Hello List,
  Can we call them AUTHENTIC instead of ALTERNATIVE, I know it's semantics, but let's have the semantics work in our favor. Anyway...
   
  This is how we do assessment at Turning Point: 
   
  We use TABE and BEST to report progress to our FUNDERS, and a whole set of assessment tools (including those tests) to report progress to the STUDENTS, the TEACHERS and the PROGRAM including:
--Writing samples
  --Portfolios
  --Attendance and participation
  --GED predictor for higher levels
  --Teachers' assessment of the student skill level. 
   
  I know that last one is tricky.  This is what it means:  If a student is breezing through the work in Basic Education 2, but bombs out on the TABE--the teacher can promote him or her to BE 3.  There is no Education Gain reported to our funder, but the student moves to the next level class, something she cares about more than her TABE score (usually). 
   
  I know it would be great if we could use Portfolios or other authentic tools to report programmatic gain, and maybe this discussion will push me to do more on that. But even if I do, it's not going to be recognized by our major (government) funders.  
   
  From Bruce Carmel
   
   
  

Kevin O'Connor <koconnor at framingham.k12.ma.us> wrote:
        
  st1\:* {   BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)  }      @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; }  P.MsoNormal {   FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"  }  LI.MsoNormal {   FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"  }  DIV.MsoNormal {   FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"  }  A:link {   COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single  }  SPAN.MsoHyperlink {   COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single  }  A:visited {   COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline:
 single  }  SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {   COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single  }  SPAN.EmailStyle17 {   COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose; mso-style-noshow: yes; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Arial; mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial  }  SPAN.SpellE {   mso-style-name: ""; mso-spl-e: yes  }  SPAN.GramE {   mso-style-name: ""; mso-gram-e: yes  }  DIV.Section1 {   page: Section1  }      Hi Marie, Bruce and All,
   
  These kinds of constructed response assessments are easier to build that selected-response, but MUCH harder to score. The REEP is one Performance Assessment with which many of us are familiar.  It is a standardized, constructed-response tool, and I think we can look at its statewide implementation as a bellwether of using more authentic, alternative assessments.  
   
  In Massachusetts, a lot of time and effort goes into standardizing scorers, initially and continually, in order to ensure that the tool is being used according to its design. Despite the institutional commitment of the DOE, it is a great struggle, perhaps even an act of faith, to ensure that all scorers are aligned.  We all know of cases where two scorers, reading the same essay and using the same rubric, show a startling disparity in points awarded.
   
  This is not to say that authentic assessment is invalid or undesirable; I fell that they are MORE authentic, valid and desirable... but we need to keep an eye on their reliability.  As we put forward the strengths of these tools, we must be ready to acknowledge and pro-actively address their limitations by diligently and thoroughly preparing these tools.  This is not as hard as it might sound: we must be sure that the tools we select are design actually measure the domain for which we aim and we must make sure that we use them reliably, i.e., with some standardization (which is NOT a four-letter word).  We can't just take them off the shelf and expect one size to fit all- that's what gave "standardized testing" its bad name in the first place.
   
  Every teacher designs assessments for their own class- I have a great presentation rating form, but it only works for the specific curriculum.  I'm sure that others have great things as well and I'd like to get ideas from them; what's the best way to get these out in the field, and discuss where they are appropriate?
   
   
    -----Original Message-----
From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Marie Cora
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:52 AM
To: Assessment Discussion List
Subject: [Assessment] Legitimacy of alternative tools


    Hi Bruce and everyone,
   
  Bruce, you said:
   
  “I think putting forth the strengths and legitimacy of tools such as portfolios, outcome checklists, holistically scored writing samples, etc is a good way to go.”
   
  This sounds like a very good path to go down to me.  I think people would have a lot to say and share about alternative tools, their uses, and their strengths.  It would be a great exercise to list them all out and discuss the strengths, uses, and limitations of each one.
   
  What questions do folks have about alternative assessments?:  using them, seeking them out, developing them, whatever area most intrigues you.
   
  What can folks share with the rest of us in terms of “the strengths and legitimacy” of alternative tools such as portfolios, checklists, analytic/holistic scoring, rubric use, writing samples, in-take/placement processes?
   
  Are any of the tools you use standardized?  Not standardized?  Do you think that this is important?  Why or why not?
   
  Are any of the tools used for both classroom and program purposes?  
   
  I have other questions for you, but let’s leave it at that for right now.  Let us hear what your thoughts are.  We’re looking forward to it.
   
  Thanks,
   
  marie cora
  Assessment Discussion List Moderator
   
   
   

-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Assessment mailing list
Assessment at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20060202/0c3c4a29/attachment.html