Abdullah pp fo art report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Abdullah pp fo art report

on

  • 831 views

Article Report ...

Article Report

On

“Accommodations for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in Large-Scale, Standardized Assessments: Surveying the Landscape and Charting a New Direction.”

Statistics

Views

Total Views
831
Views on SlideShare
831
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Abdullah pp fo art report Abdullah pp fo art report Presentation Transcript

  • UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE SGDY 5063 Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation Article Report (2) PresentationPrepared For: Prepared By:DR. ARSAYTHAMBY VELOO •ABDULLAH AL-MAHMOOD (metric no. 805016)
  • Article Report On“Accommodations for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in Large-Scale, Standardized Assessments: Surveying the Landscape and Charting a New Direction.”
  • BibliographyStephaine W. Cawthon. Accommodations for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in Large-Scale, standardized Assessments: Surveying the Landscape and Charting a New Direction . Journal of the National Council on Measurement in Education (summer 2009).
  • Introduction The writer described those students who are deaf or hard of hearing (SDHH) often use test accommodations when they participate in large- scale, standardized assessment. Standardized tests that measure student performance are central to how schools, districts, and states of USA are evaluated and held accountable through NCLB (No Child Left Behind). One of the greatest challenges schools face in meeting accountability benchmarks for student proficiency is the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their peers.
  • Purpose of the Study:The author specifically specified the purpose of thisstudy is threefold: To provide a brief review of factors that affect accommodations use for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; To present findings from the Third Annual Survey of Assessment and Accommodations for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing; and To consider the future role of survey research in improving evidence-based assessment practices for low-incidence populations.
  • Objective of the Study: The objective of this research was to examine the following research questions: Do educators report different levels of accommodations use (i.e., extended time, small group or individual administration, test directions interpreted, test items interpreted, and student signs response) for state-wide, standardized assessments in math and reading? Do contextual variables (i.e., grade level of students served, educational setting, and language used in instruction) predict levels of accommodations use for standardized assessments in math and reading?
  • Operational definitions:The operational definitions will be considered inthree areas i.e. Factors That Affect Accommodations Use for SDHH; Test subject; and Communication Mode.
  • Literature ReviewSome of the important literatures, journals andAmerican acts regarding standardized assessment,which are reviewed and used by the researchers aregiven below: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME) (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Cont.. Cawthon, S. (2007). Hidden benefits and unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind policies for students who are deaf or heard of hearing. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 460-492. Cawthon, S., & The Online Research Lab (2006). Findings from the National Survey on Accommodations and Alternate Assessments for Students who are Deaf or Heard of Hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 337-359. Cawthon, S., & The Online Research Lab (2007). Accommodations use for state-wide standardized assessments: Prevalence and recommendations for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advanced Access published June 21st, 2007.
  • Cont.. Cawthon, S., Wurtz, K., & The Online Research Lab (2009). Alternate Assessment use with Students who are Deaf or Heard of Hearing. An exploratory mixed methods analysis of predictors of portfolio, checklists, and out-of- level testing formats. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 155-177. DeStefano, L., Shriner, J., & Lloyd, C. (2001). Teacher decision-making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 7-22. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. N., & Schulte, A. G. (1998). The assessment accommodations checklist: Who, what, where, when, why and how. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31(2), 10-14.
  • Cont.. Gallaudent Research Institute (2005). Regional and national summary report of data from the 2003-2004 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: GRI, Gallaudent University. Helwing, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211-225. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. & 1400 et seq. Lane, H. (1999). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf community (2nd ed.) San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)
  • Cont.. Olson, L. (2005). Defying predictions, state trends prove mixed on schools making NCLB targets. Educational Week, 25(2), 1-27. Paul, P. (1997). Reading for students with hearing impairments: Research review and implications. Volta Review, 99, 73-87. Paul, P. (1998). Literacy and deafness: The development of reading, writing, and literate thought. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Schirmer, B. (2000). Language and literacy development in children who are deaf (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • MethodsThe survey format included multiple choice, Likertscale, and open-ended response items. The surveyinstrument was administered in two ways: online at the project website www.dhh-assess- survey.org (developed using www.questionpro.com) article versions provided to individuals with stamped, self-addressed envelopes for returned responses.
  • Sampling: Participants in this study were teachers and other educational professionals who served SDHH in a range of setting across the country of USA. The 389 participants in this survey served approximately 6,400 students. A total of 303, or 78% of participants completed the survey online.
  • Analysis: Procedures: Analysis for the second  There were five research question used accommodations investigated in logistics regression with this study: (1) extended time, (2) the forward method based small group or individual on the Wald-Chi squared administration, (3) test items read aloud, (4) test directions statistics. read aloud, and (5) student signs The grade levels in the response. analysis included  Each of these accommodation kindergarten through 12th variables was transformed into a grade (many teachers dichotomous variable: none of taught students in multiple the students served by the grades). That variable participant received the received a code of 1 = accommodation (coded as 0) or served. at least one student received the accommodation (coded as 1).
  • Findings The regular education settings had a higher mean percentage of SDHH with a mild hearing loss (M=17%) than schools for the deaf (M=6%) or district or regional programs (M = 8%, F (2,384) = 20.79, p < .001, ). In contrast, schools for the deaf had a higher mean percentage of students with profound hearing loss (M=58%) than either district or regional programs (M=37%) or mainstreamed settings (M = 22%, F (2,384) = 18.361, p < .001, ).
  • Conclusion The discussion concludes with thoughts about the future of the National Survey and its role in improving assessment practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Through its established network of survey participants willing to share their experiences about accommodations and assessment, the National Survey may serve as a vehicle to reach a sufficiently large and diverse student population for future research.