1. ATIA 2009 Accessible Online State Assessment Compared to Paper-Based Testing: Is There a Difference in Results? Presenters: Linnie Lee, Bluegrass Technology Center, Preston Lewis, University of Kentucky 1

2. 2 Kentucky Investigation Enhanced Assessment Grant 2

3. 3 Kentucky Investigation Purpose: To fully evaluate the variables around comparability of the KY online accessible assessment to the traditional paper-based administration with an adult reader (oral) accommodation for students with disabilities 3

4. 4 Background: KY CATS Online KY state assessment is accessible online for reading and responding with a text reader (text to speech technology) State test available online for eligible students with disabilities since 2003 Includes all grades and test content areas In the spring of 2008, 2,421 students from 118 KY schools tested online 4

5. 5 CATS Online Basic Design/Accessibility Features Choice/variety of screen/text presentation modes Digital text readable with text or screen reader One question/answer per screen Choice of layout for Reading passages Alternative text for graphics Headphones for privacy and engagement 5

6. 6 Question: How does performance of online students compare to offline students statewide ? Are online students results comparable to those of paper students statewide that received an oral accommodation? Does the large difference in the “N” of two groups impact comparison? 6

7. 7 Finding: Online students scored lower compared to paper students statewide, but large difference in N of two groups Paper students with readers scored higher statewide across all 3 years (2006-2008) in most grades/content areas (although gap is narrowing) Large difference in “N” of students and schools statewide using paper vs. online impacts validity of comparison In 2008: 24,035 paper students with adult reader while 1,775 students tested online 7

8. 8 2007 Statewide Performance Comparison 8 2007 Online scale score averages minus Paper scale score averages Content Areas Tested Scale Score Differences by Grade 3456781011Average Reading-19.64-5.12-8.74-8.96-7.11-7.96-5.84 -9.05 Math-16.61-4.23-3.98-6.221.45-4.4 -4.17-5.45 Science -2.43 -4.65 -2.88-3.32 Social Studies -4.4 -4.29 -2.06-3.58 Practical Living/Voc. -3.87 -4.38 -4.68 -4.31 Arts and Humanities 0.1 1.42 -3.03-0.50 Grade N: Online29122135221257261248195 Grade N: Paper29903202331030192941276419401459

9. 9 Question: How does online student performance compare to that of paper peers in their same school? Peer Schools=Schools testing online and on paper Peer school analysis compares scores of online students to their paper peers in schools offering both modes of testing Peer school comparison reflects sameness of school culture, instruction and number of students (N) 9

10. 10 Finding: Online Students Scores Higher than Paper Peers from Same Schools Peer school comparison across grades and content areas shows online scores comparable to or higher than paper students from their same schools 10

11. 11 2007 Peer School Comparison 11 Online scale score averages minus Paper scale score averages Content Areas Tested Scale Score Differences by Grade 456781011Average Reading2.39-0.26 -7.89 2.51-2.10-2.08 -1.24 Math0.844.62 -5.86 1.500.85 -1.450.08 Science2.99 0.81 -0.051.25 Social Studies 3.44 2.08 0.441.99 Practical Living/Voc.2.59 -2.94 1.60 0.42 Arts and Humanities 7.36 8.53 1.225.70 Grade N: Online7186 158 1872107993 Grade N: Paper69103 138 24420617976

12. 12 Question: Are the accountability levels/rankings of KY schools with students online different from schools at large? Do KY schools at large differ in their accountability profile from schools with students testing online? Are “struggling” schools more likely to seek online assessment as a solution?

13. 13 Finding: Students Testing Online Twice as Likely to be from Struggling Schools 26% of schools participating in online listed as “meeting” state accountability goals 54% of schools not participating in online listed as “meeting” state accountability goals 68% of schools participating in online in various levels of “progressing” in school accountability 43% of schools not participating in online listed as “progressing” in school accountability

14. 14 Accountability Status of Schools With and Without Students Testing Online SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS OF SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN CATS ONLINE -2008 Accountability Status Number of Online Schools Percent of all Online schools Number of NON- Online Schools Percent of NON- Online schools Number of All Schools Percent of All schools Meets Goal3026%56154%59151% Meets Goal- Novice Reduction 11%23 Progressing4640%26525%31127% Progressing- Decline109%616%716% Progressing- Decline & Novice Reduction 22%444%464% Progressing- Novice Reduction 2017%808%1009% Assistance-Level 133%61%9 Assistance-Level 211%8 9 Assistance-Level 311%7 8 Total schools114*100%1043100%1157100%

15. 15 Question: Do the same students and schools tend to return to online testing from year to year? Does the population of students participating in online testing remain consistent across years? Do the schools participating in online testing remain consistent across years?

16. 16 Finding: While Most Schools Return to Online Each Year, Most of the Students Are Different 29% of students testing online in 2008 also tested online in 2007 71% of 2008 online students did not test online in 2007 70% of schools participating in online in 2007 participated again in 2008 30% of schools participating in online in 2007 did not return in 2008

17. 17 School Level Participation in Online year to yearN% 2008 online schools also tested online in 20078672% 2008 online schools not testing online in 20073428% 2007 online schools also tested online in 20088670% 2007 online schools not testing online in 20083730% Finding: While Most Schools Return to Online Each Year, Most of the Students Are Different

18. 18 Question: Did online students receive adult supports/accommodations to the same extent as paper students ? Textreader provided oral/reader accommodation for each online student Unclear if local decision-making always considered online students need for other adult supports/accommodations (e.g., paraphrasing, cueing/prompting or dictation) 18

19. 19 Finding: Online students received traditional adult accommodations about half as often as paper students Online students had fewer adult supports/ accommodations (e.g., paraphrasing, cueing & dictation) than paper students Online students provided these other adult accommodations performed overall better than online students w/o these accommodations While technology provides oral/reader accommodation, it may not replace need for also providing other traditional accommodations during online testing 19

20. 20 2007 Accommodations Distributions and Average Scores 8th Grade Math - 2007 – In addition to Oral Accommodation, Use of One, Two, Three, or No Paraphrasing, Cueing, or Dictation & Averages

21. 21 Question: Did online students’ reading of passages differ from students testing on paper with adult reader? Previous KY post-test surveys indicated students using a text reader were re- reading test items more often than when they tested on paper with an adult oral accommodation 21

22. 22 Finding: Study Shows Online students more likely to use text reader to re-read test items Data collected on 52 online students using textreader and 32 paper students with adult reader on “re-reads” of text passages Online students re-read rate with their textreader was almost twice that of re-read request rates by paper students with adult reader 22

23. 23 Rate of Re-Reads Per Passage (number of rereads per passage / number of students ) - Based on # of Students who Tested Frequency of “ReReads” Per Passage 23

24. 24 Lessons Learned: Further Research ● Findings mixed on whether online students’ performance differs from students on paper Unclear on extent to which performance differences may be due to adult readers’ influence Unclear of extent to which performance differences were a result of most students being new to online assessment ● Connection between accessible instruction and student selection for online was not always evident 24

25. 25 Lessons Learned: Further Research ● Unclear if local decision making always considered online students for receipt of other accommodations consistent with IEPs Need to determine the extent to which text reader accommodation was a routine part of instruction Need to determine why many students did not return to online assessment year to year, even though most schools continued participation 25

26. 26 Other Lessons Learned & Insights Technology accommodation in isolation of other traditional supports not always sufficient Great variability across schools in quality of hardware and student software skills Online students may read the test more independently and more often than paper students, but impact not clear Text reader consistently reads the same way to each student, while adult readers may not Adult readers able to provide supports not available to online (e.g., inflection), but not always appropriate 26