International trends in the education of students with special educational needs
Some Definitions of Assessment Accommodations and Alternate Assessments
Download 3.41 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 11.4 Some Evidence on Assessment of SWSEN
- 11.5 Formative Assessment
- 11.6 Functional Behavioural Assessment
- 11.7 A New Approach to Assessment
11.3 Some Definitions of Assessment Accommodations and Alternate AssessmentsBasically, there are two types of adjustments to nation- or state-wide assessments. Assessments with accommodations. This involves making changes to the assessment process, but not the essential content. Braden et al. (2001) described accommodations as alterations to the setting, timing, administration and types of responses in assessments. Here, assessors need to distinguish between accommodations necessary for students to access or express the intended learning content and the content itself. Alternate assessments. As defined by the US Department of Education (2003), alternate assessments are defined as assessments ‘designed for the small number of students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the regular State assessment, even with appropriate accommodations’ (p.68699). They refer to materials collected under several circumstances, including: teacher observations, samples of students’ work produced during regular classroom instruction, and standardised performance tasks. Further, alternate assessments should have: a clearly defined structure, guidelines for which students may participate, clearly defined scoring criteria and procedures, a report format that clearly communicates student performance in terms of the academic achievement standards defined by the State, and high technical quality, including validity, reliability, accessibility, objectivity, which apply, as well, to regular State assessments. Quenemoen et al. (2003) provided more detailed definitions and examples of the following alternate assessment approaches: Portfolio: a collection of student work gathered to demonstrate student performance on specific skills and knowledge, generally linked to state content standards. Portfolio contents are individualized and may include wide ranging samples of student learning, including but not limited to actual student work, observations recorded by multiple persons on multiple occasions, test results, record reviews, or even video or audio records of student performance… IEP-linked body of evidence: Similar to a portfolio approach, this is a collection of student work demonstrating student achievement on standards-based IEP goals and objectives measured against predetermined scoring criteria…This evidence may meet dual purposes of documentation of IEP progress and the purpose of assessment. Performance assessment: Direct measures of student skills or knowledge, usually in a one-on-one assessment. These can be highly structured, requiring a teacher or test administrator to give students specific items or tasks similar to pencil/paper traditional tests, or it can be a more flexible item or task that can be adjusted based on student needs. For example, the teacher and the student may work through an assessment that uses manipulatives and the teacher observes whether the student is able to perform the assigned tasks…. Checklist: Lists of skills, reviewed by persons familiar with a student who observe or recall whether students are able to perform the skills and to what level. Scores reported are usually the number of skills that the student is able to successfully perform, and the settings and purposes where the skill was performed. Traditional (pencil/paper or computer) test: Traditionally constructed items requiring student responses, typically with a correct and incorrect forced-choice answer format. These can be completed independently by groups of students with teacher supervision, or they can be administered in one-on-one assessment with teacher recording of answers. For useful descriptions of alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities, see Perner (2007), who gave examples of various States’ methods, such as portfolio and performance-based assessments referred to above. 11.4 Some Evidence on Assessment of SWSENIn a recent international review of curriculum access issues for SWSEN, O’Mara et al. (2012) summarised research on the assessment of SWSEN, as follows: Effective instruction for students with special educational needs requires regular assessment and evaluation (Yeh, 2006; Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, 2000). In the UK, MacBeath et al. (2006) concluded that curriculum and testing pressures, particularly at key stages, can lead to marginalisation of SWSEN. A need to maximise test results for school performance assessment means such students may be ‘disapplied’, either formally or informally, from taking the standard assessment tests. It is important that assessment should measure meaningful outcomes, not just those that are easy to measure Maddison (2002), for example, found that outcomes- based assessment could have positive effects on student progression in a UK special school. In their survey of all special educational needs teachers of students with severe intellectual disabilities in Finland, Kontu & Pirttimaa (2008) reported that up to 22 different methods or tools were used for assessing post-primary students, both as an initial assessment to devise IEPs, and also as a way of assessing the student’s progress Johnson et al (2007) reviewed high school certification (diploma) options for youth with disabilities across all 50 US states. They found that there were various diploma options available to students with disabilities across the US, including certificates of completion or attendance, IEP diplomas and occupational diplomas. Some states required students to pass minimum competency examinations to graduate, with accommodations for those with disabilities including exemption from the testing programme and the use of different standards or tests. These high stakes tests, however, which can have lifelong consequences for the student, have been criticised for being unfair or unreasonable for SWSEN. Nelson (2006) also noted that although high stakes testing could improve exposure to the general curriculum, because of increased work to prepare for the tests, parents and educators surveyed were concerned that such tests could increase stress for the student and limit their broader subject selection. There is some concern that assessing students with special educational needs using different methods or tools from those used for students without could be unfair on the latter (Brackenreed, 2004), or it may be unfair for the former if they are offered different diploma assessments or final certification programmes (Johnson, et al., 2007; MacBeath et al., 2006; Nelson, 2006). Thus, Brackenreed (2004) reported on interviews with 98 grade nine and ten English language teachers in Canada. In general, they felt that that accommodations made for testing students with sensory impairments, or accommodations allowing students to respond in alternative ways, such as providing verbal rather than written answers, did not change the nature of what was being tested and therefore allowed a comparison between the attainment of SWSENs and those without who did not use the test accommodations. Most teachers, however, perceived that alternative test formats that changed the nature of what was being asked, such as reducing the number of items on a page, rewording questions, and teaching test-taking skills, or making other accommodations such as extending time limits, or reading a test aloud, changed the nature of what was being assessed or contaminated the validity of the instrument. As a result, they did not feel these adapted tests were a fair assessment of learning outcomes for SWSEN. A survey of state directors of special education in the US found improved numbers of students with special educational needs meeting grade level proficiency. This is due in part to better alignment of IEPs with standards, increased access to standards-based instruction and improved professional development (Thompson et al., 2005). ‘Rapid Assessment’ (RA) is designed to enable teachers to identify where students need additional help before it becomes a problem and to give rapid feedback to the students. Yeh (2006) reported that staff from eight US schools (four of which were post-primary) who used RA said it had positive effects on the self-esteem, motivation and engagement, and achievement of all school students, with particular benefits in increasing achievement and reducing stress for SWSEN. Teachers of special education and emotionally or behaviourally disturbed students believed RA programmes helped them to handle the logistical task of meeting the needs of different students. The improved student motivation was because of the individualised curriculum, rapid feedback of results, and opportunities for students to feel successful; and having more control over their learning, which students found enjoyable. Improved student motivation reportedly reduced behavioural problems and led to improved reading and mathematics achievement, with about 80% becoming able to read independently, work independently on maths problems, or perform self-assessments. Douglas et al (2009) reviewed the international literature on best practice models to help blind and visually impaired children access the mainstream curriculum. They suggested that professionals should be cautious about using and interpreting mainstream assessment tools for students with visual impairment, and should use specialist procedures where appropriate, such as assessing Braille reading. The review authors specifically recommended that teachers should refer to the procedures described by the Irish Advisory Group on Reasonable Accommodations (2007) when considering the public examination access needs of pupils with sensory needs. No studies were found that assessed the impact of using the same tools or standards for assessment for SWSEN and those without special educational needs on educational attainment or employment options. No studies were identified that determined who should assess SWSEN, such as class teachers, SENCOs or teaching assistants; how frequently they should be assessed; or what should be measured. 11.5 Formative AssessmentAs might have become apparent in the foregoing, there is a tension between the need for schools to ascertain students’ level of achievement for accountability purposes and the need to take account of what is best educationally for SWSEN (Bauer, 2003). This distinction is sometimes referred to ‘assessment of learning’ (or summative assessment), compared with ‘assessment for learning’ (or formative assessment) (Harlen, 2007; Watkins & D’Alessio, 2009). If the purpose is to compare students against pre-determined standards, then the former is best suited; if the purpose is to improve learning, the latter should be used. Mitchell (2014b) has summarised the distinction between summative and formative assessment. Briefly, summative assessment is concerned with evaluating learners’ performances at the end of a module or a course. The results count towards making a final judgement on what the learners have achieved. Formative assessment evaluates students’ progress during a course or module so that they have opportunities to improve, and teachers to ‘fine tune’ their teaching. In its pure form, formative assessment does not contribute to the overall grade. However, sometimes assessment serves both summative and formative purposes. How one classifies the two types depends on the extent to which assessment leads to feedback that enables learners to improve their performances. The more it does this, the more justified is its classification as formative assessment. There is evidence to suggest that formative assessment has a positive effect on learning outcomes for SWSEN. Three US studies will serve as examples of such research. Firstly, in an early meta-analysis of 21 studies of the effects of formative evaluation, an effect size of 0.70 was obtained. However, when formative evaluation was combined with positive reinforcement for improvement (i.e., feedback), the effect size was even higher at 1.12 (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986). Secondly, a study using formative evaluation system with low-achieving students in a large urban school system resulted in significant gains in math achievement (Ysseldyke, 2001). Thirdly, there is evidence to show that teachers trained in formative assessment are more open to changing their instructional strategies to promote learners’ mastery of material (Bloom et al., 1992). Furthermore, it has been shown that without formative assessment, teachers’ perceptions of learners’ performances are often erroneous (Fuchs et al., 1984). Finally, in a related vein, in recent years, the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education has argued that assessment processes can either contribute to or hinder the process of inclusion (see various documents on the Agency’s website: www.european-agency.org )Thus, it has focused on what it refers to as ‘inclusive assessment’, which it defines as: an approach to assessment in mainstream settings where policy and practice are designed to promote the learning of all pupils as far as possible. The overall goal of inclusive assessment is that all assessment policies and procedures should support and enhance the successful inclusion and participation of all pupils vulnerable to exclusion, including those with SEN (Watkins, 2007, p.47).
In a review of FBA, 22 studies focused on learners with or at risk for emotional and behavioural disorders were reported. These studies comprised a mix of antecedent-based interventions, consequence-based procedures and a combination of the two interventions. Regardless of the type of intervention, 18 of the 22 studies showed positive results, with clear reductions of problem behaviours and/or increases of appropriate behaviours (Heckaman et al., 2000). The principles of FBA are not limited to behaviour, but in recent years have been extended to learning difficulties as well (Daly & Martens, 1997; Jones & Wickstrom, 2002; Duhon et al., 2004).
Molly is lots of fun. She prefers one-to-one attention from an adult at activities and will often leave an activity if other children come near or try to join. Molly loves music and movement and enjoys using the computer. Molly started school this year and attends her local primary school. She is in a classroom of 16. Molly’s strengths are her fascination with numbers and letters and her strong interest in books. Her school receives ongoing and reviewable resourcing schemes (ORRS) funding for Molly. She has global developmental delay and autism. Molly has motor planning difficulty, which means she needs support to work through a series of steps to complete a task. Molly has hyperlexia (a precocious ability to read words) but difficulty in understanding verbal language. Directory: Documents -> about about -> Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Prepared by: For the 30 June 2010 Foreword about -> Optus pre-paid mobile broadband service about -> Optus mobile broadband service about -> Optus Pre-Paid Mobile Service Service Description about -> About Ace Computers about -> About atlanta about -> Sir Francis Drake is a historic hotel near Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco about -> Optus ip phone Express Service Service Description about -> Autism Spectrum Disorders Download 3.41 Mb. Share with your friends:
|