A score on this task contributes one piece of evidence related to the performance expectations. A similar rubric is used to score parts C and D. These scores are combined with those on other tasks, given on other days, to provide evidence of student learning for the entire unit.

No attempt is made to generate separate scores for the practice developing models and the knowledge because the model is a part of the way students are representing their knowledge in response to the task: these two aspects of practice and knowledge are not separable. A third option for classroom-embedded assessments would be for a state or district to provide criteria and specifications for a set of performance tasks to be completed and assembled as work samples at set times during the year.

The tasks might include assignments completed during a school day or homework assignments or both. The state or local school system would determine the scoring rubric and criteria for the work samples. Classroom teachers could be trained to. An alternative or complement to specifying a set of performance tasks as a work sample would be for a state or district to provide specifications for students to complete one or more projects.

In these programs, the work project is a component of the examination system. The projects require students to investigate problems and design solutions, conduct research, analyze data, write extended papers, and deliver oral presentations describing their results. Some tasks also include collaboration among students in both the investigations and the presentations Darling-Hammond et al.

Maintaining the Quality of Classroom-Embedded Components. The options described above for classroom administration as part of a monitoring assessment program introduce the possibility of local district or school control over certain aspects of the assessments, such as developing the assessments and involving teachers in administration or scoring the results. For these approaches to work in a monitoring context, procedures are needed to ensure that the assessments are developed, administered, and scored as intended and that they meet high-quality technical standards.

If the results are to be used to make comparisons across classrooms, schools, or districts, strategies are needed to ensure that the assessments are conducted in a standardized way that supports such comparisons. Therefore, techniques for standardizing or auditing across classrooms, schools, and districts, as well as for auditing the quality of locally administered assessments, have to be part of the system.

Several models suggest possible ways to design quality control measures. The state articulated design principles for the assessments and allowed districts to create the measures by which students would demonstrate their mastery of graduation requirements. The quality of the. In writing, the portfolios are used, not to generate student scores, but as part of an evaluation of classroom practices.

Moderation is a set of processes designed to ensure that assessment results for the courses that are required for graduation or any other high-stakes decision match the requirements of the syllabus. The aim of moderation is to ensure comparability; that is, that students who take the same subject in different schools or with different teachers and who attain the same standards through assessment programs on a common syllabus will be recognized as at the same level of achievement.

This approach does not imply that two students who are recognized as at the same level of achievement have had exactly the same collection of experiences or have achieved equally in any one aspect of the course: rather, it means that they have on balance reached the same broad standards. One example is the Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research Center, in which moderation is used not only as part of assessments of student understanding in science and mathematics, but also in the design of curriculum systems, educational programs, and teacher professional development.

The New Zealand Quality Assurance system provides another example. Assessment is determined in the classroom. Participating in consensus moderation meetings or regional review panel meetings is a core activity for teachers. In such meetings, they examine evidence about student performance from multiple schools, judge that evidence on the basis of the curricular standards, and give advice to schools about appropriate grades.

Teachers secure significant professional recognition through participation in moderation panels. Over time, repeated participation in the moderation process provides professional development for teachers around critical issues of learning and of assessment. Moderation procedures have also been used in the IB Program, which offers a diploma program worldwide for students ages 16 to The external assessments used for the sciences consist of three written paper-and-pencil tests that account for 76 percent of the final score.

The internal assessment accounts for 24 percent of the final score. The internal assessments are scored by teachers and externally moderated by the International Baccalaureate Organization IBO. Grading of the internal assessments is based on assessment criteria published by the International Baccalaureate Organization For each criterion, there are descriptors that reflect different levels of achievement on student work products to guide grading.

This is a two-step process in which 1 the moderator checks that the teacher applied the criteria provided for scoring of the internal assessment for a sample of students from different schools; and 2 the grades assigned by the teachers are adjusted by the IB Assessment Center whenever differences in interpretation or use of the criteria are identified International Baccalaureate Organization, , p.

The grades assigned by the teacher may be raised, lowered, or left unchanged as a result of the moderation process. Grades may be raised as a consequence of the remoderation process, but they cannot be lowered International Baccalaureate Organization, , p. Schools receive feedback on the suitability of the investigations they used as internal assessments and on the grades their teachers assigned, based on the assessment criteria. As in Queensland, this process is also regarded by the IB system as an essential component of teacher professionalism and professional development.

Our review of research and development of assessments designed for monitoring purposes, through either an on-demand or a classroom-embedded assessment component, has identified a number of important ways that both new and existing technologies can support the development of NGSS-aligned assessments. Mobile devices, computers, and other forms of technology can be used with any of the assessments we have described. Adapting assessments to technology-based enhancements opens up new possibilities for assessment tasks and for scoring and interpreting the results of tasks that assess three-dimensional science learning.

Technology enhancements allow more opportunities for students to interact with. Rich media digital technology that allows for complex user interactions with a range of devices has expanded the possibilities for simulations of situations that cannot easily be created in a classroom. New technology and platforms that support further upgrades make it much easier than in the past to accumulate, share, store, and transmit information.

Such possibilities will make it easier to work with evidence collected in systems of assessment that are composed of multiple elements. Scoring can take into account student actions and choices made in the course of an activity, as well as student responses to set tasks. All of these possibilities are likely to make it easier to assess constructs that are difficult to assess using paper-and-pencil tests.

For example, using mathematics and computational thinking may be especially well suited to being assessed with technology. However, there is a critical interplay between technology capability and task design: what the student can see and do with the technology and what actions or responses can be recorded.

These elements can allow or deny particular aspects of tasks. In addition, care must be taken that all students being assessed have sufficient opportunity to familiarize themselves with the capabilities of the technology before being asked to use it in a testing situation. This is an important equity issue, as students from different backgrounds may have had very different levels of experience with such technologies both in and outside of their classrooms.

Technology also opens up new strategies for validly assessing students who are developing their language skills or who have other special needs, by making it easier to offer supports or accommodations and interfaces that use universal design principles to provide better access to the content of an assessment. Such universal design elements include audio reading of passages, translation of words or phrases, user-controlled pacing, varied size of text and volume, and multiple tools to reduce cognitive load and assist in organizing information.

Variations in Item-Response Formats. Technology expands the types of response formats that can be used in assessment tasks. Scalise and Gifford Scalise, , ; Scalise and Gifford, have developed a taxonomy that shows the variety of types of response formats that can be used in tasks presented on the computer. Item-response formats range from fully constrained such as the conventional multiple-choice format shown in cell 1C to fully unconstrained such as the traditional essay shown in cell 6D.

Intermediate constraint items are more open ended than fully multiple-choice formats, but they allow students to respond in a way that is machine scorable. For instance, option 4A in the taxonomy is referred to as an interlinear option. This is an alternative to a traditional fill-in-the-blank format. With this format, a student is presented with a brief written passage that contains a few blanks.

Using technology, a set of choices is offered for each blank, and the student clicks on his or her choice. Option 4B is referred to as the sore finger option: the student is presented with a model and asked to identify the incorrect part by placing an X on the incorrect piece of the model.

Thus, the question does not simply offer a set of options of models for the student to choose from as would be the case in a multiple-choice format , nor does it require the student to draw the model from scratch. Other cells of the taxonomy represent additional options. Option 3B, categorizing, is a format that allows students to drag-and-drop items so that they are properly classified.

The ranking and sequencing option in 3C asks students to put a series of events in proper order. The various item-response formats shown in the table provide a variety of alternatives to the traditional multiple-choice and fully open-response formats. Technology is a crucial component of a number of these response formats.

Using the options in the above taxonomy—or other approaches to innovative formats—technology-enhanced assessments can be designed to address particular assessment challenges. Using assessment design approaches that draw on. FIGURE The intermediate constraint taxonomy, a categorization of 28 innovative item types useful in computer-based assessment. A hypothetical example of this is shown in Figures through In Figures through , we have adapted it for use in a technology-enhanced environment.

The delivery environment shown here, into which the example task has been integrated, is drawn from an example presented recently for assessing hard-to-measure constructs in the Common Core State Standards Barton and Schultz, In this example, an interactive graph has been created that the student adjusts to answer the question.

The format type 6A—see Figure , above is open ended multiple-choice. Rather than having only a few choices, as in a traditional multiple-choice format, in this format all or a large portion of the possible outcome space is available for the student. In other words, by sliding the points on the display to any location, students create their own version of the graph, similar to a constructed response on paper.

This format contrasts with the selected-response format used for traditional multiple-choice questions, in which perhaps four or five versions of a graph are provided from which the student would select the graph display that best answers the question.

Furthermore, when a limited range of answer choices is provided, student thinking may be prompted by the visual displays provided in the. NOTE: The student has adjusted the first four points for temperatures of 20 to 23 degrees. Open ended multiple choice, by contrast, is still a type of selection—students select points and move them to new positions—but the prompting and possibilities for backsolving are reduced by not displaying answer choices.

Furthermore, as an intermediate constraint format, it is readily scorable by computer. Also, task variants with unique starting points for the display, for instance, can easily be created. This assessment, given to national samples of students in the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades, was designed to produce national results for each grade.

For each grade level, each student is assigned three computer-interactive tasks, two. NOTE: When finished, the points should reflect the most likely graph, given the points in the data table. The tasks make use of a variety of response formats, including multiple choice, short answers, and drag-and-drop procedures. For example, in one of the 4th-grade tasks, students were asked to investigate the effects of the temperature changes on a concrete sidewalk.

In completing the task, the students are asked to make observations, develop explanations that they support with. The students complete the task by generating a written remedy for preventing further cracking of the concrete. One of the 8th-grade tasks asked students to evaluate the environmental effects associated with developing a new recreation area.

The simulation then asks students to use the information from the food web to explain or predict what would happen if the population of certain animals decreased and to apply that information to the problem of evaluating the environmental effects of locating the recreation area in each of the three environments.

This part of the simulation takes students through the task of creating and explaining a set of graphs. The task concludes by asking students to write a recommendation for the location of the recreation area, justify the recommendation with evidence, and discuss the environmental effects. It is important to point out that although these tasks do involve new ways of assessing science learning, they were not designed to measure the type of three-dimensional science learning that is in the NGSS.

But they do demonstrate some of the capabilities in large-scale assessment that become possible with simulations and other technological approaches. Assessing Challenging Constructs. Technology can also make more evidence available for hard-to-measure constructs, such as demonstrating proficiency in planning and carrying out investigations, through the use of simulations, animations, video, and external resources with scientific data and results.

An example of a task that makes use of innovative technologies is provided by an assessment module called the Arctic Trek scenario developed by Wilson and colleagues for the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills ATC21S project. The module provides access to various pages, and the student teams are to determine which webpages provide the information needed to respond to the questions.

Use old embed code. Hide old embed code. Uploaded Nov 3 We will be using Week of August 31 Monday:: Deconstruct summer reading essay and create a "map". Continue with rhetoric vocabulary Tuesday: Finish "maps". Begin Analysis Works referred to on the AP Literature exams since specific Turnitin is revolutionizing the experience of writing to learn. Homepage; Ms. Online Textbook Information; turnitin. AP English Need help with a writing assignment?

Need help with that college essay? Come to the Lit Lab! Located in Not sure how to write a DBQ?