Data Analysis Assignment

lasonia73

sampleAssignment5_20201.docx

Home >Education homework help >Data Analysis Assignment

Data Analysis Project

Assignment #5

Data Analysis Project: Improving Grade 4 FSA/ELA Scores

EDU 708 CRN 51901-P01

Research Design in Education

Nova Southeastern University

August 7, 2020

Improving Grade 4 FSA/ELA Scores

Introduction

To improve Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) English Language Arts (ELA) scores of Grade 4 students at the target school, the writers are focusing on improving reading comprehension and including strategies to help students better comprehend reading content. Mujiselaar et al., (2017) stated “when there is a breakdown in text comprehension, reading strategies will be used to fix this comprehension gap, and such strategies might be more advanced when reading more difficult text” (p. 206). Being able to understand difficult text allows the student to be more comfortable answering higher level questions because the student has a better understanding of what is being asked of them. Soodla et al., 2017 found that “students need a lot of scaffolding for effective reading strategies before they are able to regulate their performance more skillfully and independently during reading tasks” (p.204) Scaffolding instruction allows for information to be broken down into smaller chunks. Some texts are harder for students to digest due to the higher-level vocabulary. Developing such skills and strategies in the categories tested on the FSA/ELA such as key ideas and details, craft and structure, integration of knowledge and ideas, language and editing, and text-based writing will improve ELA FSA scores at the target school.

Problem Statement

The Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) is the accountability assessment for schools in the State of Florida. The assessment is aligned with the English and Language Arts Standards. To be meeting expectations, schools are expected to show that 50% of students perform at a Level 3 or higher. The performance of the Grade 4 students at the target school provided by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) provides data that were analyzed (see Appendix A). Although 64% of the students at the target school performed at a Level 3 or higher on the FSA ELA assessment, 35% of the students scored below expectation (see Table 1).

Table 1

Performance of Grade 4 Students on the 2017 FSA/ELA by Level

Participants

Level 1 (Scaled Score 251 – 296)

Level 2 (Scaled Score 297 – 310)

Level 3 (Scaled Score 311 – 324)

Level 4 (Scaled Score 325 – 339)

Level 5 (Scaled Score 340 – 372)

Students

N = 85

16%

N = 14

19%

N = 16

35%

N = 30

20%

N = 17

N = 8

Source, Florida Department of Education

This data analysis project focuses on the FSA/ELA test results of 14 fourth grade students who scored a Level 1 (see Appendix B). The focus students scored well below the proficiency score for a Level 3, which has a cutoff scale score of 311. The demographics of this specific group of students are nine females and five males, three students are Black, two students are Caucasian, while nine students are Hispanic. All students are eligible for free and reduced lunch. In this focus group, there are seven students who are identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), and the other seven students do not have a language barrier. Of the targeted students, eight receive services in the Exceptional Education Program, (see Table 2).

Table 2

Analysis of Fourth Grade ELA Florida Standards Assessment Results

Participants

Gender

M/F

Ethnicity

Special Education

LEP

FRL

Score Range

Grade 4

N = 14

5 males

9 females

Black

N=3

Hispanic

N=9

White

N=2

N=8

N=7

free or reduced lunch

N=14

261 - 296

Rationale for Selection

These data showcase a need for improvement in reading and writing scores at the target school. Specifically, this project will focus on Level 1 students who are performing well below grade level expectations. The Florida Department of Education’s (FLDOE) guideline states “for all grade levels and subjects, the minimum scale score in performance level 3 is identified as the passing score,” (FLDOE, 2018, p. 5). An action plan using research-based strategies such as Response to Intervention (RTI) is needed to improve student achievement.

Data Analysis

To discover the patterns, trends, and frequencies revealed in the raw data, descriptive statistics are used. These include measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and variability (range). Table 1 (see Appendix A) shows descriptive statistics for all variables considered in this analysis. This analysis will focus on 14 students who earned a rating of 1 as their performance level for the Grade 4 FSA/ELA. Of those 14 students, five are male and nine are female. The population ethnicity is primarily Hispanic but also includes Black and Caucasian students. All students are eligible for free and reduced lunch. Half the students are labeled as Limited English Proficient (LEP).

The scaled scores in Table 1 show a range of 261 - 296, a 35-point spread, with a mean score of 287. These scores are well below the rating of Level 3 which requires a minimum scaled score of 311 as the “passing” performance level for the ELA FSA in 4th grade. Thirteen of the students in this sample scored within 9 points of the mean score, with one outlier scoring 26 points under the mean. The data reveal a pattern indicating a high level of failure to demonstrate proficiency among students who are Hispanic, LEP students. Intervention is needed to improve poor performance among these students on the Grade 4 FSA/ELA assessment.

Goals and Objectives

The following goals and objectives are set for the target group of fourth grade students. These goals will ensure a focus on improving ELA standards performance by addressing two areas of concern: identifying key ideas and details and conventions of standard English.

Goal: To improve the performance of Level 1 students on the Grade 4 FSA/ELA assessment.

Objective 1: When given a reading passage, students will implement explicitly taught strategies to identify 80% of the key ideas and details, as measured by summative assessments.

Objective 2: When writing in response to a prompt, students will demonstrate proper use of standard English conventions with 80% accuracy, as measured by quarterly assessments.

Intervention/ Action Plan

Intervention Plans are needed for struggling readers. Putting a strategic plan together for a student who is having a hard time learning the fundamentals and skills of reading is important to their growth. Understanding that all students do not learn the same or at the same pace is critical for any educator. Learning the student’s strengths and weaknesses allows the teacher to serve them better. When students are not avid readers or they can barely sound out words or recognize letters it is time to start aligning them up with an aggressive system. Every child is capable of success and as an educator it’s a must that students are provided with every resource to ensure their success.

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a strategic approach to assisting students who need support in their learning and behavior. RTI consists of three tiers which are Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Lenski (2012) stated that “Tier 1 is focused on providing effective classroom reading instruction for all students. In elementary schools, this instruction could come from a core reading program, literature, or a combination of both” (p. 277). When Tier 1 does not work for a student they will be referred to Tier 2. According to Smetana & Grisham (2012), the Tier 2 instructional program targets those students who require more systematic, specific, and intensive instruction than provided as a part of the general education classroom program (p. 183). If students are still in need of more assistance they will be referred to Tier 3. In this assignment the focus will be on Tier 2 and 3.

Tier 2

According to Lenski (2012) “when students do not respond to effective classroom instruction and that gap is documented, they are eligible for Tier 2 intervention, which consists of targeted instruction, either with an intervention program or an individualized approach that addresses students’ specific needs” (p. 277). Explicit instruction is a strategy that will be used to assist the targeted students in the Tier 2 phase. This strategy is where instruction entails students becoming cognitively aware of the thinking processes of reading skills. Smetana and Grisham (2012) stated Tier 2 intervention is considered strategic and intensive; students need to learn reading strategies to enable them to reach a level of competency where they can return to Tier 1 intervention (p. 184). By implementing explicit instruction, one should be able to see students go from Tier 2 back to Tier 1. With this activity the teacher will model the desired activity using clear and concise directions. The purpose of modeling the activity is to allow the students to see and hear exactly what it is they will be doing. After modeling the activity is when the next step of guided practice is implemented. This is when the students can be placed into small groups and complete their guided practice activities. While students are doing this the teacher can monitor and provide frequent feedback to students as they work in groups.

Progress monitoring and frequent feedback are examples of Tier 2 strategies. Progress monitoring allows for the teacher to see how the students are coming along and if they need any further assistance. Frequent feedback not only uplifts the student’s confidence levels, but it also helps guide them in the right direction. It keeps the students on track and allows them to want to continue to learn. Once the guided practice activity is complete, they will then do independent practice which allows the teacher to monitor and assess if they can apply the knowledge attained through the modeling and guided practice activities. If students are still struggling, then they will be referred for Tier 3.

Tier 3

Once a student has been referred over to Tier 3 in RTI the student will receive one on one intensive instruction. Lenski (2012) stated that “the students who have shown reading growth after Tier 2 intervention are eligible for Tier 3, which is typically intensive one-on-one instruction” (p.277). The student will meet three times a week for 30 minutes to go over vocabulary and reading comprehension skills. This one on one session will allow the student to be drilled with information on a standard. In this focus group the student will be meeting with the teacher one on one at least two to three times a week for about 20 minutes and work strictly on comprehension skills in reading. The student will be drilled on decoding, vocabulary in depth, phonemic awareness, and be given the opportunity to review, practice, and have new skills reinforced.

Another strategy that has shown a huge impact with helping students in Tier 3 is scaffolded instruction. During this scaffolded activity the students will break down their vocabulary using the Frayer Model. With this model the students will place the word in a box and above the word in the box the student will write down the definition. Dictionaries will be provided to students and Spanish- English dictionaries will be available to any student identified as ELL (English Language Learner) to assist with finding the definitions. To the right of the boxed in vocabulary, a picture will be drawn of the word and to the left will be example and non-example of the word. Under the boxed in vocabulary word the student will write a sentence using the word correctly. This activity is an example of a scaffolding instruction.

Conclusion

In conclusion of this five-part data analysis project, data that has been presented proves that there is a need for improvement in reading. Data have been presented (See Appendices A and B) and clearly show how low the students are scoring in reading. Reading strategies have been set in place to assist in increasing the scores. Research based strategies have been outlined and put into place for the 14 targeted students who are scoring at a Level 1. With the implementation of Tier 2 strategies of explicit instruction, progress monitoring, and frequent feedback and if needed Tier 3 strategies of scaffolding instruction and one on one instruction, the students’ levels should begin to show greater proficiency increasing from Level 1 up to a Level 3.

References

Florida Department of Education (2018). Understanding Florida Standards Assessments Reports. Retrieved from https://fsassessments.org/core/fileparse.php/4344/urlt/Understanding_FSA_Reports_2018_041918_Final.pdf

Lenski, S. (2012). What RTI means for content area teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 276-282.

Muijselaar, M. M. L., Swart, N. M., Steenbeek-Planting, E., Droop, M., Verhoeven, L., & de Jong, P. F. (2017). Developmental relations between reading comprehension and reading strategies. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(3), 194-209. http://.doi.org.10.1080/10888438.2017.1278763

Smetana, L., & Grisham, D. I. (2012). Revitalizing Tier 2 intervention with graphic novels. Reading Horizons, 51(3), 181-208.

Soodla, P., Jõgi, A., & Kikas, E. (2017). Relationships between teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and students’ metacognitive knowledge and reading achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(2), 201-218. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016- 0293-x

Appendix A

2017 Grade 4 FSA/ELA Results

Gender	ELL	ESE	Gifted	Ethnicity	Race	Performance Level	Scale Score	Category 1	Category 2	Category 3	Category 4	Category 5	Writing Category 1	Writing Category 2	Writing Category 3
								Key Ideas and Details	Craft and Structure	Integration of Knowledge and Ideas	Language and Editing Task	Text Based Writing	Statement Of Purpose Focus And Organization	Evidence And Elaboration	Conventions Of Standard English
								Points Earned	Points Possible	Points Earned	Points Possible	Points Earned	Points Possible	Points Earned	Points Possible	Points Earned	Points Possible	Points Earned	Points Possible	Points Earned	Points Possible	Points Earned	Points Possible
F	No	Yes	No	Black	Black	1	261	2	13	1	13	3	13	4	13	0	10	0	4	0	4	0	2
F	No	Yes	No	Two or More	Black	1	280	6	13	5	13	3	13	5	13	2	10	1	4	1	4	0	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	1	281	2	13	3	13	0	13	7	13	4	10	1	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	1	282	1	13	3	13	2	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	Yes	No	No	White	White	1	284	2	13	4	13	3	13	9	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	1	287	6	13	6	13	3	13	6	13	0	10	0	4	0	4	0	2
M	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	1	289	3	13	6	13	3	13	4	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	1	289	1	13	5	13	5	13	8	13	4	10	1	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	1	291	5	13	5	13	3	13	8	13	4	10	1	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	1	292	4	13	3	13	4	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	1	293	3	13	6	13	4	13	8	13	3	10	1	4	1	4	1	2
F	No	Yes	No	Black	Black	1	294	5	13	8	13	5	13	5	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	1	296	5	13	8	13	4	13	8	13	0	10	0	4	0	4	0	2
M	No	No	No	White	White	1	296	3	13	5	13	3	13	7	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	Yes	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	2	297	5	13	7	13	2	13	9	13	3	10	1	4	1	4	1	2
M	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	2	298	3	13	6	13	4	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	No	No	Black	Black	2	299	5	13	6	13	6	13	10	13	0	10	0	4	0	4	0	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	2	299	5	13	5	13	7	13	9	13	4	10	1	4	1	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Hispanic	American Indian	2	299	3	13	5	13	6	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	No	No	Black	Black	2	302	6	13	6	13	4	13	8	13	5	10	1	4	2	4	2	2
M	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	2	302	6	13	6	13	3	13	7	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	2	303	7	13	7	13	4	13	6	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	Yes	No	Black	Black	2	305	5	13	8	13	6	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	2	307	4	13	9	13	5	13	7	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	2	307	4	13	8	13	8	13	6	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	2	309	6	13	9	13	4	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	Yes	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	2	309	7	13	7	13	3	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	2	310	6	13	7	13	6	13	8	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	2	310	5	13	8	13	4	13	10	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	White	White	2	310	5	13	10	13	5	13	7	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	3	311	5	13	9	13	7	13	8	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	Yes	No	Hispanic	Black	3	311	6	13	8	13	5	13	10	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	3	312	8	13	5	13	6	13	10	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	312	8	13	8	13	4	13	7	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	3	313	8	13	6	13	5	13	9	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	Yes	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	3	313	5	13	7	13	7	13	9	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Black	Black	3	314	6	13	7	13	8	13	10	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	314	8	13	4	13	6	13	11	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	314	6	13	7	13	9	13	10	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	Black	3	315	7	13	8	13	6	13	9	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	315	9	13	8	13	8	13	6	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	316	5	13	9	13	6	13	9	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
F	Yes	No	No	Asian	Asian	3	317	5	13	8	13	7	13	13	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Two or More	Black	3	317	8	13	6	13	6	13	10	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	318	8	13	8	13	6	13	9	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	318	9	13	8	13	6	13	7	13	6	10	3	4	2	4	1	2
M	Yes	Yes	No	Hispanic	White	3	318	7	13	7	13	7	13	12	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	No	No	White	White	3	318	8	13	9	13	6	13	8	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	3	319	7	13	10	13	5	13	12	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	319	5	13	7	13	8	13	13	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	320	7	13	5	13	9	13	11	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	321	11	13	6	13	8	13	10	13	4	10	1	4	1	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	321	5	13	9	13	7	13	11	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	White	White	3	322	6	13	9	13	8	13	12	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	323	9	13	8	13	6	13	13	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	Yes	No	No	Hispanic	White	3	323	11	13	9	13	7	13	9	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
F	No	No	No	White	White	3	323	10	13	6	13	6	13	12	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	White	White	3	323	7	13	9	13	6	13	9	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	White	White	3	323	8	13	8	13	7	13	10	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	White	White	3	323	11	13	7	13	8	13	8	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	No	No	White	White	4	325	9	13	7	13	11	13	9	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	4	326	10	13	9	13	8	13	9	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	4	327	8	13	8	13	10	13	11	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	4	327	9	13	10	13	8	13	10	13	5	10	2	4	2	4	1	2
M	No	Yes	No	White	White	4	327	10	13	7	13	9	13	10	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	White	White	4	327	10	13	9	13	6	13	12	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	4	328	10	13	11	13	7	13	9	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	4	328	9	13	9	13	8	13	10	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Black	Black	4	331	8	13	11	13	6	13	11	13	7	10	3	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Black	Black	4	331	9	13	10	13	9	13	11	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	4	331	11	13	9	13	9	13	10	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Black	Black	4	333	8	13	11	13	8	13	10	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	4	333	10	13	11	13	8	13	11	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	4	337	12	13	11	13	7	13	12	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	Yes	White	White	4	337	9	13	11	13	10	13	11	13	7	10	3	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	American Indian	American Indian	4	338	11	13	8	13	12	13	11	13	7	10	3	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	White	White	4	338	12	13	11	13	8	13	11	13	7	10	3	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	5	340	12	13	12	13	10	13	10	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	White	White	5	341	10	13	10	13	10	13	13	13	7	10	3	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	White	White	5	342	12	13	11	13	8	13	12	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
M	No	No	Yes	Asian	Asian	5	344	11	13	12	13	9	13	13	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	5	344	11	13	13	13	11	13	10	13	6	10	2	4	2	4	2	2
M	No	Yes	No	White	White	5	344	11	13	13	13	10	13	11	13	7	10	3	4	2	4	2	2
F	No	No	No	Hispanic	White	5	345	10	13	10	13	11	13	13	13	8	10	3	4	3	4	2	2
F	No	No	Yes	White	White	5	349	11	13	12	13	11	13	13	13	7	10	3	4	2	4	2	2

Appendix B

Table 1

Target Group FSA/ELA scores

Student ID	Gender 0=Male 1= Female	Ethnicity 1=Asian 2=Black 3=Hispanic 4=Caucasian	FRL Status 1=Paid 2=Reduced 3=Free	LEP Status 0=No 1=Yes	Special Education 0=No 1=Yes	FSA Score Level 5= Mastery 4=Above Satisfactory 3=Satisfactory 2 &1= Below Satisfactory	ELA Assessment score= 261-296
A	1	2	3	0	1	1	261
B	1	2	3	0	1	1	280
C	1	3	3	1	0	1	281
D	1	3	3	1	1	1	282
E	0	4	3	1	0	1	284
F	1	3	3	1	1	1	287
G	0	3	3	0	0	1	289
H	1	3	3	1	1	1	289
I	0	3	3	0	1	1	291
J	0	3	3	0	1	1	292
K	1	3	3	1	0	1	293
L	1	2	3	0	1	1	294
M	1	3	3	1	0	1	296
N	0	4	3	0	0	1	296