Alternate Assessments: A Case Study of

Students and Systems:

Gerald Tindal

UO

Context of the Study

• Seven states representing different regions of the nation (Northwest: AK, OR, WA, West: UT, Southwest: NM, Midwest: IA, and East: WV) participated in the study. Four states used portfolios (AK, IA, WA, WV) used portfolios to assess eligible students, while three states used other means (NM, UT: observations, OR: performance assessments). Across states, 81 teachers participated and responded to three surveys after administering one to two alternate assessments each to students ranging in grades 3-6: (a) a Language Perception Assessment Survey, (b) an Alternate Assessment Instructional Survey, and (c) a Project Participation Evaluation.

PLOP 1

• N. participates in oral motor exercises 100% however his ability to articulate has not improved. N. will attempt to produce novel words when given a model. N. is more successful at approximating words with stop sounds and with words that do not require air movement through a constriction (f, z, s, th). N. participates in vocabulary building activities by repeating words that are modeled for him and matching symbolic pictures. These words continue to be difficult for N. to generalize. N. uses a ‘step switch’ to participate in classroom activities such as the pledge of allegiance and book reading. He uses his Go Talk device to match symbols of novel words during activities and to make choices (recess). N. requires lost of prompting to correctly match symbols. He often plays with the Go Talk (turning up the volume, turning it off, and randomly hitting pictures) rather than use if communicatively.

PLOP 2

• A. is able to recognize numbers up to 20 and is interested in money.

• A. is consistently able to recognize coins except for the nickel. He is beginning to count by 5’s and 10’s and is at the beginning stage of counting by money.

• A. is working on beginning reading skills.• A. is able to read 20 words from Edmark

reading program with 100% accuracy 3 out of 4 times.

PLOP 3

LRG-Reading

LRG-Math

Language Facility

Language Facility

Language Facility

Language Facility

Language Facility

Language Facility

Language Facility

Symbols

Letter Names

Word Reading

Sentence Reading

Passage Reading

Comprehension

Findings

• Overall, correlations between teacher perceptions and student scores on both of the expressive and receptive tasks were strong, r = .73** and .76** respectively.

Findings: Exp. Vs. Rec.Task ExpAve. RecAve. ExpSD RecSDSounds and Symbols 0.38 0.68 0.26 0.34Letter Names 0.69 0.77 0.36 0.36Word Reading

0.28 0.50 0.34 0.39Sentence Reading 0.38 0.58 0.39 0.41Passage Reading

0.38 0.44 0.40 0.36Passage Comprehension 0.16 0.47 0.27 0.32

Findings

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Gen

eral

izab

ility

Coe

ffici

ent

D Study Number of Items per Task

signs/symbols ident'

letter names

word reading

sentence reading

passage reading

passage compreh'

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Gen

eral

izab

ility

Coe

ffici

ent

D Study Number of Items per Task

signs/symbols ident'

letter names

word reading

sentence reading

passage reading

passage compreh'

Expressive Receptive

Findings

• Teachers reported a high degree of alignment of the alternate assessment to state standards, curriculum, and instruction. Eighty-three percent either somewhat or strongly agreed with the statements regarding alignment.

Findings

• A much lower percentage, 66% somewhat or strongly agreed, was reported regarding student opportunity to learn the knowledge and skills required on the alternate assessment.

• Only 25% of teachers somewhat or strongly agreed that students were able to generalize skills from class to the assessment tasks much lower.

• Conversely, teachers responded that students had adequate instruction and practice toward the alternate assessment, with 90% and 88% somewhat or strongly agreeing, respectively.

Findings

• Seventy-seven percent of the teachers perceived that they received adequate training to administer and score the alternate assessment, though 15% did not know if teachers were highly qualified.

• Likewise, 86% of the teachers were familiar with the scoring system of the alternate assessment, though there was minimal experience administering alternate assessments, 69% had administered alternate assessments in the last year.

Findings

• Seventy percent perceived that, as an instrument, the alternate assessment provided students with a sufficient range and difficulty, and provided teachers with a systematic data collection system.

• Fifty-nine percent felt that the format of the alternate assessment adequately captured proficiency levels. A slightly higher percentage, 64%, felt that enough time had passed between alternate assessments, while 17% did not know.

Findings

• Finally, four questions addressed the reliability of scoring the alternate assessment. Approximately 78% of the teachers felt that the rubrics for the alternate assessment led to consistency among raters (teachers), but a slightly lower percentage, roughly 61% felt that scoring was consistent among raters or that raters agreed on the responses within a scoring session.

• Also, 67% felt that when discrepancies in scoring arose, raters tended to be lenient.