Key Assessment Stage 2: Data Analysis

FRIT 7236
Section 1 Students
This data includes information about 9th grade literature students at a public high school in rural Pierce County, Georgia. This is
the only high school for the Pierce County School District and consists of approximately 1,200 students. It is a Title I school. The
students ages range from 14-16 years old in this class. The class consists of 11 girls and 8 boys. There are no students with special
needs or diagnosed learning disabilities. One student is ESOL and receives assessment accommodations such as: oral reading and
paraphrasing of directions, extended time, small group, and word-to-word dictionary. The diversity in this group consists of 14
Caucasians, 4 African Americans, and 1 Hispanic. Academically, students range from slightly below average to average in comparison
to 9th grade students. They are graded on reading comprehension skills and grammar skills. Based on the target Year-End Proficiency
Lexile Ranges for our district, one student is reading at an advanced level (above grade level), three are reading at a proficient level
(on grade level), fourteen are reading at basic level (below grade level), and one is reading at a below basic level (severely below
grade level).
Section 2 Course
This assessment serves the purpose of a benchmark for the 9th grade literature/comp course. The course follows the Georgia
Common Core State Standards. This assessment tests several of the standards, and test questions were chosen randomly from a pool of
questions. A critical goal in this course is to move students into average reading Lexile levels since the majority of the class reads
below the normal range for 9th grade students.
The standards listed below were assessed on this test:
ELACC9-10RI1: Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of
ELACC9-10RI3:
Analyze how
the as
author
unfoldsdrawn
an analysis
or series
what the text says explicitly
as well
inferences
from the
text. of ideas or
events, including the order in which the points are made, how they are introduced
and
developed, and Analyze
the connections
that arecharacters
drawn between
them.with multiple or
ELACC9-10RL3:
how complex
(e.g., those
conflicting motivations) develop over the course of a text, interact with other
ELACC9-10RI8:
Delineate
andorevaluate
characters,
and advance
the plot
develop the
the argument
theme. and specific claims in a text,
assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient;
identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.
ELACC9-10W1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive
topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
ELACC9-10W2: Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey
complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the
effective selection, organization, and analysis of
content.

f. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and

supports the information or explanation presented (e.g., articulating implications or
the significance of the topic).
ELACC9-10W8: Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and
digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the usefulness of each
source in answering the research question; integrate information into the text
selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and following a
standard format for citation.
ELACC9-10L4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiplemeaning words and phrases based on grades 910 reading and content, choosing
flexibly from a range of strategies.
a. Use context (e.g., the overall meaning of a sentence, paragraph, or text; a words position or function in a sentence) as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase.
c. Consult general and specialized reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation of a word or
determine or clarify its precise meaning, its part of speech, or its etymology.
ELACC9-10SL2: Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse
media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) evaluating the credibility and
accuracy of each source.
ELACC9-10SL4: Present information, findings, and supporting evidence clearly,
concisely, and logically such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the
organization, development, substance, and style are appropriate to purpose,
audience, and task.
ELACC9-10RL4: Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in
the text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the cumulative
impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone (e.g., how the language
evokes a sense of time and place; how it sets a formal or informal tone.)

There were several standards tested in this assessment because all state standards have been taught by the end of the 3rd 9 weeks. The
mean and standard deviation for each standard is shown in the chart below. The chart also identifies the question(s) that test each
standard.

Overall
Student
Grade
MA
56 Question #
Standard
Overall Reading
WB
81
(Literary and Informational)
KB
75
ELACC9-10RI1
4,6
MB
69
(Cite Textual Evidence-Nonfiction)
TB
94
ELACC9-10RL3
1,2
BC
63
(Complex Characters)
ELACC9-10RI3
3
JC
25
(Author Unfolds TD
Analysis)
75
ELACC9-10RI8
5
KE
69
(Delineate and Evaluate)
DH
94
Overall (Writing)
KJ
63
ELACC9-10W1
10
LL
56
(Precise Claims)
ELACC9-10W2f
7
RN
88
(Concluding Statement/section)
CP
88
ELACC9-10W8
16
SP
69
(Gathering Info from print/digital sources)
MS
63
Overall (Language)
BS
75
ELACC9-10L4a
12,13
HS
81
(Context Clues)
ELACC9-10L4c
8
DW
69
(Reference Materials)
Overall (Speaking and Listening)
Mean
71.210526
ELACC9-10SL2
11,15
32
Integrate and Evaluate
Std Dev
15.656103
ELACC9-10SL4
9
39
(Presentation Information )
ELACC9-10RI4
14
(Meaning of words/phrases)

Descriptive
Overall, the students performed average on this assessment. The
overall school average for this assessment for all 9th graders was
77%. The overall average for this class was 71%. Students
scored 67% in Reading, 65% in Writing, 77% in Language and
76% in Speaking and Listening. This chart shows the mean and
standard deviation for this assessment.

Mean
67.47

Standard Deviation
24.44

63.15

39.20

71.05

33.70

100

36.84

48.23

64.94

29.66

94.73

22.32

31.57

46.48

77.26
73.68

28.73
33.90

84.21

36.46

76.31
65.78

17.15
36.46

73.68

44.03

100

0
Analysis

Question Results

When looking at the data in the chart above, the higher level thinking questions tend to have a lower percent of correct responses.
For example, question #4 required students to cite textual evidence to prove their answer. Question #5 required students to delineate
and evaluate the writers standpoint on a topic. Question #16 required students to gather information from print/digital sources;
which in their defense, this skill was practiced less than any other on the test.

Spearman-Brown Reliability

Odd
Total

Even
Total

Z-odd

Zeven

0.6599
66

0.2357

0.6599
66
0.2357

0.7571
3
0.7571
3
0.2019
02
1.2366
5
0.6814
19

2.4513
04

0.6599
66
0.2357

1.1313
7
0.2357

2.0270
4
0.6599

2.1199
69
0.7571
3
0.2019
02
0.7571
3
0.2019
02
0.6814

zprodu
ct
0.4996
8
0.1784
58
0.1332
48
0.2914
81
0.7709
4
0.4996
8
1.8559
6
0.1332
48
0.1784
58
0.4092
6
0.4497

Rnn

Rel

0.04283

-0.08949

The reliability score of this assessment is

-0.08949 which shows that it has a very low
reliability. One way to increase reliability of
this assessment would be to increase the
number of test items. Also, I could make the
number of test items per standard equal to
show that each standard is of equal value.
Another way to increase reliability would be
to increase the number of times a student is
assessed on these particular standards. Student
mastery should not be determined with one
assessment. According to another statistics
software (SPSS), a tests needs to have at least
a .7 score to be acceptable in terms of internal
consistency. This test, according to Cronbach
Alpha, scored a .616, which also proves very
low reliability.

Mean

5.7368
42

5.4210
53

Std
Dev.

1.1164
84

2.0854
33

66
0.6599
66
1.1313
7
1.1313
7
0.6599
66
0.6599
66
1.1313
7
0.6599
66
0.2357

Section 4 Strengths and Weaknesses

19
0.7571
3
0.7571
3
0.2776
1
0.2019
02
0.2019
02
1.2366
5
0.2019
02
2.5994
85

13
0.4996
8
0.8565
97
0.3140
85
0.1332
48
0.1332
48
1.3991
08
0.1332
48
0.6127
0.8137
7

Overall the students seemed to struggle with questions that were at a higher DOK level. Breaking down the percent by standard helps
to see individual student strengths and weaknesses. Target areas are those where students scored less than 50%. This chart shows a
breakdown of student performance by standard for each student. Overall, the target area is writing based on low mastery for standard
ELACC9-10W1a and ELACC9-10W8. A second target area is Reading based on low mastery for standards ELACC9-10RI1,
ELACC9-10RI8, and ELACC9-10SL4. Each of these target areas are identified by red text in the chart. This chart may also serve the
purpose of guiding instruction for the teacher based on individual student needs.
Na
me

Writ
ing

(ELA
CC910W
1a)
Preci
se
Clai
ms

(ELACC910W2f)
Concludin
g
Statement
/section

(ELAC
C910W8)
Gather
Info.
From
Print/d
igital
Source
s

Lang
uage

(ELA
CC910L4
a)
Cont
ext
Clue
s

(ELAC
C910L4
c)
Refer
ence
Mate
rials

Reading
(Literar
y and
Informa
tional)

(ELAC
C910RL
3)
Comp
lex
Chara
cters

(ELA
CC910RI
3)
Auth
or
Unfo
lds
Anal
ysis

(ELA
CC910RI
8)
Delin
eate
And
Evalu
ate

Spea
king
and
Liste
ning

(ELA
CC910SL
2)
Integ
rate
And
Eval
uate

(ELAC
C910SL4)
Presen
t
Inform
ation

(ELACC9
-10RI4)
Meaning
Of
Words/p
hrases

33

(ELA
CC910RI
1)
Cite
Text
ual
Evid
ence
Non
fic
0

MA

33

100

100

100

100

50

100

75

100

100

WB

67

100

100

100

100

KB

100

100

100

100

67

100

100

83

100

100

100

75

50

100

100

83

100

50

100

100

50

50

100

MB

33

100

67

50

100

67

50

100

100

100

100

100

100

TB

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

75

50

100

100

BC

33

100

JC

100

100

100

33

50

100

100

100

100

100

17

100

75

100

100

TD

100

100

100

100

67

50

100

67

50

100

100

75

50

100

100

KE

100

100

100

100

33

50

83

50

100

100

100

50

100

100

DH
KJ

67

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

67

50

100

50

50

100

100

50

100

100

LL

33

100

100

100

100

33

50

100

75

50

100

100

RN

67

100

100

100

100

100

83

100

50

100

100

100

100

100

100

CP

67

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

75

50

100

100

SP

67

100

100

33

100

83

100

100

100

75

100

100

MS

33

100

67

50

100

67

100

50

100

75

50

100

100

BS

67

100

100

67

50

100

67

50

100

100

100

100

100

100

HS

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

83

100

100

100

50

100

100

DW

67

100

100

100

100

100

50

50

50

100

75

100

100

O% correct 50%< correct = Target Areas for instruction

Section 5 Improvement Plan

This assessment is only one of many that are administered to test these specific standards. The results of this assessment can be used to
group students. Group instruction can be geared towards acceleration of the standards or remediation of the standards based on student
needs. It is obvious that the main target area is where students had to use higher order thinking. Therefore, students should be given
many opportunities during guided and independent practice to explain their answer and thought process. The chart above gives a good
overview of individual student mastery of the standards, as well as areas of weakness. It is important not to determine final mastery
based on one assessment, and students should be given several opportunities to prove mastery. Classwork, discussions, and other
formative assessments should be taken into consideration when determining final mastery of the standards. After collecting data from
these resources, teachers should use student weaknesses to guide instruction. Students with similar weaknesses or strengths may be
grouped together in order to remediate or accelerate. Instruction may also need to be delivered on an individual basis depending on
student need. After students receive remediation on weak areas, students should be evaluated again using this assessment. The
reliability of the assessment can be improved by increasing the number of test items. Also, by assessing each standard with the same
number of questions increase the equality among the standards, which will also increase the reliability of the assessment.