1. Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium Neal Kingston Project Director Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation University of Kansas The present publication was developed under grant 84.373X100001 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author(s), and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department should be inferred.

2. State Participants

3. Let’s start with lessons learned When an assessment system is embedded in an accountability system there will be consequences – Many teachers will narrowly teach to the test – Some teachers and administrators will act counter to their professional responsibilities

4. Let’s start with lessons learned Teachers need more information about student learning – Timely – Actionable

5. How does DLM respond to these lessons? Common Core Essential Elements Instructionally-embedded (and summative) assessments Instructionally-relevant tasks Learning maps Dynamic assessment Professional development Technology platform to tie it all together

6. Common Core Essential Elements Are: Links to grade level Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Statements of content and skills that provide a bridge for students with significant cognitive disabilities to achieve grade differentiated expectations Provide challenge and rigor appropriate for students with significant cognitive disabilities in consideration of the significance of their disabilities Are not: Downward extension to pre-K General essence statements Statements of functional skills

7. Identify Essential Elements and Create ALDs: Why Standardize meaning for users to understand targets for learning Provide consistency in expectations across grades and achievement levels Emphasize similarities in content learning and skill achievement even though ways of performing may be highly diversified Ground the alternate assessments in clear expectations for learning and achievement

8. CCSS Essential Elements Instructional Achievement Level Descriptors Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors EXAMPLES Examples Are Essential Too 8

9. Geometric measurement: understand concepts of angle and measure angles. 4.MD.5. Recognize angles as geometric shapes that are formed wherever two rays share a common endpoint, and understand concepts of angle measurement: An angle is measured with reference to a circle with its center at the common endpoint of the rays, by considering the fraction of the circular arc between the points where the two rays intersect the circle. An angle that turns through 1/360 of a circle is called a “one-degree angle,” and can be used to measure angles. An angle that turns through n one-degree angles is said to have an angle measure of n degrees. Geometric measurement: understand concepts of angle and measure angles. 4.MD.5. Recognize angles in geometric shapes

10. Grade 4 Mathematics 4MD5. Recognize angles in geometric shapes Example 1. Label different types of angles in geometric shapes. Ex. Construct geometric shapes using styrofoam and toothpicks. Then determine whether angles are right, obtuse or acute Ex. Given a square, determine whether the angles are right, obtuse or acute. 10

11. 4MD5. Recognize angles in geometric shapes Level 2. Recognize angles in geometric shapes. Ex. Teacher draws a geometric shape, student will draw an arc to identify the angles. Ex. Give students pictures of different geometric shapes. Sing a song about shapes and ask students to hold up shapes with right angles (or acute angles...). Grade 4 Mathematics 11

12. 4MD5. Recognize angles in geometric shapes Level 3 example. Identify an angle. Ex. Presented with drawings with angles and circles, point to the shape that doesn’t contain an angle. Ex. On the playground, identify as many angles as they can see or feel. Grade 4 Mathematics 12

13. Recognize angles in geometric shapes Level 4 example. Attend to angles in the environment. Ex. Use styrofoam and toothpicks to make angles. Ex. Bend a pipe cleaner and identify the bend as the vertex. Grade 4 Mathematics 13

14. Instructionally-embedded (and summative) assessments Teachers need feedback on a timely and frequent basis – About student learning – About their teaching Students need feedback on a timely and frequent basis – Modeling increasing expectations Two important questions – Can results be aggregated for accountability purposes? – How do we do this without assessment diminishing the time for instruction?

15. Instructionally Relevant Tasks Modeling good instructional practice – Set of activities related to a unit of study – Student interaction driven by cognitive goals – Structured scaffolding

16. Learning Maps & Learning Progressions

17. Vertical progression toward learning target Sequenced building blocks Research-based Linked to high-quality assessments

18. Use numbers to decide which is bigger, smaller, same size Uses place value to distinguish and order whole numbers Uses decimal notation to two places Uses the symbols =, to order numbers and make comparisons Uses percentages to make straightforward comparisons Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1997). Developmental Assessment. Victoria, AU: The Australian Council for Education Research Ltd.

19. Network of connected learning targets (nodes) Maps students’ “knowledge terrain”

20. Create a model of quantity Recognize wholeness Identify one Identify more than one Use perceptual subitizing Compare two quantities up to ten using models Explain set Compare sets Imitate Compare objects Identify different number of Identify same number of Recognize same Recognize different Equal quantity Identify more number of Identify fewer number of

21. Learning Progressions vs. Learning Maps Centralizes notion of “superhighway” Delineates multiple pathways

22. Multiple Pathways ELA Aware of same and different phonological units as visual or tangible Can identify syllables Demonstrates receptive rhyming Aware of same and different phonological units as sounds Demonstrates understanding letter sounds Can demonstrate articulatory movements for letter sounds

23. Maps were intended to be an Internal System

24. 1.Review of literature 2.Node development and placement 3.Connection placement 4.Validation process Multi-disciplinary Team Completes the Following:

25. 1. Review of Literature Identify seminal literature Synthesize literature with expert knowledge

26. Node (learning target) InstructionCurricular Cognitive Develop- ment 2. Node Development

27. What is the observable knowledge (skill, conceptual, procedural, factual) we want students to exhibit ? In Sum….

28. 3. Connection Placement Connection = predicted relationship between skills Single direction Multiple connections Represents integrated approach to skill development

29. Mathematics Section

30. Learning Map (Math)

32. English Language Arts Section

33. English Language-Arts

34. Learning Map (ELA and Math) *Note – these will eventually be connected into a single map

35. 4. Validation Reviews Internal Teacher Expert Cognitive labs Pilot study Field tests 35

36. Dynamic Assessment Adaptive testing based on the learning map, not some general unidimensional concept of item difficulty – Navigating within neighborhoods – Navigating across neighborhoods

37. Professional Development On demand Multiple approaches – “Raw” PowerPoint version – Narrated movie version of PowerPoint presentation – Fully prepared Facilitator Training Packet – Self-guided version – Video examples of students with the most significant disabilities engaging in instructional tasks – Video examples of students with a variety of disabilities doing similar tasks – Sample lesson plans

38. Technology Platform KITE – will be available to all participating states to deliver DLM on computers and tablets – Can be inexpensively licensed to deliver any other assessments

39. THANK YOU! For more information, please contact: dlm@ku.edu or Go to: www.dynamiclearningmaps.orgwww.dynamiclearningmaps.org The present publication was developed under grant 84.373X100001 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author(s), and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department should be inferred.