First, attendees brought up that there had been a state math test with constructed response questions (I believe it was CLASS) that predated the CST/CAP. New York has already used this.

The small group I had liked this question (as do I), but I think the video is crappy, and more likely to distract (the swimmers finish in the animation not matching the time orders listed). My specturm-y students will perseverate on things like that and make mistakes–I have one student who tries to take a protractor to the triangles I draw freehand on the whiteboard to figure out the “missing” angle measure, rather than just subtracting. I vote thumbs-down on tech making a difference on this one.

So, the question I had was is the tech worth it? The exercise I liked was Item 43051. Someone here may have commented on the calculator being confusing, but the thing that was interesting to me was that it would take a variety of answers in either fractional, decimal form, including un-reduced fractions. This is something that is not as easily handled on a paper/pencil test (although you could allow for multiple answers with a constructed response I suppose.)

I’m not sanguine about scoring by machine or by a roomful of temps. Frankly, I look forward to more and better formative assessment with Common Core, not these tests or frankly any high-stakes assessment. The only thing I heard that was intriguing at my session was someone sharing the idea that only a sample of students maybe tested at any given time, but that could blow-up in our faces as much as NCLB did.

I am happier about these questions than the current ones being asked on CST, and what SBAC came up with for ELA, and being able to adjust instruction to better prepare students for this change, but it will be an adjustment.

Problems lurking out there are the always fun “math wars” a preview can be seen here:

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/common-core-math-standards-making-the-simple-complicated/

I am trying to blog more about the implementation, as my district is apparently at the forefront of the roll-out in our state, and I’m part of a “leadership” cadre that is developing new curricula for ELA. Thanks for allowing me to see what others are seeing, doing, etc.

References that are worth Checking Out!
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Burkhardt, H. (2012, October 3). Engineering good math tests, Education Week.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2010). PARCC: Application for the race to the top comprehensive assessment systems competition. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.

Scalise, K. (2012). Intermediate constraint taxonomy: Open source assessment objects, from http://edfotech.com/archives/257

Scalise, K., & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing “intermediate constraint” questions and tasks for technology platforms. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(6), 4-45. Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org/

Shell Centre for Mathematical Education. (2012). Mathematics assessment project, from http://map.mathshell.org/materials/index.php

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2010). Smarter balanced assessment consortium: Theory of action – an excerpt from the smarter balanced race to the top application. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Scroll down until you see the link for “Technology Enhanced Item Supporting Materials (ZIP)”

It has both Math and ELA videos and templates of how students will use the tools to label number lines, partition shapes, create angles, etc. The folder is a hidden gem. I totally agree that the possibilities this type of testing offers is a step in the right direction!