Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id iBFFgcU28419; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:42:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:42:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <00a801c4e2bb$e90bc180$203b7780@april> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "April L. Zenisky" <azenisky@educ.umass.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:821] A little bit about Universal Test Design and good testing practice X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; reply-type=response; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Status: O Content-Length: 3791 Lines: 62 Sure thing, Eileen. (Patti, Marie, and other folks, please feel free to jump in too.) Universal Test Design is an evolving approach to developing assessments that assessments that are designed and developed from the beginning to be accessible and valid for the widest range of students, including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency. Rather than thinking about making test accommodations that some might perceive as 'boosts' for individuals with disabilities or English language learners, the thinking here (as with more general Universal Design) is that universal test design is intended to apply to all test takers by considering the entire test population at the outset and throughout of test development. What are the actual skills and abilities being tested? How can all members of the testing population demonstrate their mastery? While the need for assistive technologies may not always be eliminated for all students, the approach is about being inclusive from the outset. I say that UTD is evolving because it really is an emerging area of focus for research in testing. There's been a lot of excellent accommodations research done over the years that has really set the stage for this, and increasingly there's an interest from the get-go in really thinking about the larger sense of fairness in testing and how that can be promoted to the greatest extent possible. UTD has a role in all aspects of test development, from test conceptualization (defining constructs explicitly and including all students fully) and test construction (developing items minimizing measurement of extra stuff (linguistic complexity, etc.)) to tryout (including full range in tryout), item analysis (complete statistical and sensitivity analyses to evaluate and eliminate items exhibiting differential item functioning), and revision. Here's a link to a page from the National Center for Educational Outcomes that provides additional links to UTD resources. http://education.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/UnivDesign/UnivDesign_Resources.htm As far as connecting principles and practices, Universal Test Design and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) are the specific texts that formally guide our work at UMass. One specific example comes from an evaluation I am doing right now with students and teachers at several adult learning centers in Massachusetts. Rather than making assumptions about the computer interface and environment that we are working in, I believe that the students and their teachers are _the_ source for informing testing practice. Our findings thus far (with students at a range of levels) are informative in every way. Another example is in working with the Massachusetts DOE and SABES staff on procedures for standardization of test administration procedures for the TABE, BEST Plus, and REEP. Of course while the publishers of each of those assessments has provided documents of administration guidelines, helping to communicating the importance of the "how you go about doing testing" is a big part of good measurement practice, to me. --april ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:07 PM Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:818] Re: guidance in developing job-related > April, > I had heard of Universal Design but not of Universal Test Design. Could you talk about that a bit? > > I am also very interested to hear how you see principles and practice connecting in your work. For > example, "I believe this and here's how it shows up in what I do" or "I do this because I believe > that." > > Thanks, > Eileen >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:26 EST