ATIA 2009 Accessible Online State Assessment Compared to Paper-Based Testing: Is There a Difference in Results? Presenters: Linnie Lee, Bluegrass Technology Center, Preston Lewis, University of Kentucky 1 Enhanced Assessment Grant Kentucky Investigation 2 Kentucky Investigation Purpose: To fully evaluate the variables
around comparability of the KY online accessible assessment to the traditional paper-based administration with an adult reader (oral) accommodation for students with disabilities 3 Background: KY CATS Online KY state assessment is accessible online for reading and responding with a text reader (text to speech technology) State test available online for eligible students with disabilities since 2003 Includes all grades and test content areas In the spring of 2008, 2,421 students from 118 KY schools tested online 4 CATS Online Basic
Design/Accessibility Features Choice/variety of screen/text presentation modes Digital text readable with text or screen reader One question/answer per screen Choice of layout for Reading passages Alternative text for graphics Headphones for privacy and engagement 5 Question: How does performance of online students compare to offline students statewide ? Are online students results comparable to those of paper students statewide that received an oral accommodation? Does the large difference in the N of two groups impact comparison? 6
Finding: Online students scored lower compared to paper students statewide, but large difference in N of two groups Paper students with readers scored higher statewide across all 3 years (2006-2008) in most grades/content areas (although gap is narrowing) Large difference in N of students and schools statewide using paper vs. online impacts validity of comparison In 2008: 24,035 paper students with adult reader while 1,775 students tested online 7 2007 Statewide Performance Comparison 2007 Online scale score averages minus Paper scale score averages Scale Score Differences by Grade
3019 2941 2764 1940 1459 -0.50 8 Question: How does online student performance compare to that of paper peers in their same school? Peer Schools=Schools testing online and on paper Peer school analysis compares scores of online students to their paper peers in
schools offering both modes of testing Peer school comparison reflects sameness of school culture, instruction and number of students (N) 9 Finding: Online Students Scores Higher than Paper Peers from Same Schools Peer school comparison across grades and content areas shows online scores comparable to or higher than paper students from their same schools 10 2007 Peer School Comparison Online scale score averages minus Paper scale score averages Scale Score Differences by Grade Content Areas Tested
93 Grade N: Paper 69 103 138 244 206 179 76 5.70 11 Question: Are the accountability levels/rankings of KY
schools with students online different from schools at large? Do KY schools at large differ in their accountability profile from schools with students testing online? Are struggling schools more likely to seek online assessment as a solution? 12 Finding: Students Testing Online Twice as Likely to be from Struggling Schools 26% of schools participating in online listed as meeting state accountability goals 54% of schools not participating in online listed as meeting state accountability goals 68% of schools participating in online in various levels of progressing in school accountability 43% of schools not participating in online listed as progressing in school accountability
13 Accountability Status of Schools With and Without Students Testing Online SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS OF SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN CATS ONLINE -2008 14 Question: Do the same students and schools tend to return to online testing from year to year? Does the population of students participating in online testing remain consistent across years? Do the schools participating in online testing remain consistent across years? 15 Finding: While Most Schools Return to Online Each Year, Most of the Students
Are Different 29% of students testing online in 2008 also tested online in 2007 71% of 2008 online students did not test online in 2007 70% of schools participating in online in 2007 participated again in 2008 30% of schools participating in online in 2007 did not return in 2008 16 Finding: While Most Schools Return to Online Each Year, Most of the Students Are Different School Level Participation in Online year to year N % 2008 online schools also tested online in 2007 86 72%
2008 online schools not testing online in 2007 34 28% 2007 online schools also tested online in 2008 86 70% 2007 online schools not testing online in 2008 37 30% 17 Question: Did online students receive adult supports/accommodations to the same
extent as paper students? Textreader provided oral/reader accommodation for each online student Unclear if local decision-making always considered online students need for other adult supports/accommodations (e.g., paraphrasing, cueing/prompting or dictation) 18 Finding: Online students received traditional adult accommodations about half as often as paper students
Online students had fewer adult supports/ accommodations (e.g., paraphrasing, cueing & dictation) than paper students Online students provided these other adult accommodations performed overall better than online students w/o these accommodations While technology provides oral/reader accommodation, it may not replace need for also providing other traditional accommodations during online testing 19 2007 Accommodations Distributions and Average Scores 8th Grade Math - 2007 In addition to Oral Accommodation, Use of One, Two, Three, or No Paraphrasing, Cueing, or Dictation & Averages 20 Question: Did online students reading of passages differ from students testing on paper with adult reader? Previous
KY post-test surveys indicated students using a text reader were rereading test items more often than when they tested on paper with an adult oral accommodation 21 Finding: Study Shows Online students more likely to use text reader to re-read test items Data collected on 52 online students using textreader and 32 paper students with adult reader on re-reads of text passages Online students re-read rate with their textreader was almost twice that of re-read request rates by paper students with adult reader 22 Frequency of ReReads Per Passage Rate of Re-Reads Per Passage (number of rereads per passage /
number of students ) - Based on # of Students who Tested 23 23 Lessons Learned: Further Research Findings mixed on whether online students performance differs from students on paper Unclear on extent to which performance differences may be due to adult readers influence Unclear of extent to which performance differences were a result of most students being new to online assessment Connection between accessible instruction and student selection for online was not always evident 24
Lessons Learned: Further Research Unclear if local decision making always considered online students for receipt of other accommodations consistent with IEPs Need to determine the extent to which text reader accommodation was a routine part of instruction Need to determine why many students did not return to online assessment year to year, even though most schools continued participation 25 Other Lessons Learned & Insights Technology accommodation in isolation of other traditional supports not always sufficient Great variability across schools in quality of hardware and student software skills Online students may read the test more independently and more often than paper
students, but impact not clear Text reader consistently reads the same way to each student, while adult readers may not Adult readers able to provide supports not available to online (e.g., inflection), but not always appropriate 26
Funding: NHGRI, NCI, NICHD, NIDCR, HHMI, QB3, SU2C Data: NCBI, Ensembl, UniProt, Baylor, WUSTL, UWash, IMIM, OMIM, numerous other contributors UCSC Browser team: David Haussler - PI Jim Kent - Browser Concept, BLAT, Team Leader, Co-PI Mark Diekhans, Fan Hsu,...
Information Practices Act. Ca. Civil Code Section 1798 et seq. [iii] Ca. Government Code Section 11015.5 [iv] ALA Code of Ethics Section III [v] OPAC search logs (see also Web server logs below) Restrict access to search logs to library...
Block off any railing a child could climb over. Fix loose floor coverings & replace flammable rugs. ... Third Party Fundraising Opportunities such as the Brian M. Anselmo Foundation's Dancing with the Stars, KC CAN! Auction and Dinner, and Laura...
2002 ANHB Statewide Native Health Plan. 2004 ATHS Memo of Understanding. Alaska Tribal Health System Today. Shared advocacy lead by Alaska Native Health Board . One compact with Indian Health Service .
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)-Australia . As of : 11 April . 2017. El Niño WATCH continues; eastern tropical Pacific waters warm. The tropical Pacific remains neutral with respect to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO); however, there are signs that El...
Incidence of wire fraud has also risen precipitously—more than tripling from 14 percent in 2014 to 48 percent in 2017. This dramatic increase in wire fraud is likely a result of the increasing number of business email compromise (BEC) scams.
MedDRA Data Sharing (cont) For details, see the Statement on MedDRA Data Sharing. 000283. Core slide added v22.0. Data sharing is becoming a big issue in the new regions like China and we are going to have the subscription pages...
Arial Comic Sans MS Times Wingdings Times New Roman 굴림 Trebuchet MS SimSun Revised_Master Microsoft Equation 3.0 An Analytic Comparison of RPS Video Repair Introduction Outline Reference Picture Selection - ACK Reference Picture Selection - NACK Outline Parameters for Analytic...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!