D019 Task 1

docx

School

Western Governors University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

D019

Subject

Statistics

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by kclinedinst

D019 Task 1: Kyle Clinedinst Student ID-001029234 Western Governors University January 9, 2024

A: 1. Discuss an educational problem that can be investigated by researching and analyzing existing data. The educational problem that will be investigated is the 3rd-grade state writing scores at Dan Emmett Elementary. According to the Ohio Department of Education, Dan Emmett Elementary’s writing score was below the state average for the 2023-2024 State test. 2. Describe the educational setting or context relative to the problem discussed in part A1. Dan Emmett Elementary School is in Knox County Ohio. Dan Emmett Elementary has 269 students. This being a low economic area, that number fluctuates due to the number of transient families. The educations setting focus for this investigation are the 3rd-grade students at Dan Emmett Elementary. According to the state test results, Dan Emmett 3rd-graders performed above the state average in both “reading informational text” and “reading literary text” but below average in writing. Thus, the focus of this investigation is to improve writing skills. a. Describe the participant group that is relevant to the problem. Dan Emmett Elementary has 269 students. 89% of the student population is of low economic status according to our school website and greatschools.org. 89% of the students are white, 5% are two or more races, 3% black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and <1% Native American. There are 49 third graders and the demographics are consistent with the schools’. b. Describe at least two participant subgroups that are relevant to the problem. Two participant subgroups are students of low socioeconomic status and students with disabilities. The number of 3rd-grade students of low socioeconomic status is consistent with the school demographics. According to our school Title 1 information, 43 of the 49 third-grade students are a part of the low socioeconomic status. 14 of the 49 students, 29%, of the 3rd

graders are students with disabilities (SWD). I will look at how students of low socioeconomic status and SWD scored compared to the state average. 3. Summarize the characteristics, benefits, and limitations of qualitative and quantitative data in relation to the problem discussed in part A1. Quantitative data and qualitative data both have benefits and limitations for this investigation. Qualitative data is subjective and could be useful to give us an insight into the thoughts and feelings of the participants. This could help us understand how students feel about writing and may give us an insight into why they struggle. However qualitative data may be more difficult to analyze and may be less reliable for this investigation (WGU, n.d.). Also, this type of data would consist of questionnaires and interviews. This does not represent student’s scores and let us analyze these scores. Quantitative data relies on numbers and the data is measurable. The Ohio Department of Education uses numerical data to score and organize test results. Quantitative data is objective and easy to interpret. This type of data will be used to compare students in this investigation, including those from each subgroup to the 3rd-grade students across the state. The limitation of quantitative data is that it does not indicate how or why students are struggling with writing. 4. Discuss ethical considerations related to accessing existing data, including how you will limit student privacy issues. During this research study, student privacy will be a priority. Names, scores of specific students, and personal information will not be shared or published. To ensure student privacy, data that is pulled will be kept in a secure location to ensure that information cannot be accessible to those outside the study. Data will be general when comparing scores among the research group and subgroups. For example, when comparing data among students with disabilities, I will use SWD scores as a whole, not individually.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

B. 1. Describe the source(s) of the selected quantitative data. The quantitative data should be relevant to the problem discussed in part A1. The source of the quantitative data that will be used for this study will come from the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). ODE develops Ohio’s State Tests (OST) that are “taken at the end of a school year or high school course. They measure what your child knows and can do based on Ohio’s Learning Standards” (Ohio Department of Education, n.d.). In this case, the 3rd grade OST is taken twice a year, once in the fall and once in the spring because of the Ohio State Third Grade Guarantee and the fact that 3rd grade is the first time students take OST. The 3rd-grade state test is broken into two, ninety-minute sections. The 3rd-grade OST has 3 major content areas, reading informational text, reading literary text, and writing. The writing section is based on informational or opinion writing. After the assessment, data is distributed back to each school. Schools can compare their scores to other schools in the district, and state averages. Individual scores can also be compared but will not be used in this study. The data for each of the three major content areas are represented as either below proficient, near proficient, or above proficient. a. Explain why the quantitative data you accessed from the source(s) are relevant to the problem in part A1 and the participant group in part A2a. The quantitative data is relevant because it shows that the 3rd-grade students at Dan Emmett Elementary are above the state average in both reading information text and reading literary text but are below the state average in writing. The data also breaks down the writing score into 3 areas, conventions, elaboration, and purpose. Each of these areas can be analyzed and compared to the state average. The data allows the teachers and administrators to break down the information by subgrouping the students. For example, the teacher can look at SWD and compare their scores in each of the 3 relevant areas compared to the state and district average.

2. Describe how the data source(s) are credible. The quantitative data source is credible because it was created by a company, Cambium Assessment, which works cooperatively with the Ohio Department of Education. “Test development is a continuous process. New test questions are developed every year” (Ohio Department of Education, n.d.). Test proctors must be trained to ensure test validity. Every public school in Ohio takes the test. All tests are given within a testing window throughout the state, as well as timed, proctored, and secure. Each test question is based on the Ohio State Standards for Language Arts. The test questions are universal, except for 1 or 2 field questions for future testing. a. Describe how the data are valid and reliable. The data is valid and reliable because it is collected as a summative assessment. The assessment is consistent for each student, and the writing sample is graded by a computer to eliminate bias or judgment. A trained professional will only grade the writing sample if the computer is unable to evaluate the writing for whatever reason. ODE assesses the state test, teachers and school administrators are not a part of the assessment process in any way. Furthermore, teachers and test administrators must go through formal classes to proctor an OST to ensure validity. The data is quantitative, so it is objective and based on a standard grading scale. C. Analyze the accessed quantitative data by explaining the descriptive statistic(s) that are both associated with the accessed quantitative data and are related to the problem discussed in part A1. According to the Ohio Department of Education which partners with Cambium Assessments, the state mean score for the fall 2023 3rd-grade OST was 694. Dan Emmett Elementary has a mean score of 698. This test is broken down into 3 parts: reading

informational text, reading literary text, and writing. Combinations of the parts contribute to the total gross score. (Scores range from 545 to 863 points.) To break each content area down, the state provides the scores for each question under each academic content area. I broke the scores to find the mean overall score for reading informational text, reading literary text, and writing. In the content area “reading informational text”, the state mean was 6.39 points out of the possible 16 points. This was a mean of 40%. Dan Emmett’s 3rd-grade students' averages were the same at a mean of 6.39 points out of 16 and 40%. In the content area “reading literary text”, the state mean was 7.8 points out of the possible 16 points. This was a mean of 49%. Dan Emmett’s 3rd-grade students' mean score was higher than the state in this area. Dan Emmett scores a mean of 9.21 points out of 16 and 58%. This leads to the problem being investigated. With our scores being at or above the state average in both reading areas, the area of concern is writing. The state mean score for writing was 2.62 points out of 10 or 26%. Dan Emmett's students scored a mean of 2.47 points out of 10 or 24.7%. Writing was the only area Dan Emmett students were below the state average. 1. Explain a meaningful visual representation of the quantitative data selected in part B, including why this visual representation would be meaningful. A meaningful visual representation of the quantitative data would be a bar graph. The bar graph would have different colored bars for the state mean scores and Dan Emmett's mean scores. For example, the state scores would be in red, and our school scores would be in blue. On the x-axes, there would be each of the three content areas for the 3rd-grade OST, reading informational text, reading literary text, and writing. Each content area would have a state bar in red and a Dan Emmett bar in blue. This form of visual representation would be meaningful because it would be clear to see that the area of concern for Dan Emmett Elementary would be writing. This graph would show

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

that the state average and our school average for reading informational text would be the same. The bars would be the same height, at 40%. For reading literary text, the bar for our school would be considerably higher than the state average. Our bar would be at 58% and the state average would be at 49%. The last bar would show the area of concern, which is writing. The state bar would be at 26% and our bar would be below that at 24.7%. Though both bars would be much lower than the other content areas, it would be clear to see that Dan Emmett is below state level in writing on the third-grade Ohio State Assessment. 2. Explain what your data reveal about the performance of the participant group from part A2a. The data reveals that the 3rd-grade students at Dan Emmett Elementary have a weakness in a specific literary area. The fact that the students scored at or above the state mean score in two academic areas, but scored below grade level in one area shows the area in which teachers can focus. The 3rd-grade population as a whole is weaker in writing and the visual representation described above would confirm this data. 3. Explain what your data reveal about the performance of the subgroups of the participant group from part A2b. After breaking down the data from the OST and calculating the scores of the two subgroups, SWD and low socioeconomic status, the results showed that the students of both subgroups scored lower in writing, especially SWD. What was most revealing was that both subgroups scored just slightly below in two of the three content areas, but the scores for writing were significantly lower. Out of the 43 students that are classified as low socioeconomic according to our building Title 1 data, these students scored just below in reading literary text but scored higher in reading informational text. The area of concern was writing. On the 3rd-grade OST, students of low

socioeconomic status scored 2.2 on their writing. This score was lower than the state average and our school average. Out of the 14 SWD, these students scored just below in both reading content areas. However, the writing scores were very revealing. Students with disabilities scored an average of just 1.4 points out of 10 or 14%. Furthermore, 6 of these students did not get any points for their writing. Four Students scored 3 points, three students scored 2 points, and one student scored 1 point. As a teacher and future school administrator, a key focus must be improving writing skills among SWDs. Not only is this useful for each child, but it will also boost overall school test scores and help these children close the gap. D. Summarize your inferences and conclusions by doing the following: 1. Develop a problem statement focused on the analysis explained in part C. The problem to be addressed through this study is 3rd-graders at Dan Emmett Elementary students scored below the state average at just 24.7% on the 2023-2024, 3rd-grade fall Ohio State Test, in the content area writing. Students of low socioeconomic status and students with disabilities also scored below the state average. Students of low socioeconomic status scored 22% and students with disabilities scored 14% in writing. 2. Describe the inferences derived from the analysis explained in part C, including actionable knowledge. a. Include at least three references from academic or professional literature that support your description of the inferences in part D2. From the data gathered, one can infer that the writing struggles of students from Dan Emmett Elementary can be attributed to writing instruction. The fact that our students performed at the state level, or above in the other content areas, but below the level in writing leads to this conclusion. Students with disabilities and students of low socioeconomic status scored even lower than the rest of our school population, enforcing the need for better instruction. Due to low writing proficiency, students at Dan Emmett Elementary would benefit

from writing curriculum consistency, teacher professional development to improve instruction, a clean writing curriculum, and teacher collaboration to modify instruction for students with disabilities. Based on the OST results, I believe that writing instruction is a main factor for students' low scores. As a district, we have focused on reading instruction far more than writing instruction over the past 5 years. We have adopted new reading programs and have been given ample amounts of professional development to improve instruction. The one area that is lacking is writing instruction. In 2019, the district adopted a writing program called Lucy Calkins. This program was to be used K-5 in hopes of making writing universal and improving writing skills. Since this time, the program has had much criticism and in 2022, we were told to pick and choose what aspects of LC writing were beneficial to our students. The first criticism of LC writing was “that writing skills can and should be taught separately from subjects like history or science. The second and even more fundamental flawed assumption underlying Calkins’ curriculum is that the “workshop” approach, developed for experienced adult writers, will also work for children as young as five. Like many others, Calkins seriously underestimates how difficult the process of learning to write is for most students.” (Wexler, 2021) Our writing instruction was based on writing blocks where we would only focus on constructing publishable writings. This was very time-consuming and difficult for most students. Especially students with disabilities. Since the 2022-23 school year, many teachers have stopped using this district- adopted curriculum. This has led to, what I believe to be the next instructional error. The lack of writing instruction consistency has harmed students' learning. As a district, we do not have a clear “writing program” which has led teachers to adopt their own writing instruction styles or techniques. For example, some teachers teach writing organization as the “hamburger” where the buns are the main ideas, and the meat + ingredients are the details that support the main idea. Some teachers use the “Orio” technique where the tops and bottoms of the cookie are the main ideas, and the cream insides are the details. Others have created their

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

own graphic organizers for writing. The lack of consistency is very detrimental to many students, especially those with disabilities and those of low socioeconomic status. “Collaboration among teachers can account for an improvement in students learning.” (Saka, 2021) This lack of collaboration and a clear writing program has also led to fewer modifications for SWDs. As many studies have shown, modification and accommodations are essential for students with disabilities. (Beech, 2010) My next inference that I believe would improve student’s writing skills would be to incorporate writing in all subject areas. Often, teachers struggle to teach all the content areas. Now more than ever with so many students needing social and emotional skills, it’s hard to “cover” every content area. That is why is so important to incorporate content areas. “Writing is much more than the ability to craft an analytical essay. Writing has the potential to engage students in critical thinking and critical reflection as historians, mathematicians, scientists, or experts in any content area.” (Holly, 2022) This is not always easy and can be very overwhelming for many teachers. That is why the use of professional development is essential. “TPD strategies are established, developed, and executed to provide teachers with the vision to prepare themselves to teach in internet-blended learning settings properly. These professional development programs need to cater to the needs of the teachers, precisely their individual classroom needs, on the use of technology in the classroom.” (Mthanti, 2023) We have many forms of professional development, but PD involving writing is very limited. Many teachers use outside resources to support their instruction which again leads to inconsistency among instruction. A study by Ahumada in 2023 found that in-services and PD involving writing incorporation among all subjects enhanced writing instruction and writing skills. Moving forward, an action plan that promotes writing instruction and professional development would increase achievement levels. This includes incorporating writing skills in all subject areas, adapting instruction strategies and plans that would be consistent with all teachers, and providing modifications for students with disabilities.

Sources Ahumada, S., Bañales, G., Graham, S., & Torres, M. L. (2023). Facilitators and barriers to writing instruction in Chile: teachers’ preparation and knowledge about teaching writing. Reading & Writing , 36 (7), 1867–1899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022- 10380-5 Beech, M. (2010). Accommodations: Assisting students with disabilities . Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, Florida Department of Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565777.pdf “Explore Dan Emmett Elementary School in Mount Vernon, OH.” GreatSchools.Org , https://www.greatschools.org/ohio/mount-vernon/4760-Dan-Emmett-Elementary- School/#Students Holly S. Atkins, & Lin Carver. (2022). Writing Is Thinking : Strategies for All Content Areas . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Mthanti, B. J., & Msiza, P. (2023). The roles of the school principals in the professional development of teachers for 21st century Education. Cogent Education , 10 (2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2267934 Saka, A. O. (2021). Can Teacher Collaboration Improve Students’ Academic Achievement in Junior Secondary Mathematics? Asian Journal of University Education , 17 (1), 33–46. “Welcome to the Ohio’s State Tests Portal.” Ohio State Assessments , oh- ost.portal.cambiumast.com/. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. “Welcome to Ohio’s Assessment System.” Ohio State Assessment Hub , Cambium Assessment, oh.portal.cambiumast.com/. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. https://oh- ost.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/ohio-ost/pdf/ family_page_resources/what-are-ohios-tests WGU. (n.d.) Data Collection Methods [Review of Data Collection Methods] Wexler, Natalie. “Problems with Lucy Calkins’ Curriculum Go beyond Reading-to Writing.” Forbes , Forbes Magazine, 12 Sept. 2023, www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2021/11/21/problems-with-lucy-calkins-curriculum- go-beyond-reading-to-writing/?sh=69d6644450c9 .

D019 Task 1

Related Documents