Unit 6, Education Assessment, Ch.10 Text Flashcards
(58 cards)
arguments against meeting standarized testing criteria
forcing teachers to spend valuable classroom time “teaching to the test,” meaning that teachers would focus on the narrow and ultimately hollow goal of passing tests rather than on broad educational skills and generalizable learning. The argument of many anti-test advocates could essentially be summed-up as “If there was no pressure to raise students’ performance to some federally prescribed level, then teachers would be free to teach in ways designed to promote better, more permanent educational outcomes.”
arguments for using standardized tests
-argue that tests may serve a variety of critically important needs. For example, standardized educational tests are used for screening purposes
-alert educators to students who may be at risk for negative, education-related outcomes—outcomes that may be preventable with early, effective intervention.
- standardized tests are indispensable for purposes of comparison.
-
formative vs summative assessment
formative assessment (i.e., data gathered to monitor student learning so that students can focus their efforts and instructors can improve their teaching). Summative assessment involves the use of data such as exams, papers, and projects to evaluate student learning at the end of the learning period
Common Core State Standards
These standards, which essentially set objectives for what students should know by the end of each school year, are packaged along with a computer-assisted testing program designed to ensure conformity in teachers’ teaching as well as students’ learning. The program, which currently sets standards for learning in English and math (with standards for more subject areas in development),
what is so controversial about CCSS?
-to characterize CCSS as “a set of standards” is, at one and the same time, both factual and misleading. For sure, CCSS is a list of standards by grade that must be met by the end of the school year. However, CCSS is so much more than that—to the extent that referring to CCSS as “standards” seems a misnomer. Viewing CCSS in broad perspective, it is a comprehensive, K–12 program for preparing students for college and work life—a program that includes as an integral component, extensive testing to make sure that CCSS objectives are met. = CCSS is really a program that was nominally presented as a list of standards,
-CCSS represents the expression of a singular vision for what K–12 education should be
-standardized testing becomes a primary vehicle by which students (and teachers alike) are rewarded and penalized.
-Practically speaking, the CCSS program would seem to leave little room in it for non-CCSS activities for the purpose of experiencing the sheer fun of learning or discovery
- go figure curriculum; that is, teachers are told what students need to know and what students will be tested on, but are left to go figure how to teach the required subject matter.
-Bill gates invested insane amount of money: Given the fact that participation in CCSS requires school systems to purchase and perpetually update expensive computer systems and software, the question of whether Gates’ contribution is more philanthropy or an investment has been raised
- controversial is due to the en masse, blind buy-in of so many states with absolutely no evidence that the program works. It seems fair to surmise that the participating states were primarily induced to participate as a result of federal funding incentives for doing so
CCSS controversy of cold reading
-s cold reading; that is, reading without the benefit of background information or context.
-dditional information would help the student become more proficient in the subject, yet Common Core disallows it. The standards cite no research supporting such a practice
age appropriateness and CCSS
, test items have been heavily criticized for being age-inappropriate, or otherwise inappropriate in item content
Response to Intervention (RtI)
specific learning disability (SLD)
diagnosed if a significant discrepancy existed between the child’s measured intellectual ability (usually on an intelligence test) and the level of achievement that could reasonably be expected from the child in one or more areas (including oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematics reasoning).
why is the definition of SLD bad?
By the time students’ achievement is measurably and substantially lower than their intelligence test scores, the student has likely already experienced several years of academic difficulty, frustration, and demoralization. It would be better to have a definition of specific learning disability that can be applied much sooner.
overlap: no known reading intervention that works particularly well for IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers that does not also work for poor readers with low IQ scores (Fletcher et al., 1998; Stuebing et al., 2009). For these and many other reasons, scholars pushed for an alternative definition of specific learning disorder that was independent of intelligence scores (Siegel, 1989; Stanovich, 1988; Stuebing et al., 2002). These scholars were partially successful. The IQ-achievement discrepancy model is still allowed, but is not required. Alternative procedures and definitions of learning disabilities are permitted.
Public Law 108-147,
specific learning disability is “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) changes to SLD use
no longer mandated that state-adopted criteria for defining SLD be made on the basis of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement. Rather, it required states to allow “the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention” (emphasis added).
rtl model
multilevel prevention framework applied in educational settings that is designed to maximize student achievement through the use of data that identifies students at risk for poor learning outcomes combined with evidence-based intervention and teaching that is adjusted on the basis of student responsiveness.
= Teachers provide evidence-based instruction, (b) student learning of that instruction is regularly evaluated, (c) intervention, if required, occurs in some form of appropriate adjustment in the instruction, (d) reevaluation of learning takes place, and (e) intervention and reassessment occur as necessary.
3 tiers of intervention in the rtl model
. The first tier is the classroom environment wherein all students are being taught whatever it is that the teacher is teaching. The second tier of intervention is one in which a small group of learners who have failed to make adequate progress in the classroom have been segregated for special teaching. The third tier of intervention is individually tailored and administered instruction for students who have failed to respond to the second tier of intervention.
multi-tiered system of support (MTSS)
rovides a broader range of services beyond academics to support learning and development. Services within MTSS include social and emotional supports as well as behavioral planning and intervention.
problem-solving model and implementing RTL
refers to the use of interventions tailored to students’ individual needs that are selected by a multidisciplinary team of school professionals.
integrative assessment
multidisciplinary approach to evaluation that assimilates input from relevant sources.
How does RtI insure that a childs disabiltiies are not caused by something else?
RtI is an important step in the process of ruling out that a learning difficulty is not due to lack of instruction, or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. Students with these types of disadvantages are oftentimes misidentified as needing special education support, when truly they were in need of specific academic interventions for a more short-term period. RtI seeks to close this gap.
Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic assessment encompasses an approach to exploring learning potential that is based on a test-intervention-retest model.
- dynamic assessors—especially when intervening with teaching, coaching, or other “guidance”—are hardly neutral. To the contrary, their goal may be to do everything in their power to help the testtaker master material in preparation for retesting. Depending upon the assessor’s particular approach to dynamic assessment, variations may be introduced into the assessment that are designed to better understand or remediate the obstacles to learning
-
Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD;
was designed to yield information about the nature and amount of intervention required to enhance a child’s performance.
zone of proximal development
“the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by individual problem-solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (1978, p. 86). The “zone” referred to is, in essence, the area between a testtaker’s ability as measured by a formal test and what might be possible as the result of instruction, “guidance,” or related intervention.
“Relatively defined learning experience” in achievement test
may mean something as broad as what was learned from four years of college, or something much narrower, such as how to prepare dough for use in making pizza. In most educational settings, achievement tests are used to gauge student progress toward instructional objectives, compare an individual’s accomplishment to peers, and help determine what instructional activities and strategies might best propel the students toward educational objectives.
achievement batteries
Tests that cover a number of academic areas are typically divided into several subtests
locator tests
routing tests, which are pretests administered to determine the level of the actual test most appropriate for administration.
