+

Multi-Attribute Consensus Building (MACB)

Process OverviewFebruary 12, 2014

+Multi-Attribute Consensus Building

A quantitative approach for determining a group’s opinion about the importance of each item

Can be used for research, evaluation, and decision-making purposes

Available on the NCEO website (www.nceo.info): http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/Tools/MACBtool.pdf

+Weighting Scale

1-20 Very Unimportant

21-40 Unimportant

41-60 Neither Important nor Unimportant

61-80 Important

81-100 Very Important

+The 100 Rule

+For Example…

Staying warm in Atlanta

Weighting Action Step

80 Wear a hat

100 Dress in layers

85 Wear good boots

+MACB with a Small Group (4-12 People)

Generate a list of items

Assign weightings to each item and report their weightings to the group

Discuss weightings and change them if preferred

+MACB with a Large Group (13+ People)

Divide participants into 4-10 groups

Generate a list of items

Each group assigns weightings to each item and reports its weightings

Discuss weightings and change them if preferred

+Sample MACB Spreadsheet

+Small Group Example: Consequential Validity Study for the AZELLA Kindergarten Placement Test

Professional Development TopicRange of Weightings

Proportional Weight

Average of Weightings

1 Refresher training on the KPT 50-90 0.15 772 Instructional strategies for Kindergarten

ELLs85-100 0.20 98

3 Training on the AZELLA 3 50-100 0.16 814 Communication with parents 60-100 0.16 805 Documentation training (folder

compliance)50-90 0.15 74

6 CCSS alignment to ELP standards and early childhood methodologies

80-100 0.18 91

7 Reading: differentiating in small groups via a balanced approach

75-100 0.18 89

8 RTI model for ELLs in the context of the 4-hour block instruction

70-95 0.17 84

9 Writing instructional strategies reflective of AZELLA 3 tasks

80-100 0.18 89

10 Implementing an ILLP 65-100 0.18 8911 Supporting proficient PHLOTEs 85-100 0.19 94

+Large Group Example: Forum on Addressing Performance Gaps of Low-Performing Students: Implications for Assessment and Instruction (Warren, Christensen, Shyyan, & Thurlow, 2013)Action Step

Range of Weightings

Proportional Weight

Average of Weightings

1 Clarify college readiness versus career readiness 61-100 0.16 842 Understand the data to know the trajectory of

students85-100 0.17 92

3 Ensure access to assistive technology 85-100 0.17 904 Ensure integrity of regular diploma and alternative

pathways75-90 0.16 84

5 Require program level accountability for student outcomes

90-100 0.18 96

6 Write test items at different levels to show all student performance

70-100 0.16 84

7 Ensure access to best practices regardless of geographic location

80-100 0.17 89

8 Collaborate with business community and higher education

70-90 0.15 80

9 Make ELLs a resource allocation priority at all levels 70-95 0.16 83

10 Improve research so that we can better address ELL issues

60-95 0.15 80

11 Identify resources to support stakeholders in addressing culturally appropriate support

65-85 0.14 76

12 Individualize instruction more successfully, technology can help

75-100 0.16 87

13 Invest in strong leadership, consistent/effective curriculum, etc.

80-100 0.18 93

14 Replicate resources currently given to advanced students to all students

75-90 0.16 83

+Q&A Session