1. National Conference on Student Assessment June 21, 2013 CCSSO 2013 Presentation1

2.  One state’s model for using published authors to generate quality reading texts for next-generation assessments ◦ Michigan’s vision ◦ Process and training ◦ Authors’ perspectives June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation2

3.  Andrew Middlestead, Test Development Manager, Michigan Department of Education  Kara Courtney, Data Recognition Corporation  Michael P. Spradlin, Author  Shirley Neitzel, Author  Patty McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation3

4. —Andrew Middlestead Office of Standards and Assessment in the Michigan Department of Education June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation4

5.  Michigan currently has six assessment programs. ◦ Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) ◦ Michigan Merit Examination (MME) ◦ MEAP-Access (2%) ◦ MI-Access (1%) ◦ English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) ◦ Michigan’s Interim Assessment System  Five of these assessment programs use reading passages for the assessments. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation5

6.  Similar to many states, Michigan was purchasing permissions for contexts for all programs.  Leadership made a decision to charge the test development team with transitioning to 100% commissioned passages for all programs.  Michigan wanted to look to authors from Michigan to write pieces for Michigan’s assessments. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation6

7.  Cost  Ability to modify the pieces at the time of item writing and item review if necessary to produce high quality items and the required quantity of items  Ownership of the contexts (reduced effort in continually renewing or tracking copyright permissions)  Reduction in information transfer headaches during vendor changes! June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation7

8.  Michigan has its own item banking and authoring system (IBS). ◦ Includes a passage writing and reviewing module  Authors may work online in the IBS on-site where training takes place, or they may work elsewhere.  Authors may work in a word-processing system of their choice and then enter their work into the IBS.  Flexibility for the authors is key! ◦ The reading contexts are automatically in the same system in which items are written and tests are built. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation8

9.  Reduces information migration between various systems to get the context to the item-writing phase  Supports Michigan children’s authors  Provides for flexibility with the contexts, allowing Michigan to generate first-rate assessments for students  Reduces permissions cost and time June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation9

10.  Authors took some time to learn the ins and outs of writing for assessments just as item writers do. (“Why can’t we write about certain topics?”)  We learned how to create context-writing training and work sessions differently than we would for item writing (flexibility, space, open “check-in” opportunities). June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation10

11. —Kara Courtney June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation11

12.  List provided by Michigan Reading Association through the Michigan Department of Education contact ◦ Letter of interest ◦ Communications  13 published authors out of 23 committed to attend training  Over 60 quality contexts written within one month June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation12

13.  Writing for assessments  Context specifications ◦ Word counts ◦ Readability programs and other resources ◦ Content concerns  Bias and sensitivity training ◦ Topics to avoid ◦ Socioeconomic issues ◦ Other sensitivity issues  Technology training ◦ Web-based program June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation13

14.  Michigan Item Bank System ◦ Context authoring ability ◦ External access  Benefits  Challenges June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation14

15.  Provides rich text for students  Ownership of context  Relationships built with the authors  Cost-effective approach to passage development  Generation of topics for all Michigan assessment programs June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation15

16.  Published authors and assessments  Working relationships  Expanding the pool June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation16

17. —Michael P. Spradlin June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation17

18.  Educators/administrators are unaware of the authorial talent that resides in each state. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation18

19. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation19

20.  Who better to write about Michigan than authors from Michigan?  Authors work at honing their ability to engage readers. Writing for assessments seems to be a natural progression.  Economic standpoint—keep money in Michigan. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation20

21.  Usually work within guidelines, restrictions based on age of readers, reading levels, etc.  Authors are used to being edited.  Not all is new, but in some regards writing for assessments can be a challenge.  Working one-on-one with DRC and MDE staff June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation21

22.  On-site training  Individualized training for each assessment area (MEAP, ELPA, Access all have some similarities and differences.)  Ability to dedicate time and effort to the specific program  Receive immediate feedback  Writing two to four pieces a week  Assignments can be completed at home June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation22

23.  Digging into nonfiction topics  Bringing forward unknown or unique stories about Michigan and creating topics around them to engage readers June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation23

24. —Shirley Neitzel June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation24

25.  Published writers connect with their readers. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation25

26. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation26

27.  Local authors are “repository for arcane information”  Authors want students to do well on assessment tests  Authors appreciate the working relationship with DRC and MDE June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation27

28.  Training sessions are collegial  Assignments are specific  Topics are mutually agreed to before writing begins  Interesting, challenging work  Flexibility June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation28

29.  On-site training  Prompt feedback  Off-site work June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation29

30.  Supplemental income  Satisfaction of making a contribution to the education of students June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation30

31. —Patty McDivitt June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation31

32.  Benefits ◦ Developers can control for such considerations as text complexity, fairness, sensitivity, and freedom from bias, quality of writing ◦ Develops passages that will truly lend themselves well to items  Key drivers for success ◦ Training ◦ Item banking/authoring system ◦ Flexibility for writers June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation32

33.  With careful planning and commitment, the goal of using the work of published authors can be achieved. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation33

34. June 21, 2013CCSSO 2013 Presentation34