A Dynamic Process for Developing Performance-Based Assessments

1
A Dynamic Process for Developing
Performance-Based Assessments

• Dr. Louise Tanney, Maryland State Department of
  Education
• Elizabeth (Liz) Neal, Maryland State Department
  of Education
• Kate G. Rohrbaugh, ORC Macro

2
1995 Maryland Redesign of Teacher Education

• Component I
• Strong academic background
• Component II
• Extensive internship experience
• Component III
• Performance Assessment
• Component IV Linkage with K-12 priorities
• Maryland content standards are aligned
• Diversity
• Maryland Teacher Technology Standards

3
Maryland Teacher Technology Standards (1999)

• MTTS I. Information Access, Evaluation,
  Processing and Application
• MTTS II. Communication
• MTTS III. Legal, Social and Ethical Issues
• MTTS IV. Assessment for Administration and
  Instruction
• MTTS V. Integrating Technology into the
  Curriculum and
• Instruction
• MTTS VI. Assistive Technology
• MTTS VII. Professional Growth

4
MTTS Online Website

• www.mttsonline.org

5
Development of Performance Task

• Identify Standard and Indicators
• Identify Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs)
• Implement Promise of Technology
• Develop Performance Task and Scoring Tool
• Write Detailed Instructors Notes

6
MTTS IV Assessment for Administration and
Instruction

• Indicators
• Research and analyze data related to student and
  school performance.
• Apply findings and solutions to establish
  instructional and school improvement goals.
• Use appropriate technology to share results and
  solutions with others, such as parents and the
  larger community.

7
Pilots of MTTS IV (2001, 2005)

• Goal
• Check alignment of Task/Indicators/KSAs/Scoring
  Tool
• Evaluation instruments completed by
• Pilot Instructors
• Teacher Candidates
• Questions on student instrument
• Self-ratings of KSAs
• Self-ratings of Task Indicators
• Collected performance data from Pilot Instructors
• Held feedback session for Pilot Instructors

8
Findings from Teacher Candidates

• 46 were Proficient
• Self-ratings of KSAs were low at start
• 23 Knowledge of types of data elements related
  to student and school performance
• 40 Ability to reflect on student and teacher
  performance data to ensure continuous improvement

rating themselves Advanced or Higher
Intermediate
9
More Findings

• Changes in Self-ratings of Indicators
• 37 to 84 Able to research and analyze data
  related to student performance
• 28 to 75 Able to apply findings and solutions
  from data to establish school improvement goals

rating themselves At an Advanced Level or
At an Intermediate Level
10
(No Transcript)
11
Lessons Learned

• Task Revisions
• Create more scaffolding within task
• Align Scoring Tool more with Standards/Indicators
• Recommendations to Consortium
• Greater integration of KSAs into teacher
  education program
• Pilot with instructors outside of consortium

12
Lessons Learned continued

• Collect Sample Teacher Candidate Products
• Simplify Tasks
• Provide Answer Keys to Pilot Instructors
• Recruited External Instructors

13
Formative Feedback Loop