Language Arts
|
Printable Version (Acrobat 14K) Prototype Item RevisionAs all writers know well, rarely is anything written that could not undergo revision. This was particularly true of the prototype items. Following training and directions given by assessment specialists of CTB/McGraw-Hill, the item writers wrote approximately 80 items. These items were then examined and revised by MSDE and CTB personnel in order to give them greater clarity and to ensure that they did measure the indicators they were designed to measure. Attention also was given to readability levels of the items. The revised items were then assembled into prototype forms, but at no point did revision ever seem to stop. As soon as there was a prototype booklet to examine, content and bias review teams were asked to critique the items, and their suggestions brought additional revisions. What follows are five items that were revised for a number of reasons. In each case the rewrites resulted in better items. An explanation for each revision is given after the item. See the item analysis chart for additional information about items that were revised. Item 8 - Indicator 3.1.3
ReasonThe question of what is a modifier becomes tricky when considering articles. An early draft of this item had no correct response if the is included as a modifier. To keep the original question, the phrase other than the or other than an article would need to be added. If the term article is used in the stem, then why not use adjective? The answer to that question because it is the concept, modification, that is being tested, not grammar vocabulary makes the revision a better item. Item 11 - Indicator 1.3.3
ReasonStudents may not agree that any of the words quoted in the response options of the original version of this item create a playful tone. What response could they select, then, as the correct response? Being given a limited number of phrases to consider, as in the revised version, can lead a student to the correct response. Also, creating a negative question (All of the following except . . .) can be problematic for students. Item 22 - Indicator 3.2.2
ReasonWhile struggling to write plausible distractors, item writers and reviewers finally recognized that the connotative word in Sentence 5 was basic, not shelters. As a noun, the latter always implies a structure. Focusing on basic made it possible to write plausible distractors and a correct response. Item 27 - Indicator 2.3.3
ReasonThe answer choices of the original did not fit the Sentence Correction format, which states that a student will select the best revision of the underlined part. The first two options are not plausible as revisions because they are non-sentences. Thus, more than indicator 2.3.3 (revising for clarity, completeness, and effectiveness) was being addressed since the students would also be considering 3.1.4 (distinguishing sentences and non-sentences). Item 29 - Indicator 3.1.4
ReasonThe original version of this item did not follow item specifications for revising the underlined part. The correct response of the original is the only one that completes the given sentence including a period! The second and third options dealt only with the prepositional phrase. |