Table of Specification

The purpose of a Table of Specifications is to identify the achievement domains being measured and to
ensure that a fair and representative sample of questions appear on the test. Teachers cannot
measure every topic or objective and cannot ask every question they might wish to ask. A Table of
Specifications allows the teacher to construct a test which focuses on the key areas and weights those
different areas based on their importance. A Table of Specifications provides the teacher with evidence
that a test has content validity, that it covers what should be covered.

Designing a Table of Specifications

Tables of Specification typically are designed based on the list of course objectives, the topics covered
in class, the amount of time spent on those topics, textbook chapter topics, and the emphasis and
space provided in the text. In some cases a great weight will be assigned to a concept that is
extremely important, even if relatively little class time was spent on the topic. Three steps are
involved in creating a Table of Specifications: 1) choosing the measurement goals and domain to be
covered, 2) breaking the domain into key or fairly independent parts- concepts, terms, procedures,
applications, and 3) constructing the table. Teachers have already made decisions (or the district has
decided for them) about the broad areas that should be taught, so the choice of what broad domains a
test should cover has usually already been made. A bit trickier is to outline the subject matter into
smaller components, but most teachers have already had to design teaching plans, strategies, and
schedules based on an outline of content. Lists of classroom objectives, district curriculum guidelines,
and textbook sections, and keywords are other commonly used sources for identifying categories for
Tables of Specification. When actually constructing the table, teachers may only wish to use a simple
structure, as with the first example above, or they may be interested in greater detail about the types
of items, the cognitive levels for items, the best mix of objectively scored items, open-ended and
constructed-response items, and so on, with even more guidance than is provided in the second
example.

How can the use of a Table of Specifications benefit your students, including those with special
needs?

A Table of Specifications benefits students in two ways. First, it improves the validity of teacher-made
tests. Second, it can improve student learning as well.

A Table of Specifications helps to ensure that there is a match between what is taught and what is
tested. Classroom assessment should be driven by classroom teaching which itself is driven by course
goals and objectives. In the chain below, Tables of Specifications provide the link between teaching
and testing.

Objectives Teaching Testing

Tables of Specifications can help students at all ability levels learn better. By providing the table to
students during instruction, students can recognize the main ideas, key skills, and the relationships
among concepts more easily. The Table of Specifications can act in the same way as a concept map to
analyze content areas. Teachers can even collaborate with students on the construction of the Table of
Specifications- what are the main ideas and topics, what emphasis should be placed on each topic,
what should be on the test? Open discussion and negotiation of these issues can encourage higher
levels of understanding while also modeling good learning and study skills.

References:

Research Articles

Chase, C.I. (1999). Contemporary assessment for educators. New York:

Longman.

Websites
http://www.sfsu.edu/~testing/MCTEST/testconstruction.html

PLANNING THE UNIT TEST

 Start with curriculum guide

 then operationalize by writing up series of
objectives
 can do a quick review of writing Behavioral
Objectives, if you would like.

SPECIFICATIONS CONSTRUCTION

 A table that shows what will be tested (and taught)

 Theoretically, a completely detailed table of specifications
would have every learning objective listed for every lesson for
the whole year

o things haven't gone quite that far here in Alberta

o not sure there is really a point to having a document that lists
every single fact students are to know
o not only is this too inflexible -- because it wouldn't allow for any
room for teacher to respond to student needs,
 it is also reductionism

 try to reduce learning to individual skills, misses that

education is more than the sum of its parts
 part of difference between training and education I talk
about in Social Context
o currently this totally detailed approach is dominant one in
England
o some movement toward that end of the continuum here:
"competency based" education is an attempt to move towards
defining education in terms of a finite number of specific
competencies
o so we do not need that level of detail --> main topics for year,
main concepts for a unit plan good enough

Sample Table of Specifications

Bloom's Taxonomy
Analysis,
Knowledge &
Subject Application Synthesis TOTALS
Comprehension
Content &Evaluation
Topic A 10% 20% 10% 40%
Topic B 15% 15% 30% 60%
TOTALS 25% 35% 40% 100%

 usually a two sided chart used in construction of tests

 content down one side, cognitive levels across the top
 common format in Alberta, but no rule: could have content across the
top, Bloom'down the side
o usually group Bloom'categories: in this example, knowledge,
understanding, and higher mental activity
o I prefer grouping knowledge/understanding (because straight
recall usually too simple to count as real learning) and than
application, then analysis, synthesis and evaluation as higher
level
o for more on Bloom'Taxonomy, please see Glossary
 Content usually much more detailed than this, but will use two
categories here to keep illustration simple
  totals tell you at a glance what percenteage of course emphasis given
to each topic and what percentage lower and higher level mental
processes

Here is an example of more detail

CANADA: TO
CONTE Economic Economic Growth:
Respondind TA
NT Growth: USA USSR
to Change L
Cen
tral
Qu Qu Qu
Mar ly Mix
ali ali ali
Indust ket Geo Indust Pla Tech ed
PROCE ty ty ty
rializat Eco grap rializat nne nolo Eco
SSES of of of
ion no hy ion d gy no
Lif Lif Lif
my Eco my
e e e
no
my
KNOWL
EDGE
AND
COMPR
EHENSI
ON

Recall
52
Facts 17% 17% 18%
%
Unders
tand
Concep
ts and
Genera
lization
s
PROCE
24
SS 8% 8% 8%
%
SKILLS
 A

Locatin
g

Interpr
eting

Organi
zing
PROCE
SS
SKILLS
B Etc...

Analyzi
ng

 Example of running content across the top, Bloom'down the side

 notice that some curriculum'translate Bloom into subject specific
taxonomy, but principle is the same

Table of Specifications Relates the Outcomes to the Content and

Indicates the Relative weight of each area

 weight is usually based on how much time devoted to teaching

concept
o but also how important it is that students remember, transfer to
other contexts, courses --> some important ideas may be easy
to teach but still important to include
o also determined by type of material --> don't put a lot of weight
on higher mental activity category for unit on memorizing state
capitals --> don't put a lot into recall for drama class on risk
taking and creative dance
o weight -- start simple --> four topics, divide into 4, then maybe
add bit more to topic you are particularly interested in, or figure
students will be interested in, etc.
 of weighting with rationale.

 weight usually given in %, but you can use marks (e.g., 50) if you like
 usually out of 100%, but might make two separate blueprints, one
for 70 multiple choice, and second 30% for written response
 Acts as a:
 blueprint for teaching --> don't just start teaching page one on day
one, or suddenly discover that its Easter and you're still on first unit --
> need to figure out how much time you're going to allocate per unit,
per concept within units
 blueprint for the test
 So that we get:
 representative sample of course content -->not all random
sample

o this is important so that you don't just choose questions from

last two weeks before exam
 representative sample of skills, cognitive levels across content

o not just rote memorization; or just high level stuff

o often sabotage great course by teaching high level skills
(sculpting, acting, playing solo) then giving rote memorization
test (date that Mozart composed 43rd symphony) that does not
reflect actual time spent

kids learn quickly what actually &#34counts"is stuff on test, so if

you have rote memorization test, don'try to get class discussion
going!
 analyze results by level and content area

o if students getting all lower level questions but missing higher

level, then you're not doing your job; if all have got answers to
one unit but not another, may have to reteach that unit, etc.

Do classroom teachers actually do this?

 No, but most of them have not had the benefit of your training.
 Part of my job when I worked for Student Evaluation branch was to do
inservice workshops at PD days and teacher conventions and on item
 writing committees; teachers were always surprised and pleased by
this obvious concept.
 So more teachers are doing this each year.
 Now, most principals will want to see your year plans, and
expect some evaluation planning as part of it.
 It is becoming a standard part of unit planning

Strictly speaking there is a difference between a Table of

Specifications and a Blueprint:

 Specifications refer to a plan of what is to be taught/tested by

weighting
 A blueprint is the plan of the specific test, i.e., which questions test
which concept
 So same specifications could give rise to several different blueprints

Files need to comply: (other files is on PDF-PEAC)

- Use of mapping codes that show horizontal alignment and correspondence of above entries
- Subject skills-based vertical learning progression guides or maps
- Minutes of curriculum meetings on articulation of student skills across grade levels
- List and description of Curriculum Development Activities
- Minutes of meeting of Academic Council or Subject Coordinators’ Council or subject department
meetings
- Subject Learning Plans
- Subject Tables of Specification
- Unit Assessment-Activities Matrix or Unit Assessment Map
- Instructional Supervision Program
- Instructional supervisory reports
- Sample Assessment Instruments
- System of Learning Plan Preparation
- System of Assessment Preparation
- Curriculum evaluation and recommendations
- Minutes of curriculum meetings of Academic Council or Subject Coordinators’ Council
or subject department meetings regarding curriculum revisions and updates
- System of citation of versions of DepEd Curriculum Guide
- File copy of latest versions of DepEd Curriculum Guides
- Classroom Observation form
- Minutes of meetings of Department Subject regarding classroom strategies
- Faculty Development Training Seminars and Workshops
- Integrated Performance Tasks
- Community Awareness, Exposure or Immersion Activities related to Unit Topic
- System of Technology Integration
- Technology Platforms or Learning Management Systems
- Minutes of meetings of Department Subject regarding classroom activities
- System of Selection, Procurement, Development and Utilization of Instructional
Resources/Materials
- Minutes of meetings of Department Subject regarding instructional resources/materials
- Library reports on utilization of print, electronic and audio-visual resources for classroom instruction
- Samples of Subject Summative and Formative Assessments
- Samples of Evaluation of Students’ 21st century skills
- Response to Intervention Program or System or Academic Intervention Program
- Reports on results of academic interventions by PLC groups
- Subject department reports of student achievement and results of interventions
- Formative Assessments in different subject areas
- Minutes of meetings of Academic Council or Subject Coordinators’ Council or
subject department meetings on system of addressing children with special needs
- Records of classroom observations conducted by supervisors
- Classroom Observation Sheet