Julie Quinn Computer-Based Assessments Specialist Utah State Office of Education 1.

Julie QuinnComputer-Based Assessments Specialist

Utah State Office of Education

1

27 Multiple Choice CRTs◦ Grades 3 – 11 English language arts◦ Grades 3 – 7 math, Pre-Algebra, Algebra 1, Geometry,

Algebra 2◦ Grades 4 – 8 science, Earth Systems Science, Physics,

Chemistry, Biology Direct Writing Assessment

◦ Grades 5 and 8◦ Plus formative tool available year-round, grades 5 & 8

Utah Test Item Pool Service (UTIPS)◦ Formative tool – USOE item pool and/or educator items◦ Available year-round to all content areas, K-12◦ Facilitates local benchmark/interim tests

41 Districts, 81 Charter Schools 530,000 students Lowest per-pupil spending in nation

Infrastructure 50% Windows, 40% Macintosh, 10% Linux Strong technical skills among LEAs

◦ Wireless, thin clients, multiplied workstations Utah Education Network

◦ ISP for districts and secondary schools, some charter schools

◦ Few elementary schools with a single T1 line

Year Participation Rate

Number Of CRTs Administered

2001-2006

4 – 8% Max 90,000

2007 8% 92,000

2008 50% 495,000

2009 66% 659,000

2010 80% Projected

815,000 Projected

Year Key Events

2001 All 27 CRTs available online

2004 UTIPS available online

2004 & 2007

One-time legislative funding, focused on hardware acquisition

2007 CBT Summit – to define state vision

2009 Change in CBT vendor

Year Key Events

2009 & 2010

CAT pilot available as local LEA assessment option

2010 Change in CRT development vendor (ELA & math)

2010 Shorter CRTs, embedded pilot items

2010 Text-to-speech pilot, embedded within CRTs

2010 Innovative item research & small-scale pilot

2010 DWA online with AI scoring

Hardware + Software + Test items & forms + Bandwidth + Local configurations + Student preparation + Test administration procedures

= Testing experience

It’s not just a new test – it’s an ambitious technology implementation project

Different skills needed to support testing◦ Cleaning answer documents vs. technical support◦ Different and more preparation prior to testing

Low tolerance for interruptions◦ Browser loading of pages◦ System interruptions

Aging infrastructure◦ One-time funding creates “bubbles”◦ HVAC, electrical upgrades needed◦ Participation tied to what is physically possible

Balancing innovation with stability◦ Item types and accessibility impact on system◦ What are LEAs purchasing? Can it be supported?

What is standardized presentation? PBT version of the CBT format Change in vendor/software LEA configurations (e.g., screen resolution)

What is comparable?

Year to year Form to form

Redesigning processes to be CBT-centric, while still producing PBT

Development QA timeline is different

Require industry best practices for software development and deployment

Clear communication with all parties◦ Assessment and Technology brainstorming,

preparing, and resolving problems together Plan for crisis management

◦ There will be problems◦ Philosophy shift to “not if, but when”

Set clear expectations for participation◦ What is voluntary? Flexibility for LEAs? ◦ Each school CAN do something

All efforts focused on lowest risk implementation

Solid LEA and school readiness checklists◦ Compare system technical specifications to LEA

reported configurations to what is actually used Strong support for issue resolution

◦ Separate policy issues from system training and technical troubleshooting issues

◦ Well defined tier 1, 2 and 3 support ◦ Local configuration vs. system-wide problems◦ How to respond to administration anomalies

Long-term vision for assessments◦ More options for validly assessing students

Students more engaged Student results in teacher hands faster Technology resources available to support

instruction CBT shines light on many issues

◦ Test administration processes and ethics ◦ Appropriate accommodations◦ SIS system and course scheduling◦ Better picture of technology infrastructure

More time to spend on what to do because of the data instead of generating the data◦ Automatic scoring & use of artificial intelligence

Increases assessment literacy◦ What do good questions look like?◦ How can we make our questions better?

Easier to tailor assessments to instruction and student needs

Encourages conscious alignment of individual assessments to curriculum, K-12◦ Why am I asking this question?

Julie QuinnComputer-Based Assessments Specialist

Utah State Office of [email protected]

http://schools.utah.gov/assessment