Task 3

Strand/Domain Data
Phase 1 - Predictions: Without looking at the data, make predictions about what you think you will find.
There are 5 domains or strands in the 6
th
grade mathematics content area on the CRCT. They include:
measurement, geometry, algebra, data analysis and probability. athematical process skills are a cross!cutting
theme integrated into the fi"e domains.
The #eorgia ath curriculum has broken down math into 5 domains. The domains include easurement,
$lgebra, #eometry, and statistics including data analysis and probability. The skills that are re%uired for each
domain are similar which allows students to refine these skills and build upon pre"ious knowledge.
Sample Predictions:
Teachers ha"e been attending workshops focused on geometry, which should result in higher scores on the
geometry domain.
The new te&tbook has some great hands!on applications related to measurement which should result in increases
in scores.
The new curriculum map we implemented last year should show us impro"ed scores in all strand areas.
The teachers indicated that we need to strengthen teaching strategies for helping students graph, so ' predict that
students may not do well in the (ata $nalysis ) *robability domain.
Guiding Questions:
'n which domain areas do you e&pect to ha"e the lowest percentage of proficient students+ ,ighest+
What predictions do you ha"e for how these results may ha"e changed o"er the last - years+
Make 2 predictions: ./pts0
1. 2f the 5 domains in the 6th grade mathematics test, ' belie"e that probability will be the lowest scoring as
it is a difficult concept for student to grasp because it re%uires a certain le"el of abstract thinking. ' think
#eometry will be the ne&t lowest because it re%uires spatial thinking. The $lgebra portions will be the
highest scoring.
/.
2"er the last three years ' predict that algebra scores will increase the most. ' predict that there will be
slight gains within the other domains3 howe"er not as significant.
Phase 2 - Go isual 4
1. 5sing the strand6domain data in the spreadsheet pro"ided, create a hori7ontal bar graph in Excel of
students at or abo"e proficiency by strand o"er the last - years. *aste in below. .-pts0
/. 5sing the strand6domain data in the spreadsheet pro"ided, create a "ertical bar graph in Excel of students at
or abo"e proficiency by strand for 8ear -. *aste in below. .-pts0
-. $ssume you are rs. 9mith. Complete an analysis of the strand data in the spreadsheet pro"ided by
completing the following tables and answering the %uestions that follow. ./pts0
Mrs! Smith " 2# students
$ %orrect
%uto&& &or meet
and e'ceeds
$ o& students (ho
meet and e'ceed
pro&icienc)
* o& students (ho
meet and e'ceed
pro&icienc)
+um,er - .perations / or greater
2/ #0*
Data 1nal)sis -
Pro,a,ilit)
/ or greater
12 3#*
Measurement 4 or greater 22 #3*
Geometr) 4 or greater
22 #3*
1lge,ra 12 or greater
2# 100*
Within which domain.s0 did your students do the best+ ./pts0
The students did the best in $lgebra with 1::; meeting or e&ceeding proficiency.
Within which domain.s0 did your students do the worse+ ./pts0
The student did the worse on data analysis and probability with only 5<; meeting or e&ceeding proficiency.
Measurement Domain ,) 5thnicit)
$ students
Do +ot Meet
6$ correct
0-27
$ students
Meets - 5'ceeds
6$ correct
4-127
8hite
13/ - /4* /9 - 32*
1&rican 1merican 133 - 23* 93 - 23*
:atino/a
/2 - 2#* 14 - 21*
's there an achie"ement gap within the easurement domain+ ./pts0
'f there is an achie"ement gap, it is slight. 't is clear that the white students scored better on the measurement
portion of the test. -/; of white students met or e&ceeded the domain. ,owe"er, that is compared to /5; of
$frican $merican and /1; of =atino6a students. 9o while there was an achie"ement gap, with white students
scoring better on this domain, it is a relati"ely small percentage.
Phase 3 - .,ser;ations " 5se the data to make obser"ations.
Sample .,ser;ations:
>rom 8ear 1 to 8ear -, student performance in measurement increased each year . 6/; to ?:;0, while
performance in geometry remained stable .6-;, 6@;, 6@;0.
9tudent performance in data analysis6probability was lower than any of the content strand areas in each of the
three years.
2ur strand in most urgent need is data analysis6probability.
Guiding Questions:
What are the areas of strength and weakness in our student performance on content strands+
,ow does this change o"er the three years+
Make 3 .,ser;ations: .-pts0
1! .;erall< +um,ers and .perations made the greatest gains &rom )ear 1 to )ear 3!
2! 1lge,ra did not make an) impro;ements &rom )ear 1 to )ear 3! =nstead the percent o& students
mastering this standard decreased!
3! 5mphasis needs to ,e placed on 1lge,ra to increase pro&icienc)!
Phase 9 - =n&erences 4 Connect inferences to your obser"ations.
Sample =n&erences:
2ur math curriculum emphasi7es Aumber and 2perations more than (ata $nalysis ) *robability.
2ur mathematics teaching is more procedural than conceptual. ThatBs why we ha"e such low student performance
in problem sol"ing.
Three years ago we began focusing on algebra, and weBre seeing results in this strandCscores in this area ha"e
gradually increased each year.
9tudent performance in measurement and geometry re"ersed the trend of impro"ement in 8ear -. We wonder if
this is something specific to the test rather than to our studentsB learning.
Guiding Questions:
What do students understand in this content area+ What do students not understand+
What about our curriculum, instructional materials, or teaching strategies might contribute to student
understanding or lack of understanding in this content area+
What policies, such as ability grouping or tracking, could be contributing to studentsB poor performance+
What might we infer about the test itself gi"en the number of items in each strand area+
What %uestions about student learning has strand!le"el analysis prompted us to wonder about+
What additional data or information do we need to answer those %uestions+
Make 3 =n&erences: .-pts0
1. We can infer that emphasis was placed on #eometry and Aumber and 2perations domains from year 1 to
year there, which would result in the growth shown in the data.
/. We might infer that Aumber and 2peration had fewer %uestions on the test, compared to $lgebra and
9tatistics, which would limit the number of mistakes a child could make for that domain.
-. We can infer that emphasis has not been placed on the learning needs of ,ispanic students which is why
they scored the lowest on certain domains.
>e&lections: 9ynthesi7e what you ha"e learned from the analysis of the strand6domain le"el data. .-pts0
'n re"iewing my predictions, ' reali7ed ' used the deficiencies of my own students to Dudge and make assumptions
about the 6
th
grade mathematics data in this assignment. y students ha"e difficulty graphing - dimensional
figures because of the spatial thinking that is re%uired. ,owe"er, that does not mean that students will ha"e
difficulty finding "olume and surface area of geometric shapes in the 6
th
grade. The skills re%uired to do these
tasks are "ery different which is why my predictions were so disconnected from the actual data. The data shows
that #eometry, in fact, had great gains from year 1 to year - as did Aumber and 2perations. We can assume that
efforts in that school were put in place to increase those scores. Teachers only ha"e a certain number of hours in
the day to teach their students. Therefore is a directi"e comes that emphasis needs to be placed on another
domain, time and effort must be taken away from one domain to focus on another. 't is clear that emphasis was
taken off $lgebra because those o"er all scores decreased from year 1 to year -. $lgebra had the most %uestions
represented on the test. 't does not make sense to take time and effort away from $lgebra when so many
%uestions are represented on the test. ,owe"er, with $lgebra ha"ing so many %uestions .$lgebra represented
almost one third of the entire test0 it makes opportunities for students to make more mistakes. This may also result
in the decrease in test scores. 'n order to get a clearer picture, it would be helpful if we, as data coaches, were
pri"y to the pre"ious weighting of domains. >or e&ample, was algebra always -:; of the test+ (id that number
increase or decrease through year 1 to year -+ That information would be helpful to know in order to analy7e the
data properly.