- 2016 MCA Results Presentation
- Interocclusal Recording Materialsppt
- User Studies
- Riediger & Freund (2006) - Focusing and Restricting
- IJRTSAT_4_1_8
- AIJ ESTE
- CE104_Detailed_LoP.docx
- t tidwell itec 7305 structured field experience log
- Inventory Optimization
- Syndicate 2 (1)
- Reference Interval
- Angie - Visual Basic Assignment
- 7icons bikun
- Analysis and Interpretation
- Nerve Conduction Studies
- AL Applied Mathematics 1986 Paper 2
- Chrony Beta and Gamma
- Notice: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act: Colombian demobilization program; determination and certification
- 1.3 Statistical Concept
- article reading.pdf
- Piresetal_Eff_10
- Godbout Data Overview
- The Importance of Animation as a Visual Method in Learning at Elementary Level
- 1. Sunny Sabiha
- the revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback-brakel olsen
- SPECIMEN METHOD AS AN ACTIVITY BASED METHOD OF TEACHING BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES- A STUDY
- 191 A2 S1 2006
- Cmo Survey Topline Report 8.09
- Untitled
- Chapter III Research Methodology
- eLearning Paper
- eLearning Slides
- Edu627 Final Project
- Digital Art Course Curriculum Document
- Digital Art Course Design_Capstone_Bayek
- edu627 Final Project.docx
- 2017 Vision Paper
- Digitally Mediated Learning Activity
- Enhanced Storyboards EDU623
- Bayek-2017vision-presention1 (1)
- Final Project EDU623

Improvement Team at your elementary school reviewed the year-end achievement data and decided that something needed to be done about school-wide declining reading and math scores. The results for 2011 showed that only 70% of the third grade students met or exceeded the state’s cut-off score for “proficient” in reading (Subgroup results: White -71%, Black-73%, Hispanic - 68%, Low SES - 72%, ELL - 75%, SWD - 50%). In Math, only 72% of the third grade students met or exceeded the state’s cut-off score for “proficient” in math (Subgroup results: White - 73%, Black 69%, Hispanic - 71%, Low SES - 73%, ELL - 70%, SWD - 67%). Spring 2011 All 3rd Grade White Black Hispanic Low SES ELL SWD % Proficient Reading Math 70 72 71 73 73 69 68 71 72 73 75 70 50 67

Your School Improvement Team decided to focus their efforts on improving the third grade performance. This is the grade in which state-wide assessments begin and they wanted to establish a foundation for future elementary school success. They consulted with national experts about the school-wide trend and selected new instructional program to implement in reading and math to hopefully improve the results. Because your school is small, the new program would be implemented in Fall 2011 as a pilot in all 3 rd grade classrooms (only two classes: 12 in one, 13 in the other). The team decided that if the spring 2012 results showed improvement in reading and math performance, then in fall 2012 they would maintain the intervention in 3rd grade and expand it to 4th grade classes. The team set 80% passing as the criterion for success of the intervention. They set this 80% goal for all 3rd graders as well as for each subgroup. During the summer of 2011, all 3rd grade teachers were trained in the interventions and then participated in follow-up training and implementation monitoring during the 2011-12 school year. It is now spring 2012 and as a member of the School Improvement Team you have been selected to evaluate the year-end achievement results. You will need to determine the passing rates and then compare them to the 2012 goal as well as to last year’s performance to see if there has been any improvement. Your role is to analyze this data for the team to determine if the intervention was successful in reading and math overall and for each subgroup of students. The data tables (download separate document) contain the scores for the third grade students in reading and math as well as data indicating demographic characteristics. In determining whether the student met the cut-off score for passing you will use the Standard Error of Measurement and a 68% confidence interval. The cut-off/passing score for proficiency in reading is 547 and the cut-off/passing score for proficiency in math is 534. The reading test has a SEM of 7.46 and the math test has a SEM of 8.64. When you calculate your results, please be sure to round all answers to the nearest hundred/two decimal places. Your team has asked you to prepare two versions of the data. First, you need to prepare Tables A and B (below) which will provide a tabulation of the data. Then, you also need to submit a written summary (below) describing all of the results and stating your conclusions and recommendations about the

intervention. Because some people will not look at or interpret your tables correctly, be sure to discuss all of the results from your table in your summary as well. Also, when analyzing the results, please assume that the class size and demographic distribution were similar in 2011 and 2012. 1. Your summary (2-3 paragraphs) for the reading intervention should address a. The results and success of the intervention in reading overall b. The results and success of the intervention in reading for each subgroup separately c. A comparison of the results to last year’s results in reading overall d. A comparison of the results to last year’s results in reading for each subgroup separately e. Your recommendations for continuing the intervention in reading in Fall 2012 with the 3 rd grade. f. Your thoughts about expansion of the intervention to 4 th grade classes. 2. Your summary(2-3 paragraphs) for the math intervention should address a. The results and success of the intervention in math overall b. The results and success of the intervention in math for each subgroup separately c. A comparison of the results to last year’s results in math overall d. A comparison of the results to last year’s results in math for each subgroup separately e. Your recommendations for continuing the intervention in math in Fall 2012 with the 3 rd grade f. Your thoughts about expansion of the intervention to 4 th grade classes. Please note that the description of the intervention and actual implementation is intentionally vague. We are focusing only on an analysis of the scores/data and what this analysis suggests about the intervention. We are not judging the type or quality of the intervention or hypothesizing about related factors. We are working from the assumption that it was implemented consistently in all classrooms and that all students gave their best efforts when learning and being assessed at the end of the year. (Please continue to the next page)

Table A Reading Achievement Results 1. All 3rd Grade Students N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 2. Racial/Ethnic Diversity N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results White 12 555.67 20.55 83.33% Y +12.33% Black 8 554.88 29.05 75% N +2% Hispanic 5 552.40 8.73 100% Y +32% 25 554.76 21.31 80% Y +10%

3. Low Socio-economic Status (defined as qualifying for free/reduced lunch) N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 11 557.18 24.19 81.81% Y +9.81%

4. English Language Learners N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 5. Students with Disabilities N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 6 540 16.37 66.67% N +16.67% 6 557.33 8.24 100% Y +25%

Reading Summary (Please begin your summary here and continue on the next page if needed.) The Reading intervention was a success based on the team’s criterion for success goal of an 80% passing rate. Using a 68% confidence interval, 80% of the group of 25 3 rd graders in the study achieved a passing score of 547 or above. This shows a 10% increase in passing rate from the previous year (70% in 2011). The mean for the entire group of 25 3rd graders was 554.76, showing that the average score was over seven points above the goal score of 547. The standard deviation of 21.31 shows a large distribution of student scores. Dissecting the achievement results into subgroups reveals some interesting information concerning the intervention success within the smaller populations. The intervention proved successful with the following subgroups (White, Hispanic, Low SES, and ELL). The group of 12 White students showed a 12.33% increase in passing rate from the previous year, from 71% in 2011 to 83.33% in 2012. The mean score of White students was 555.67 with a standard deviation of 20.55. 100% of the 5 Hispanic students passed, showing a 32% increase in passing rate from 68% in 2011 (the largest increase in any subgroup). The mean score for Hispanic students was 552.40, with a closely grouped set of scores, standard deviation of 8.73. The group of 11 Low SES students showed a successful 81.81% passing rate, an increase of 9.81%. The Low SES group mean was 557.18 (highest of any subgroup) and showed a large dispersion of scores with a standard deviation of 24.19. All 6 ELL students passed, showing a 25% increase from 75% to 100%. The ELL mean was 551.33, and a close dispersion of scores with a standard deviation of 8.24. The remaining 2 subgroups, Black students and SWD, both showed an increase in the percentage of students passing, but did not achieve the goal of 80% of the group passing. The group of 8 Black students showed a 2% increase, from 73% to 75% passing, and the group of 6 SWD students showed a 16.67% increase, from 50% to 66.67%. The mean for the group of Black students was 554.88, with the largest dispersion of scores of any subgroup, a standard deviation of 29.05. The group of 6 SWD students had a mean of 540, with a standard deviation of 16.37. The results display the positive effect of the Reading intervention, the overall group of 3 rd graders, as well as 4 out of 6 subgroups, achieving the goal of an 80% passing rate. Data also indicate that every group showed an increase in passing percentage from the previous year. The average score of the entire group of 25 3rd graders was 554.76, 7 points above the passing score of 547. Based on these figures, I would highly recommend continuing the 3rd grade Reading intervention in the Fall of 2012. Expanding the intervention to continue improvement with the same overall group of students, now moving to 4 th grade is highly recommended. This would allow for continued student development, intervention program development, and provide data related to the effectiveness of a second continuous year of intervention.

Table B Mathematics Achievement Results 1. All 3rd Grade Students N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 2. Racial/Ethnic Diversity N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results White 12 534.83 24.54 75% N +2% Black 8 535.25 26.94 50% N -19% Hispanic 5 534 3.65 100% Y +29% 25 534.48% 22.16 72 N 0%

3. Low Socio-economic Status (defined as qualifying for free/reduced lunch) N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 11 535.09 22.69 72.73% N -0.27%

4. English Language Learners N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 5. Students with Disabilities N= Mean = SD = % Passing Successful (Y/N)? Change in % Passing from 2011 results 6 522.33 15.25 50% N -17% 6 531.33 4.18 100% Y +30%

Mathematics Summary (Please begin your summary here and continue on the next page if needed.) The Math intervention was not a success based on the team’s criterion for success goal of an 80% passing rate. Using a 68% confidence interval, 72% of the group of 25 3 rd graders in the study achieved a passing score of 534 or above. This shows a 0% increase in passing rate from the previous year (72% in 2011). The mean for the entire group of 25 3rd graders was 534.48, showing that the average score was 0.48 points above the goal score of 534. The standard deviation of 22.16 shows a large distribution of student scores. Subgroup data shows that the Math intervention was successful with only 2 of the 6 populations, Hispanic students and ELL students. 100% of the 5 Hispanic students achieved the goal score of 534. This was a 29% increase in passing rate from 71% in 2011.The mean score of Hispanic students was 534, with a very close dispersion of scores, standard deviation of 3.65. 100% of the 6 ELL students passed, improving by 30% from 70% in 2011 (the largest percentage increase of any subgroup). The ELL student mean was 531.33, with a standard deviation of 4.18, showing a close grouping in scores. The remaining 4 subgroups all failed to achieve the goal of an 80% passing rate (White, Black, Low SES, and SWD). Of these 4 subgroups, only White students showed an increase in passing percentage, a 2% increase from 73% to 75%. The remaining 3 subgroups all showed decreases in passing rate; Black a 19% decrease (50% from 69%), Low SES a 0.27% decrease (72.73% from 73%), and SWD a 17% decrease (50% from 67%). The 12 White students had a mean score of 534.83 with a large dispersion of scores represented by a standard deviation of 24.54. The 8 Black students had a mean of 535.25, and also showed a large dispersion of scores with a standard deviation of 26.94. The 11 Low SES students had a mean of 535.09, with a large dispersion of scores shown in the standard deviation of 22.69. The 6 SWD had a mean score of 522.33, with a standard deviation of 15.25. Based on the assessment data, I would not recommend continuing the Math intervention. The intervention did not yield the intended results of achieving an 80% passing rate, nor did it improve the student passing percentage, 72% passing in 2011 and 72% in 2012. Additionally, 4 out of the 6 subgroup populations failed to meet the goal of an 80% passing rate, with 3 subgroups showing a decrease in passing rate. The interventions lack of success with 3rd graders, means that it should not be expanded to 4th grade classes. The data show that the Math intervention failed to achieve the improvements it was intended to yield.

- 2016 MCA Results PresentationUploaded byKSTPTV
- Interocclusal Recording MaterialspptUploaded byrevathygounder
- User StudiesUploaded bykytmahesh6415
- Riediger & Freund (2006) - Focusing and RestrictingUploaded bydf710
- IJRTSAT_4_1_8Uploaded bySTATPERSON PUBLISHING CORPORATION
- AIJ ESTEUploaded byhassam_650
- CE104_Detailed_LoP.docxUploaded byJerome21
- t tidwell itec 7305 structured field experience logUploaded byapi-258167103
- Inventory OptimizationUploaded byCharles Wetherbee
- Syndicate 2 (1)Uploaded byNabilah Usman
- Reference IntervalUploaded byLee Jia Wei
- Angie - Visual Basic AssignmentUploaded byJun Qiang
- 7icons bikunUploaded byGraidy Arianugraha Hadiwardoyo
- Analysis and InterpretationUploaded byguruakr
- Nerve Conduction StudiesUploaded byhm3398
- AL Applied Mathematics 1986 Paper 2Uploaded byLokwing Poon
- Chrony Beta and GammaUploaded byÁdám Major
- Notice: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act: Colombian demobilization program; determination and certificationUploaded byJustia.com
- 1.3 Statistical ConceptUploaded byrollickingdeol
- article reading.pdfUploaded byThivya Narayasamy
- Piresetal_Eff_10Uploaded byDaniel Pires
- Godbout Data OverviewUploaded byJennifer Godbout
- The Importance of Animation as a Visual Method in Learning at Elementary LevelUploaded bysushma
- 1. Sunny SabihaUploaded bySunnyVerma
- the revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback-brakel olsenUploaded byapi-296119798
- SPECIMEN METHOD AS AN ACTIVITY BASED METHOD OF TEACHING BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES- A STUDYUploaded byscholarlyresearchj
- 191 A2 S1 2006Uploaded byJess Maher
- Cmo Survey Topline Report 8.09Uploaded byfhood99
- UntitledUploaded byAshim Bora
- Chapter III Research MethodologyUploaded byRageeth Padman R A

- eLearning PaperUploaded bykarlbayek
- eLearning SlidesUploaded bykarlbayek
- Edu627 Final ProjectUploaded bykarlbayek
- Digital Art Course Curriculum DocumentUploaded bykarlbayek
- Digital Art Course Design_Capstone_BayekUploaded bykarlbayek
- edu627 Final Project.docxUploaded bykarlbayek
- 2017 Vision PaperUploaded bykarlbayek
- Digitally Mediated Learning ActivityUploaded bykarlbayek
- Enhanced Storyboards EDU623Uploaded bykarlbayek
- Bayek-2017vision-presention1 (1)Uploaded bykarlbayek
- Final Project EDU623Uploaded bykarlbayek