4 Assessment Delivery

Chapter 4 of the Dynamic Learning Maps^® (DLM^®) Alternate Assessment System 2021–2022 Technical Manual—Instructionally Embedded Model (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2022) describes general test administration and monitoring procedures. This chapter describes updated procedures and data collected in 2023–2024, including a summary of blueprint coverage, linkage level selection, administration incidents, accessibility support selections, test administration observations, and test administrator survey responses regarding user experience and opportunity to learn.

Overall, intended administration features remained consistent with the 2022–2023 implementation, including the use of instructionally embedded assessment in both the fall and spring windows and the availability of accessibility supports.

For a complete description of test administration for DLM assessments–including information on the Kite^® Suite used to assign and deliver assessments, testlet formats, accessibility features, the First Contact Survey used to recommend testlet linkage level, available administration resources and materials, and information on monitoring assessment administration–see the 2021–2022 Technical Manual—Instructionally Embedded Model (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2022).

4.1 Overview of Key Features of the Instructionally Embedded Assessment Model

As briefly described in Chapter 1, the DLM assessment system has two available models. This manual describes the Instructionally Embedded assessment model. Consistent with the DLM Theory of Action described in Chapter 1, the DLM assessment administration features reflect multidimensional, nonlinear, and diverse ways that students learn and demonstrate their learning. Test administration procedures therefore use multiple sources of information to assign testlets, including student characteristics, prior performance, and educator judgment.

In the Instructionally Embedded model, the DLM system is designed to assess student learning throughout the year and features flexibility in the choice of assessment content to support the timely use of data to inform instructional planning. Test administrators use the Instruction and Assessment Planner in Educator Portal to administer instructionally embedded testlets. Each testlet is administered after instruction in fall and spring testing windows so that testing informs teaching and students’ learning. This assessment model yields summative results based on all instructionally embedded assessments administered across both windows.

With the exception of English language arts (ELA) writing testlets, each testlet contains items measuring one Essential Element (EE) and one linkage level. In reading and mathematics, items in a testlet are aligned to nodes at one of five linkage levels for a single EE. Writing testlets measure multiple EEs and are delivered at one of two levels: emergent (which corresponds with Initial Precursor and Distal Precursor linkage levels) or conventional (which corresponds with Proximal Precursor, Target, and Successor linkage levels).

For a complete description of key administration features, including information on assessment delivery, the Kite Suite, the Instruction and Assessment Planner, and linkage level selection, see Chapter 4 of the 2021–2022 Technical Manual—Instructionally Embedded Model (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2022). Additional information about changes in administration can also be found in the Test Administration Manual (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2024d) and the Educator Portal User Guide (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2024c).

4.1.1 Assessment Administration Windows

Testlets are administered in two assessment administration windows: fall and spring.

4.1.1.1 Fall Window

Test administrators use blueprint coverage criteria for both ELA and mathematics to decide which EEs and linkage levels to assess for each student throughout the fall window. In 2023–2024, the fall window occurred between September 11, 2023, and December 22, 2023. States were given the option of using the entire window or setting their own dates within the larger window. Across all states, the fall window ranged from 6 to 15 weeks.

4.1.1.2 Spring Window

Test administrators use the same blueprint coverage criteria to make EE and linkage level selections for the spring window. They can choose, teach, and assess the same EEs and linkage levels as the fall window, or they can choose different EEs and/or linkage levels. In 2023–2024, the spring window occurred between February 5, 2024, and May 17, 2024. States were given the option of using the entire window or setting their own dates within the larger window. Across all states, the spring window ranged from 12 to 15 weeks.

4.2 Evidence From the DLM System

This section describes evidence collected by the DLM system during the 2023–2024 operational administration of the DLM alternate assessment. The categories of evidence include blueprint coverage, test administrator selection of linkage levels, administration incidents, and accessibility support selections.

4.2.1 Blueprint Coverage

Test administrators selected the EEs for their students to test on from among those available on the ELA and mathematics blueprints in both the fall and spring windows. Table 4.1 summarizes the number of EEs required to meet blueprint coverage and the total number of EEs available for instructionally embedded assessments for each grade and subject. A total of 255 EEs (148 in ELA and 107 in mathematics) for grades 3 through high school were available; 16,656 students in those grades participated in the fall window, and 20,883 students participated in the spring window. Histograms in Appendix B.1 summarize the distribution of total unique EEs assessed per student in each grade and subject.

Table 4.1: Essential Elements (EEs) Expected for Blueprint Coverage and Total Available, by Grade and Subject

	English language arts		Mathematics
Grade	Expected (n)	Available (N)	Expected (n)	Available (N)
3	8	17	6	11
4	9	17	8	16
5	8	19	7	15
6	9	19	6	11
7	11	18	7	14
8	11	20	7	14
9–10	10	19	6	26
11–12	10	19	—	—
Note. High school mathematics is reported in the Grade 9–10 row. There were 26 EEs available for the 9–11 Grade band. While EEs were assigned to specific grades in the mathematics blueprint (eight EEs in Grade 9, nine EEs in Grade 10, and nine EEs in Grade 11), a test administrator could choose to test on any of the high school EEs, as all were available in the system.

Figure 4.1 summarizes the percentage of students, for each window and overall for the year, in three categories: students who did not meet all blueprint requirements, students who met all blueprint requirements exactly, and students who exceeded the blueprint requirements. Across both subjects and windows, 98% of students in ELA and 97% of students in mathematics met or exceeded blueprint coverage requirements. The coverage rates were slightly lower in the fall compared to the spring.

Figure 4.1: Student Blueprint Coverage Status

4.2.2 Linkage Level Selection

Figure 4.2 shows the percentage of testlets that were administered at the system-recommended linkage level or adjusted from the recommended level. Test administrators may choose to administer multiple testlets for a single EE at multiple linkage levels. Because the recommended linkage level for subsequent testlets on the same EE does not change within each window, we only examined adjustments for the first testlets administered for each student on each EE. Across both windows, 71% of ELA testlets and 69% of mathematics testlets were administered at the recommended linkage level. The most common adjustment was to administer a linkage level below the recommended level. This adjustment was observed for 22% of ELA testlets and 24% of mathematics testlets.

Figure 4.2: Educator Adjustment of Recommended Linkage Levels

Based on the test administrators’ linkage level selections, Table 4.2 shows the total number of testlets that were administered at each linkage level by subject and window. Because test administrators do not select a specific linkage level for writing testlets, those testlets are not included in Table 4.2. For both subjects and windows, the majority of testlets were administered at the Initial Precursor or Distal Precursor linkage level. Additionally, there is a slight increase in the percentage of testlets administered at the Target and Successor linkage levels in the spring window for both subjects.

Table 4.2: Distribution of Linkage Levels Selected for Assessment

	Fall window		Spring window
Linkage level	n	%	n	%
English language arts
Initial Precursor	32,882	36.8	46,926	35.1
Distal Precursor	31,096	34.8	41,371	31.0
Proximal Precursor	17,970	20.1	28,002	21.0
Target	6,766	7.6	13,815	10.3
Successor	731	0.8	3,499	2.6
Mathematics
Initial Precursor	42,936	41.2	64,978	40.9
Distal Precursor	38,040	36.5	51,672	32.5
Proximal Precursor	18,176	17.5	28,700	18.1
Target	4,329	4.2	10,929	6.9
Successor	626	0.6	2,560	1.6

4.2.3 Administration Incidents

DLM staff annually evaluate testlet assignment to promote correct assignment of testlets to students. Administration incidents that have the potential to affect scoring are reported to state education agencies in a supplemental Incident File. No incidents were observed during the 2023–2024 operational assessment windows. Assignment of testlets will continue to be monitored in subsequent years to track any potential incidents and report them to state education agencies.

4.2.4 Accessibility Support Selections

Accessibility supports provided in 2023–2024 were the same as those available in previous years. The DLM Accessibility Manual (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2024b) distinguishes accessibility supports that are provided in Kite Student Portal via the Personal Needs and Preferences Profile, those that require additional tools or materials, and those that are provided by the test administrator outside the system. Table 4.3 shows selection rates for the three categories of accessibility supports. Multiple supports can be selected for each student. Overall, 19,290 students enrolled in the DLM system (87%) had at least one support selected. The most selected supports in 2023–2024 were human read aloud, spoken audio, and test administrator enters responses for student. For a complete description of the available accessibility supports, see Chapter 4 of the 2021–2022 Technical Manual—Instructionally Embedded Model (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2022).

Table 4.3: Accessibility Supports Selected for Students (N = 19,290)

Support	n	%
Supports provided in Kite Student Portal
Spoken audio	13,290	60.1
Magnification	2,717	12.3
Color contrast	1,911	8.6
Overlay color	615	2.8
Invert color choice	411	1.9
Supports requiring additional tools/materials
Individualized manipulatives	6,437	29.1
Calculator	4,274	19.3
Single-switch system	683	3.1
Alternate form–visual impairment	548	2.5
Two-switch system	214	1.0
Uncontracted braille	40	0.2
Supports provided outside the system
Human read aloud	16,458	74.4
Test administrator enters responses for student	11,700	52.9
Partner-assisted scanning	1,141	5.2
Sign interpretation of text	286	1.3
Language translation of text	142	0.6

4.3 Evidence From Monitoring Assessment Administration

DLM staff monitor assessment administration using various materials and strategies. As in prior years, DLM staff made available an assessment administration observation protocol for use by DLM staff, state education agency staff, and local education agency staff. DLM staff also reviewed Service Desk requests and hosted regular check-in calls with state education agency staff to monitor common issues and concerns during the assessment window. This section provides an overview of the assessment administration observation protocol and its use.

4.3.1 Test Administration Observations

Consistent with previous years, the DLM Consortium used a test administration observation protocol to gather information about how educators in the consortium states deliver testlets to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This protocol gave observers, regardless of their role or experience with DLM assessments, a standardized way to describe how DLM testlets were administered. The test administration observation protocol captured data about student actions (e.g., navigation, responding), educator assistance, variations from standard administration, student engagement, and barriers to engagement. For a full description of the test administration observation protocol, see Chapter 4 of the 2021–2022 Technical Manual—Instructionally Embedded Model (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2022).

During 2023–2024, there were 270 assessment administration observations collected in seven states. Table 4.4 shows the number of observations collected by state. Of the 270 total observations, 195 (72%) were of computer-delivered assessments and 75 (28%) were of educator-administered testlets. The observations were for 150 (56%) ELA reading testlets, 13 (5%) ELA writing testlets, and 106 (39%) mathematics testlets.

Table 4.4: Educator Observations by State (N = 270)

State	n	%
Arkansas	60	22.2
Colorado	4	1.5
Iowa	24	8.9
Kansas	43	15.9
Missouri	25	9.3
New York	17	6.3
West Virginia	97	35.9

Table 4.5 summarizes observations for computer-delivered testlets; behaviors on the test administration observation protocol were identified as supporting, neutral, or nonsupporting. For example, clarifying directions (found in 43% of observations) removes student confusion about the task demands as a source of construct-irrelevant variance and supports the student’s meaningful, construct-related engagement with the item. In contrast, using physical prompts (e.g., hand-over-hand guidance) indicates that the test administrator directly influenced the student’s answer choice. Overall, 60% of observed behaviors were classified as supporting, with 1% of observed behaviors reflecting nonsupporting actions.

Table 4.5: Test Administrator Actions During Computer-Delivered Testlets (n = 195)

Action	n	%
Supporting
Read one or more screens aloud to the student	125	64.1
Navigated one or more screens for the student	99	50.8
Clarified directions or expectations for the student	84	43.1
Repeated question(s) before student responded	44	22.6
Neutral
Used verbal prompts to direct the student’s attention or engagement (e.g., “look at this.”)	63	32.3
Used pointing or gestures to direct student attention or engagement	60	30.8
Entered one or more responses for the student	42	21.5
Used materials or manipulatives during the administration process	23	11.8
Allowed student to take a break during the testlet	16	8.2
Asked the student to clarify or confirm one or more responses	15	7.7
Repeated question(s) after student responded (gave a second trial at the same item)	11	5.6
Nonsupporting
Physically guided the student to a response	4	2.1
Reduced the number of answer choices available to the student	0	0.0
Note. Respondents could select multiple responses to this question.

For DLM assessments, interaction with the system includes interaction with the assessment content as well as physical access to the testing device and platform. The fact that educators navigated one or more screens in 51% of the observations does not necessarily indicate the student was prevented from engaging with the assessment content as independently as possible. Depending on the student, test administrator navigation may either support or minimize students’ independent, physical interaction with the assessment system. While not the same as interfering with students’ interaction with the content of the assessment, navigating for students who are able to do so independently conflicts with the assumption that students are able to interact with the system as intended. The observation protocol did not capture why the test administrator chose to navigate, and the reason was not always obvious.

Observations of student actions taken during computer-delivered testlets are summarized in Table 4.6. Independent response selection was observed in 58% of the cases. Nonindependent response selection may include allowable practices, such as test administrators entering responses for the student. The use of materials outside of Kite Student Portal was seen in 6% of the observations. Verbal prompts for navigation and response selection are strategies within the realm of allowable flexibility during test administration. These strategies, which are commonly used during direct instruction for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, are used to maximize student engagement with the system and promote the type of student-item interaction needed for a construct-relevant response. However, they also indicate that students were not able to sustain independent interaction with the system throughout the entire testlet.

Table 4.6: Student Actions During Computer-Delivered Testlets (n = 195)

Action	n	%
Selected answers independently	114	58.5
Navigated screens independently	90	46.2
Selected answers after verbal prompts	57	29.2
Navigated screens after verbal prompts	51	26.2
Navigated screens after test administrator pointed or gestured	29	14.9
Asked the test administrator a question	14	7.2
Used materials outside of Kite Student Portal to indicate responses to testlet items	11	5.6
Revisited one or more questions after verbal prompt(s)	7	3.6
Skipped one or more items	4	2.1
Independently revisited a question after answering it	2	1.0
Note. Respondents could select multiple responses to this question.

Observers noted whether there was difficulty with accessibility supports (including lack of appropriate available supports) during observations of educator-administered testlets. Of the 75 observations of educator-administered testlets, observers noted difficulty in four cases (5%). For computer-delivered testlets, observers noted students who indicated responses to items using varied response modes such as gesturing (22%) and using manipulatives or materials outside of the Kite system (6%). Of the 270 test administration observations collected, students completed the full testlet in 194 cases (72%).⁵ In all instances where the testlet was not completed, no reason was provided by the observer.

Finally, DLM assessment administration observation intends for test administrators to enter student responses with fidelity, including across multiple modes of communication, such as verbal, gesture, and eye gaze. Table 4.7 summarizes students’ response modes for educator-administered testlets. The most frequently observed behavior was gestured to indicate response to test administrator who selected answers.

Table 4.7: Primary Response Mode for Educator-Administered Testlets (n = 75)

Response mode	n	%
Gestured to indicate response to test administrator who selected answers	45	60.0
Verbally indicated response to test administrator who selected answers	24	32.0
No observable response mode	11	14.7
Eye gaze system indication to test administrator who selected answers	3	4.0
Note. Respondents could select multiple responses to this question.

Observations of computer-delivered testlets when test administrators entered responses on behalf of students provided another opportunity to confirm fidelity of response entry. This support is recorded on the Personal Needs and Preferences Profile and is recommended for a variety of situations (e.g., students who have limited motor skills and cannot interact directly with the testing device even though they can cognitively interact with the onscreen content). Observers recorded whether the response entered by the test administrator matched the student’s response. In 42 of 195 (22%) observations of computer-delivered testlets, the test administrator entered responses on the student’s behalf. In 41 (98%) of those cases, observers indicated that the entered response matched the student’s response, while the remaining observer responded that they could not tell if the entered response matched the student’s response.

4.4 Evidence From Test Administrators

This section describes evidence collected from the spring 2024 test administrator survey. Test administrators receive one survey per rostered DLM student, which annually collects information about that student’s assessment experience. As in previous years, the survey was distributed to test administrators in Kite Student Portal, where students completed assessments. Instructions indicated the test administrator should complete the survey after administration of the spring assessment; however, users can complete the survey at any time. The survey consisted of three blocks. Blocks 1 and 3 were administered in every survey. Block 1 included questions about the test administrator’s perceptions of the assessments and the student’s interaction with the content. Block 3 included questions about the test administrator’s background, to be completed once per administrator. Block 2 was spiraled, so test administrators received one randomly assigned section. In these sections, test administrators responded to questions about a single topic (e.g., relationship of the assessment to ELA, mathematics, or science instruction).

4.4.1 User Experience With the DLM System

A total of 3,927 test administrators (61%) responded to the survey about 9,733 students’ experiences. Test administrators are instructed to respond to the survey separately for each of their students. Participating test administrators responded to surveys for between 1 and 22 students, with a median of 2 students. Test administrators most commonly reported having 11 to 20 years of experience in ELA, 11 to 20 years in mathematics, and 2 to 5 years teaching students with significant cognitive disabilities. Most of the survey respondents (73%) were the student’s primary teacher in the subject assessed, while other respondents included case managers (16%), other teachers (7%), and others (5%).

The following sections summarize responses regarding both educator and student experiences with the DLM system.

4.4.1.1 Educator Experience

Test administrators were asked to reflect on their own experience with the assessments as well as their comfort level and knowledge administering them. Most of the questions required test administrators to respond on a 4-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. Table 4.8 summarizes responses.

Nearly all test administrators (93%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were confident administering DLM testlets. Most respondents (88%) agreed or strongly agreed that Required Test Administrator Training prepared them for their responsibilities as test administrators. Most test administrators agreed or strongly agreed that they had access to curriculum aligned with the content that was measured by the assessments (86%) and that they used the manuals and the Educator Resource Page (89%).

Table 4.8: Test Administrator Responses Regarding Test Administration

	SD		D		A		SA		A+SA
Statement	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
I was confident in my ability to deliver DLM testlets.	50	1.4	194	5.3	1,828	50.4	1,557	42.9	3,385	93.3
Required Test Administrator Training prepared me for the responsibilities of a test administrator.	105	2.9	345	9.5	1,911	52.7	1,264	34.9	3,175	87.6
I have access to curriculum aligned with the content measured by DLM assessments.	121	3.3	391	10.8	1,984	54.8	1,124	31.0	3,108	85.8
I used manuals and/or the DLM Educator Resource Page materials.	73	2.0	311	8.6	2,136	58.9	1,105	30.5	3,241	89.4
Note. SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; A = agree; SA = strongly agree; A+SA = agree and strongly agree.

4.4.1.2 Student Experience

The spring 2024 test administrator survey included three items about how students responded to test items. Test administrators were asked to rate statements from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Table 4.9 presents the results. For the majority of students, test administrators agreed or strongly agreed that their students responded to items to the best of their knowledge, skills, and understandings; were able to respond regardless of disability, behavior, or health concerns; and had access to all necessary supports to participate.

Table 4.9: Test Administrator Perceptions of Student Experience with Testlets

	SD		D		A		SA		A+SA
Statement	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Student responded to items to the best of their knowledge, skills, and understanding.	339	3.7	700	7.7	4,914	53.9	3,157	34.7	8,071	88.6
Student was able to respond regardless of their disability, behavior, or health concerns.	660	7.2	867	9.5	4,722	51.7	2,888	31.6	7,610	83.3
Student had access to all necessary supports to participate.	320	3.5	478	5.3	4,990	54.8	3,310	36.4	8,300	91.2
Note. SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; A = agree; SA = strongly agree; A+SA = agree and strongly agree.

Annual survey results show that a small percentage of test administrators disagree that their student was able to respond regardless of disability, behavior, or health concerns; had access to all necessary supports; and was able to effectively use supports.

4.4.2 Opportunity to Learn

The spring 2024 test administrator survey also included items about students’ opportunity to learn. Table 4.10 reports the opportunity to learn results.

Approximately 77% of responses (n = 7,024) reported that most or all ELA testlets matched instruction, compared to 73% (n = 6,550) for mathematics.

Table 4.10: Educator Ratings of Portion of Testlets That Matched Instruction

	None		Some (<half)		Most (>half)		All		Not applicable
Subject	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
English language arts	377	4.1	1,599	17.5	3,366	36.7	3,658	39.9	161	1.8
Mathematics	381	4.2	1,828	20.2	3,267	36.2	3,283	36.4	270	3.0

A subset of test administrators was asked to indicate the approximate number of hours in total spent instructing students on each of the conceptual areas by subject (i.e., ELA, mathematics) during the 2023–2024 year. Test administrators responded using a 6-point scale: 0 hours, 1–5 hours, 6–10 hours, 11–15 hours, 16–20 hours, or more than 20 hours. Table 4.11 and Table 4.12 indicate the amount of instructional time spent on conceptual areas for ELA and mathematics, respectively. On average, 41% of the test administrators provided at least 11 hours of instruction per conceptual area to their students in ELA, compared to 39% in mathematics.

Table 4.11: Instructional Time Spent on English Language Arts Conceptual Areas

	Number of hours
		0		1–5		6–10		11–15		16–20		>20
Conceptual area	Median	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Determine critical elements of text	6–10	55	5.5	267	26.7	181	18.1	159	15.9	115	11.5	222	22.2
Construct understandings of text	6–10	109	11.0	251	25.3	206	20.8	153	15.4	116	11.7	157	15.8
Integrate ideas and information from text	6–10	115	11.6	267	27.0	200	20.2	147	14.9	115	11.6	144	14.6
Use writing to communicate	6–10	145	14.7	246	24.9	196	19.8	136	13.8	108	10.9	157	15.9
Integrate ideas and information in writing	6–10	174	17.6	270	27.4	190	19.3	122	12.4	105	10.6	125	12.7
Use language to communicate with others	11–15	68	6.9	213	21.6	209	21.2	136	13.8	142	14.4	218	22.1
Clarify and contribute in discussion	6–10	105	10.6	241	24.4	196	19.9	133	13.5	147	14.9	165	16.7
Use sources and information	6–10	240	24.2	254	25.7	171	17.3	132	13.3	94	9.5	99	10.0
Collaborate and present ideas	1–5	234	23.7	267	27.0	172	17.4	112	11.3	91	9.2	113	11.4

Table 4.12: Instructional Time Spent on Mathematics Conceptual Areas

	Number of hours
		0		1–5		6–10		11–15		16–20		>20
Conceptual area	Median	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Understand number structures (counting, place value, fraction)	11–15	124	6.3	436	22.1	351	17.8	257	13.0	232	11.8	572	29.0
Compare, compose, and decompose numbers and steps	6–10	285	14.6	475	24.3	338	17.3	284	14.5	251	12.9	319	16.3
Calculate accurately and efficiently using simple arithmetic operations	6–10	259	13.3	441	22.7	329	16.9	270	13.9	232	11.9	416	21.4
Understand and use geometric properties of two- and three-dimensional shapes	6–10	323	16.6	571	29.3	372	19.1	257	13.2	205	10.5	219	11.2
Solve problems involving area, perimeter, and volume	1–5	585	30.2	517	26.7	296	15.3	224	11.6	150	7.8	163	8.4
Understand and use measurement principles and units of measure	1–5	400	20.7	597	30.9	339	17.5	243	12.6	174	9.0	181	9.4
Represent and interpret data displays	6–10	406	20.9	533	27.5	348	17.9	253	13.0	195	10.1	204	10.5
Use operations and models to solve problems	6–10	324	16.6	475	24.3	337	17.3	268	13.7	211	10.8	336	17.2
Understand patterns and functional thinking	6–10	197	10.1	578	29.5	408	20.8	279	14.3	227	11.6	268	13.7

Another dimension of opportunity to learn is student engagement during instruction. The First Contact Survey contains two questions that ask educators to rate student engagement during computer- and educator-directed instruction. Table 4.13 shows the percentage of students who were rated as demonstrating different levels of attention by instruction type. Overall, 86% of students demonstrate fleeting or sustained attention to computer-directed instruction and 83% of students demonstrate fleeting or sustained attention to educator-directed instruction.

Table 4.13: Student Attention Levels During Instruction

	Demonstrates little or no attention		Demonstrates fleeting attention		Generally sustains attention
Type of instruction	n	%	n	%	n	%
Computer-directed (n = 18,772)	2,539	13.5	9,243	49.2	6,990	37.2
Educator-directed (n = 19,839)	3,454	17.4	11,554	58.2	4,831	24.4

The 2024 teacher survey included new questions asking teachers to indicate the type of instructional activity/task and level of assistance they provided to students during reading, writing, and mathematics instruction. These questions were designed to gather evidence of performance expectations and student engagement, two dimensions of opportunity to learn. Teachers were asked to consider how students demonstrated thinking and learning in the subject area and to indicate their expectations for the student. For each instructional activity, teachers indicated the level of assistance they provided to the student: independent (no assistance), verbal, gestural, modeling, or physical assistance.

Table 4.14, Table 4.15, and Table 4.16 show the frequency of each combination of performance expectations and level of assistance in ELA (reading), ELA (writing), and mathematics. In all subjects, there is wide variability in teachers’ expectations for students, suggesting that some students had opportunities to engage in many different types of tasks at different levels of complexity, while others did not. Teachers’ levels of assistance were also widely distributed, with verbal assistance most common across all task/activity expectations.

Table 4.14: Teacher Expectations for Students and Level of Assistance Required in English Language Arts (Reading)

		Level of expectation (%)
Expectation	Total n	Not an expectation	With physical assistance	With modeling assistance	With gestural assistance	With verbal assistance	Independent
Pay attention to the lesson	1,005	2.2	15.6	16.4	10.2	39.6	15.9
Explore materials to be used in the lesson	1,004	1.8	16.8	22.5	8.4	31.3	19.2
Repeat or copy something the teacher or someone else has done	1,003	6.9	16.2	19.3	6.9	29.9	20.8
Demonstrate knowledge of a fact	1,004	7.2	13.0	18.8	7.8	36.4	16.8
Demonstrate knowledge of a concept	999	7.1	13.4	22.2	6.7	36.8	13.7
Complete a simple task in response to instruction	1,003	1.9	16.7	17.3	8.1	33.6	22.3
Follow a routine or multi-step activity	1,003	3.3	17.3	17.5	7.9	36.8	17.1
Evaluate something they learned	824	<0.1	14.8	27.2	6.6	40.5	10.9
Summarize what they learned	1,004	22.7	10.4	18.7	5.1	35.6	7.6

Table 4.15: Teacher Expectations for Students and Level of Assistance Required in English Language Arts (Writing)

		Level of expectation (%)
Expectation	Total n	Not an expectation	With physical assistance	With modeling assistance	With gestural assistance	With verbal assistance	Independent
Pay attention to the lesson	1,029	2.4	16.4	16.2	10.7	38.6	15.6
Explore materials to be used in the lesson	798	3.3	21.3	<0.1	10.3	38.6	26.6
Repeat or copy something the teacher or someone else has done	1,032	7.3	17.1	19.6	6.3	24.9	24.9
Demonstrate knowledge of a fact	1,034	9.1	13.0	20.5	7.4	34.0	16.0
Demonstrate knowledge of a concept	1,035	9.4	12.2	21.4	8.3	34.5	14.3
Complete a simple task in response to instruction	1,030	2.4	16.7	15.5	9.4	31.6	24.4
Follow a routine or multi-step activity	1,030	3.6	17.6	17.4	7.4	36.4	17.7
Evaluate something they learned	1,032	20.1	12.3	19.8	6.5	32.7	8.7
Summarize what they learned	1,035	24.6	10.2	18.7	3.8	35.4	7.2

Table 4.16: Teacher Expectations for Students and Level of Assistance Required in Mathematics

		Level of expectation (%)
Expectation	Total n	Not an expectation	With physical assistance	With modeling assistance	With gestural assistance	With verbal assistance	Independent
Pay attention to the lesson	1,953	1.9	12.2	19.7	11.4	34.5	15.8
Explore materials to be used in the lesson	1,952	1.7	16.3	23.7	8.5	28.0	21.9
Repeat or copy something the teacher or someone else has done	1,955	6.6	15.9	21.5	7.3	27.9	20.8
Demonstrate knowledge of a fact	1,952	8.4	12.8	22.8	8.3	32.6	15.1
Demonstrate knowledge of a concept	1,504	10.7	<0.1	19.9	11.4	41.1	16.8
Complete a simple task in response to instruction	1,956	2.2	15.6	20.7	9.6	29.6	22.3
Follow a routine or multi-step activity	1,954	3.8	16.1	21.1	9.5	33.5	16.0
Evaluate something they learned	1,950	19.9	10.7	22.3	7.0	30.6	9.5
Summarize what they learned	1,959	25.7	8.4	21.4	5.6	30.0	8.9

4.5 Conclusion

Delivery of DLM assessments was designed to align with instructional practice and be responsive to individual student needs. Assessment delivery options allow for flexibility to reflect student needs while also including constraints to maximize comparability and support valid interpretation of results. The flexible nature of DLM assessment administration is reflected in the linkage level and the EE selections made by test administrators. Evidence collected from the DLM system, test administration monitoring, and test administrator survey indicates that test administrators are prepared and confident administering DLM assessments and that students are able to successfully interact with the system to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and understandings.