Neal Kingston, DLM - Council of Chief State School Officers

Report
Dynamic Learning Maps
Alternate Assessment
Consortium
Neal Kingston
Project Director
Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation
University of Kansas
The present publication was developed under grant 84.373X100001 from the
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The views
expressed herein are solely those of the author(s), and no official endorsement
by the U.S. Department should be inferred.
State Participants
Let’s start with lessons learned
• When an assessment system is embedded in
an accountability system there will be
consequences
– Many teachers will narrowly teach to the test
– Some teachers and administrators will act counter
to their professional responsibilities
Let’s start with lessons learned
• Teachers need more information about
student learning
– Timely
– Actionable
How does DLM respond to these
lessons?
• Common Core Essential Elements
• Instructionally-embedded (and summative)
assessments
• Instructionally-relevant tasks
• Learning maps
• Dynamic assessment
• Professional development
• Technology platform to tie it all together
Common Core Essential Elements
Are:
Are not:
• Links to grade level Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)
• Downward extension to pre-K
• General essence statements
• Statements of content and skills that
• Statements of functional
provide a bridge for students with
skills
significant cognitive disabilities to
achieve grade differentiated
expectations
• Provide challenge and rigor
appropriate for students with
significant cognitive disabilities in
consideration of the significance of
their disabilities
Identify Essential Elements and
Create ALDs: Why
• Standardize meaning for users to
understand targets for learning
• Provide consistency in expectations across
grades and achievement levels
• Emphasize similarities in content learning
and skill achievement even though ways of
performing may be highly diversified
• Ground the alternate assessments in clear
expectations for learning and achievement
CCSS
Examples
Are
Essential
Too
Essential
Elements
Instructional
Achievement
Level
Descriptors
Assessment
Achievement
Level
Descriptors
EXAMPLES
8
Geometric measurement: understand
concepts of angle and measure angles.
Geometric measurement:
understand concepts of angle
and measure angles.
4.MD.5. Recognize angles as geometric shapes 4.MD.5. Recognize angles in
geometric shapes
that are formed wherever two rays share a
common endpoint, and understand concepts of
angle measurement:
An angle is measured with reference to a circle
with its center at the common endpoint of the
rays, by considering the fraction of the circular
arc between the points where the two rays
intersect the circle. An angle that turns through
1/360 of a circle is called a “one-degree angle,”
and can be used to measure angles.
An angle that turns through n one-degree angles
is said to have an angle measure of n degrees.
Grade 4 Mathematics
4MD5.
Recognize
angles in
geometric
shapes
Example 1. Label different types of angles in
geometric shapes.
Ex. Construct geometric shapes using
styrofoam and toothpicks. Then determine
whether angles are right, obtuse or acute
Ex. Given a square, determine whether the
angles are right, obtuse or acute.
10
Grade 4 Mathematics
4MD5.
Recognize
angles in
geometric
shapes
Level 2. Recognize angles in geometric shapes.
Ex. Teacher draws a geometric shape, student
will draw an arc to identify the angles.
Ex. Give students pictures of different
geometric shapes. Sing a song about shapes and
ask students to hold up shapes with right angles
(or acute angles...).
11
Grade 4 Mathematics
4MD5.
Recognize
angles in
geometric
shapes
Level 3 example. Identify an angle.
Ex. Presented with drawings with angles and
circles, point to the shape that doesn’t contain an
angle.
Ex. On the playground, identify as many angles as
they can see or feel.
12
Grade 4 Mathematics
Recognize
angles in
geometric
shapes
Level 4 example. Attend to angles in the
environment.
Ex. Use styrofoam and toothpicks to make
angles.
Ex. Bend a pipe cleaner and identify the bend as
the vertex.
13
Instructionally-embedded (and
summative) assessments
• Teachers need feedback on a timely and frequent basis
– About student learning
– About their teaching
• Students need feedback on a timely and frequent basis
– Modeling increasing expectations
• Two important questions
– Can results be aggregated for accountability purposes?
– How do we do this without assessment diminishing the
time for instruction?
Instructionally Relevant Tasks
• Modeling good instructional practice
– Set of activities related to a unit of study
– Student interaction driven by cognitive goals
– Structured scaffolding
Learning Maps
&
Learning Progressions
Progressions
• Vertical progression
toward learning target
• Sequenced building
blocks
• Research-based
• Linked to high-quality
assessments
Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1997).
Developmental Assessment. Victoria,
AU: The Australian Council for
Education Research Ltd.
Uses percentages to
make straightforward
comparisons
Uses the symbols =, <
and > to order numbers
and make comparisons
Uses decimal notation to
two places
Uses place value to
distinguish and order
whole numbers
Use numbers to decide
which is bigger, smaller,
same size
What are
Network of
connected
learning targets
(nodes)
Maps students’
“knowledge
terrain”
?
Compare two
quantities up to
ten using
models
Equal
quantity
Identify
more
number of
Identify same
number of
Use perceptual
subitizing
Identify
fewer
number of
Identify more
than one
Identify
different
number of
Identify one
Compare
sets
Explain set
Recognize
same
Recognize
wholeness
Recognize
different
Compare
objects
Imitate
Create a model
of quantity
Learning Progressions vs. Learning
Maps
Centralizes notion
of “superhighway”
Delineates multiple
pathways
Multiple Pathways ELA
Can identify
syllables
Demonstrates
receptive rhyming
Aware of same
and different
phonological units
as sounds
Demonstrates
understanding
letter sounds
Can demonstrate
articulatory
movements for
letter sounds
Aware of same and
different phonological
units as visual or
tangible
Maps were intended to be an Internal
System
Multi-disciplinary Team
Completes the Following:
1. Review of literature
2. Node development and
placement
3. Connection placement
4. Validation process
1. Review of Literature
Identify seminal
literature
Synthesize literature
with expert
knowledge
2. Node Development
Curricular
Cognitive
Development
Instruction
Node
(learning target)
In Sum….
What is the observable knowledge
(skill, conceptual, procedural, factual)
we want students to exhibit ?
3. Connection Placement
Connection = predicted
relationship between skills
 Single direction
 Multiple connections
 Represents integrated
approach to skill
development
Mathematics Section
Learning Map (Math)
Learning Map (Math)
English Language Arts Section
English Language-Arts
Learning Map (ELA and Math)
*Note – these will eventually be connected into a single map
4. Validation
Reviews
Internal
Teacher
Expert
Cognitive labs
Pilot study
Field tests
35
Dynamic Assessment
• Adaptive testing based on the learning
map, not some general unidimensional
concept of item difficulty
– Navigating within neighborhoods
– Navigating across neighborhoods
Professional Development
• On demand
• Multiple approaches
–
–
–
–
–
“Raw” PowerPoint version
Narrated movie version of PowerPoint presentation
Fully prepared Facilitator Training Packet
Self-guided version
Video examples of students with the most significant
disabilities engaging in instructional tasks
– Video examples of students with a variety of
disabilities doing similar tasks
– Sample lesson plans
Technology Platform
• KITE
– will be available to all participating states to
deliver DLM on computers and tablets
– Can be inexpensively licensed to deliver any other
assessments
THANK YOU!
For more information, please contact:
[email protected]
or
Go to: www.dynamiclearningmaps.org
The present publication was developed under grant 84.373X100001 from the
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The views
expressed herein are solely those of the author(s), and no official endorsement
by the U.S. Department should be inferred.

similar documents