Smarter Balanced Assessment

Taking the Smarter Measure assessment allowed me to learn so many interesting things about myself, stuff I didn't even know. A fact that took me by surprise was the fact that i’m an aural learner, which means that I learn through listening. I always thought of myself as a visual learner, but being an aural learner makes sense since I have always correlated memories with music. One result that didn’t really surprise me was that I can read 307 words per minute, as a kid I have always loved to read. In elementary school, I used to read in a fifth grade level while being in third grade! Now when I read a book, I can finish it in either a day or two. My reading recall was at 70%, which to me, I think its bad. I need to improve on reading and remembering what I read, a way that helps me remember stuff better is if I read out loud a part of the passage that I think is important, which makes sense since I am an aural learner.

In Texas students test scored were being tested and compared to the use of technology in the classroom. They used at-risk students who fell into specific categories to be the test group. These were students who have failed this type of test in the past. One teacher received eight classes worth of these at-risk students and used technology integration every day. The idea was to try to link the use of technology to passing the state English test. By using at-risk students the author had a wide range of test subjects, which included: students with low grades, not maintaining above a C average, student is pregnant or a parent, in an alternative program, student dropped out of school, has limited English proficiency, troubled home life and has family issues or homeless. The author wanted to find out if a technology-rich environment had an effect on state mandated scores of students. Her test subjects were the at-risk students.

After reading chapter 5 from Reign Error I learned that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a terrible way to measure students academic performance because people don’t understand the scores. NAEP is a way of determining if American students are doing well or badly, it is administered to samples of students; no one knows who will take it and no one can prepare for it. The results of these scores confuse the public to what expectations are appropriate for the students. NAEP grade students using advanced, proficient, and basic, but these grades don’t represent students grades. The NAEP test score show that students have improved in reading and mathematics over the last 20 years. The book shows some graphs of fourth graders

The SmarterMeasure assessment is used by Jefferson College to assess whether or not a student is prepared to take an online course or a class where technology is readily used. The test analyzes five different areas of readiness: life factors, personal attributes, technical competency, technical knowledge, and reading recall. Within each area, sub areas are used to tell the student where their strengths and weaknesses are. A student is measured on a scale of one to four in each of the areas, with four being the highest. For example, a student scoring a four performs well with that skill, but a student scoring a one may want to seek improvement in that area before taking a college online course.

Originally the Standard Based Assessment exam was used from 2012 to 2014 in order to evaluate the students’ proficiency on content-based material ( ). Just last year a new testing method, the Alaska Measures of Progress testing in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing was adopted ( ). The shift from the Standard Base Assessment to the Alaska Measure of Progress was the Department of Education desire to have students prepared for secondary education or work placement expectations set for in the statement. The Alaska Measure of Progress exam are drastically different in questioning, scoring, achievement definitions, and score parameters then the preceding testing assessment ( ) This lack of comparison leaves the educators in a glitch as they try to educate their students in content-based material without having reliable proficiency testing results. As of this writing the educator will only have the snapshot of last year’s results to direct, guide, and implement their teaching strategies to facilitate the learning process in the classroom. However these test results scores are presently being debated in open forum to the public to set cutoff scores for the four categories in which the student will show proficiency ( ) . So without adequate guidance the teacher is hampered in their efforts to educate a diverse

155: Diagnostic assessment in support of student learning highlights the explicit exercise of power. Within this policy framework is the overt role of the teacher in student assessments. Upon careful consideration, the policy points out the parameters of student assessment as it states, “teachers will use their professional judgment…| to determine which assessment tools are utilized]…from the board’s list of pre-approved assessment tools as well as the frequency, and timing of use of the tool” (Ontario Ministry of Education , 2013, p. 1). The explicit exercise of power can be seen through the language of this document, noting that teachers should use their discretion, but at the same time limiting their power by the standards set by the ministry. Exceptions to this policy document are clearly stated, giving allowances for special education assessments such as the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and other national assessment organizations. Moreover, the policy also sets specific guidelines on the selection and criteria of the diagnostic assessment tools used by the teachers. Although the policy speaks directly to teachers and their use of the assessment tools, principals and school board staff all “share a collective responsibility and accountability for student achievement” and learning

According to “Interim Assessments” by Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, summative assessments are end-of-the-year assessments, formative assessments are “tools and practices that support classroom instruction” and interim assessments are assessments “used throughout the year to gauge student progress toward mastery of the skills measured by the summative assessments.” Both formative and summative assessments can be used to help teachers and students understand how learning can be improved while they still have enough time to respond to the results. On the other hand, the summative data collected by the end-of-the-year SBAC test is not returned to schools until months after the end of the school year. As a result, these assessments are

‘‘in any large scale testing system, three kinds of errors are possible: errors of test construction (items with more than one correct response), errors of scoring (items marked wrong when they are right), and errors of reporting (reporting that 50 percent of students passed when actually 75 percent did)’’ (Nichols 143). A manmade test is susceptible to typos and other obstructions. Since they are scored by machines, errors and malfunctions can occur. Testing plays an important in student’s academic futures and needs to provide completely accurate information.

In conclusion, based on viewpoint of objective-led processes Perry Lakes Redevelopment Plan already meets sustainability criteria based on Ecological Sustainability Principles (ESP). Objective-led integrated assessment is determined as a process that consider preparing aspirational objectives, rather than against boundary condition (Pope, Annandale, Morrison-Saunders 2004, 613). The plan considers implementing infill development process that manages land use of the site properly and establishes the plan by put strategic and statutory planning context as its foundation. Moreover, the plan adopts efficiency principles in order to maintain the resource usage and also reduce waste materials. Even the plan not explains estimated energy efficiency

In the 2017 school year, only 70.20% of West Shore Middle School students achieved their target (average percentage of target achieved) on the Mathematics Smarter Balanced Assessment. By the 2018 school year, 75% - 80% of West Shore Middle School students will achieve their target (average percentage of target achieved) on the Mathematics Smarter Balanced Assessment.

Key when it is of fundamental importance in gaining competitive advantage and is a make or break component in the success or failure of the plan.

The greater the competitive intensity of a given industry the more essential the four foundational elements of balanced scorecards become in translating expertise and knowledge into profitable performance. The BSC framework unifies and galvanizes the vision, mission and values of an enterprise into a framework that encompasses learning and growth, internal business processes, customer-driven innovation and financial factors of the business (Kaplan, Norton, 2001). Case analyses of the Tri-Cities Community Bank: A Balanced Scorecard Case (Albright, Davis, Hibbets, 2001) and Walmart Corporation illustrate how causal chain analysis is an essential component of a complete BSC strategy. The value of causal chain analysis is particularly valid for Walmart Corporation, whose business model is predicated on the continual operation of a smoothly-functioning supply chain that needs to continually translate learning into process improvement for improving the customer experience and profits (Park, Min, Park, 2011). Walmart illustrates how difficult it is to simultaneously balance the four perspectives in the balanced scorecard. Part One of this analysis illustrates through previous case analyses and research completed in this course. Part Two of this analysis defines and discusses two concepts that are essential to be successful in business administration. Part Three is s reflective essay on experiences taking this course in

As of now, two major shifts are occurring in K-12 education in the U.S. The new online end-of-year test, which replaces the old scantron multiple choice test, is proving to be the most challenging test of the modern U.S. Education system. School systems are rapidly upgrading their technology,

Computers have been used by teachers to develop test. Computers also generate score reports and evaluate both test takers and score users as soon as the test is completed in case of automated scoring, or within a week or two in case of manual scoring. When the number of test takers and the number of tasks become large, manual procedures become not only tedious but also more error prone. The role of computers in testing enables us to relate current developments in the field to what has preceded

This implementation of technology is widely used in other contexts. For example, the use of computers in assessment include initial diagnostic tests in colleges and higher education, theory driving tests, employment application tests, and qualification exams by awarding bodies (Russo, 2000, no pagination, Trotter, 2001:6) cited in Hoisseini (2014:661).