1. Participation
1.1. English language learner involvement
1.1.1. should be represented during all stages of test development.
1.2. Expert participation in test development
1.2.1. Design the testing system
1.2.2. Develop test specifications
1.2.3. Write and review content items and rubrics
1.2.4. Provide training to other item writers
1.2.5. Trying out items in classes
1.2.6. Evaluate forms for coverage
1.2.7. Make decisions about inclusion of items and administration
1.2.8. Score, report and make decisions about test use
1.3. Relevant expertise
1.3.1. Educators
1.3.1.1. Which students are learning grade-level academic content.
1.3.1.2. From mainstream academic classrooms
1.3.1.3. Working with students newly arrived to the United States
1.3.1.4. Working students' primary language is the language of instruction
1.3.1.5. With urban and rural experience
1.3.1.6. Working with migrant students
1.3.1.7. Who come frome the primary language
1.4. Student participation in small sample pilots and large sample field tests
1.4.1. should be
1.4.1.1. Involved in all item
1.4.1.2. Involved in test data collections
1.4.2. Differ in how they respond to items based on their racial/ethnic
2. Alignment Considerations
2.1. Standards-based education has promoted educators to pay attention to linkages among
2.1.1. content and performance standards, curriculum, institution, and assessment.
2.1.1.1. Achivment assesment (levels of mastery)
2.1.1.1.1. Basic, Proficient, and Advanced or Does Not Meet Standards, Partially Meets Standards, Exceeds Standards
2.1.1.2. Appropriate alignment of content standards
2.1.1.2.1. Means that the test and test forms might the emphasis
2.1.1.2.2. Depth (complexity of skills beign tapped within topic)
2.1.1.2.3. Breadth (content coverage) of the content standards which are being referred to in the interpretation of the results
2.1.1.3. Curriculum
2.1.1.3.1. While grade-level standards are inteneded to drive curriculum and instruction, it cannot be asumed that all children at a certain grade level are exposed to the same curriculm
2.2. Alignment and English Languagues Learners
2.2.1. If curriculum standards, peformance standards, curriculum and assessment are aligned properly
2.2.1.1. It appears that the results obtained from the assesment system should be able to be useded with confidence
2.2.1.1.1. Whether programs deliver necessary servicies effectively.
2.2.1.1.2. Whether educational agencies are educating students properly.
2.2.1.1.3. Wheter all students learn the content specified as important in the state or district's content standards.
2.2.2. Systematic error and alignment
2.2.2.1. Its relationship is related to a careful evaluation of the conditions and testing materials for all populations, incluiding ELLs.
2.2.3. To determinate the content standards and test aligmnent is adequate for English language learners
2.2.3.1. Evaluators need to determine whether adaptations made to the assesment system in terms of flexible tools to adress the students' needs
2.2.4. To ensure the use of appropriate descrpitors
2.2.4.1. Evaluators (looking at alignment) should find evidence that the achievment level description do not unduly bar English language learners with langugues or other challenge from being classified correctly
2.2.5. Evidence that should be include
2.2.5.1. Documentation of procedures related to item and forms development
2.2.5.2. Documentation of mathching, or how agencies determined which students got which forms and acommodations and why
2.2.5.3. Rubrics, rubrics notes, and scoring training that demostrates that the content of students' constructed responses is not inappropriately confunded with language mastery where English profiency is not the target construct
2.2.5.4. Evidence that achievemen level allow for students with different level of language to attain proficiency as warranted in the test score inference
2.2.5.5. Results of analysis that show that force-choice responses, correct and incorrect, are not funtioning differentially accross ELL subgrops and mainstream propulation
2.2.5.6. Results of other procedures and empirical analysis that determine that this population is underestanding, using, and demostrating test content properly.
3. TEAM AVENGERS
4. Test Specifications and Content Validity
4.1. Test Specifications
4.1.1. Also called frameworks or test bluepritns
4.1.2. They outline the content.
4.1.2.1. They prioritize the areas to be covered.
4.1.2.1.1. Include information about test length and format, item types, and reporting requirements.
4.1.3. Components of Test Specifications
4.1.3.1. Topic Coverage
4.1.3.2. Specifications of item types
4.1.3.3. Item difficulties
4.1.3.4. Cognitive complexity coverage
4.1.4. The Delaware Department of Education defined complexity in items as a function of four variables:
4.1.4.1. Approximate time required to complete an item
4.1.4.2. Item scaffolding
4.1.4.3. Level of generalization
4.1.4.4. Complexity of process
4.2. Content Validity
4.2.1. Documenting Content Validity for English Language Learners: The Access Specifications Package
4.2.1.1. Documents
4.2.1.1.1. Access at both the item and test levels.
4.2.1.1.2. They would also serve as evidence to demonstrate the content validity of test scores.
4.2.1.2. Purposes
4.2.1.2.1. Regulate planning and development in order to ensure acceptable levels of validity in score inferences across diverse students.
4.2.1.2.2. Serve as a formative evaluation tool from which to make midcourse corrections.
4.2.1.2.3. Provide evidence to document the level and quality of access across the test and test development and implementation procedures.
4.2.2. ACCESS SPECIFICATIONS PACKAGE
4.2.2.1. Acces-Based Item Matrix
4.2.2.1.1. Allows each item in a test form to be rated for accessibility according to the following criteria:
4.2.2.2. Accommodations Summary
4.2.2.2.1. Identifies and describes
4.2.2.2.2. Explains
4.2.2.2.3. The Accommodations
4.2.2.3. Description of the Matching Procedure for Assigning Accommodations
4.2.2.3.1. Summarizes
4.2.2.3.2. Recomends
4.2.2.4. Scoring and Analyses Documentation
4.2.2.4.1. These documents