P507 - M5 - Reviewing & Examining Data by Michelle Bakerson

gameonteaching — 2024-07-26 18:47:22 UTC

M5 Data_LBrooks

2024-07-27 16:30:17 UTC

The data tells us the grade (5),name of the teacher, the test was in the spring of 2018-19, the name of the district and the school. The class tested 13 students across math, reading, Lang Usage, and science plotting achievement across Conditional Growth vs Achievement percentile in the 4 areas. The graph also shows males and females test results and tells us the students were white

Scrolling to the bottom, we can find a summary of the overall 5th graders tested in the 4 areas.

M5 Data_LBrooks

2024-07-27 17:07:52 UTC

Science and Lang Usage has the highest rates in High Achievement/High Growth and in Low Achievement/High Growth. Oddly (to me) Reading had the highest numbers in Low Achievement/Growth and in High Achievement/Growth.

Looking at the growth in each area, 7 ss met their projected growth in Math, 5 in Reading, 8 in Language Arts, and 6 in Science. The summary chart at the bottom of the report indicates all areas exceeded the projected percentage growth except i the area of Reading.

4 of the ss that struggle with reading (LA/LG) also struggle in science. 2 of the same students that have difficulty in reading also have difficulty in language usage.

One of my concerns is the ss that are in the HA/LG area. This indicates to me that while they have the knowledge, they did not show an overall improvement from the spring of the previous year, almost as if they are halted or stalled out.

Student #2 showed an improvement in Math and Lang Usage in the LA/HG category! Student #6 also showed improvement in Science and Lang Usage in the LA/HG category.

Because I am a visual learner, I would like to see an overlay of the previous year onto this graphic to compare the two years.

kstanto — 2024-07-28 14:14:53 UTC

kstanto — 2024-07-28 14:24:26 UTC

M5 Data Response 1

charlieobrien911 — 2024-07-28 19:05:34 UTC

When looking through this graph, you can see a few key points of information. You can see that 13 students were examined in Math, Reading, Language, and Science. Based on their achievement status and level of growth between the spring of 2018 and the spring of 2019, students were placed in 1 of 4 categories. Looking at the graph the first thing that sticks out to me is that most of the students fall into 2 out of the 4 categories. You are most likely to see a student with low achievement/low growth and high achievement/high growth. I think this fits with current trends in education and the slipping of the middle class. C students are a rarity nowadays and you are most likely to see students who are high achievers or lie on the opposite side of the spectrum.

M5 Data Response 2

charlieobrien911 — 2024-07-28 19:13:31 UTC

The most important piece of data to look at when evaluating the 5th graders' growth is the bolded column titled "Met Projected Growth. When you analyze this column you can see that 6/13 met their projected growth for math. As you go through the subjects you can find the following, 5/13 for reading, 8/13 for language, and 6/13 for science met their projected growth. All of this data goes to show that for every subject besides language, less than 50% of the 5th graders are reaching their projected growth. While these students might be growing, it is not to the level they are supposed to be at for the spring of 2019.

loehlman — 2024-07-28 19:30:27 UTC

This data initially shows us NWEA scores and percentiles of 13 5th grade students in Hannah Erickson's class from 4 different subjects, and their scores and percentiles on the tests from the previous year. It maps the growth from one year to the next and shows whether they met their projected growth or not. The graph shows 4 quadrants categorizing student scores as high or low achievement and high or low growth.

loehlman — 2024-07-29 14:02:26 UTC

Looking at the data, I am understanding that the scores from the year before are those same students, so they would have been in 4th grade for the Spring 2018 date. So this would have been measuring growth from 4th to 5th grade I believe.

At the bottom of the report, it summarizes the projected growth. Less than half of the students met their projected growth in reading, math, and science. A little over half met their projected growth in language.

However, there are several students who did not meet their projected growth that have an indicator that means their projected growth is within the standard of error. I believe this means that there is a chance that they did actually meet their growth. There are also a few that met their projected growth that show the same indicator, meaning that the standard of error includes scores that would mean they did not actually meet their growth. This shows that there are several students on the bubble of making it or not. These are the students who may need specific targeted interventions.

M5 Reviewing and Examining Data #1

rpauer1 — 2024-07-29 15:45:49 UTC

When looking at the data chart, it first gives background details of the test. This includes the title of what the data chart is showing us (achievement status and growth summary), that the students are in 5th grade in Hannah Erickson's class, they were tested in spring of 2018-2019, and details about the school. The key for the data chart indicates that there are four subjects (mathematics, reading, language usage, and science) all represented by different symbols. The key also indicates that the students were white and that males and females are included in the test taking. The actual data chart shows four different quadrants: low achievement/low growth, high achievement/low growth, low achievement/high growth, and high achievement/high growth. Briefly looking at the data chart, it shows that the majority of students fall into the high achievement/high growth category or the low achievement/low growth category.

M5 Reviewing and Examining Data #2

rpauer1 — 2024-07-29 16:23:35 UTC

When looking at the data, there is a lot of information that is included. First, you see a breakdown of each subject's test results by student. I like that they did this, as I went through and looked at each student's results in each test to see if there was any correlation between subjects. My first year of teaching biology, I was told that most students that struggle with math, also struggle with science. This was a trend I saw in this data set and was also shown in the summary by subject at the end.

The data set included columns labeled Projective Growth, Observed Growth, and Met Projective Growth. Each student was given an individualized projective growth score (based on their spring 2018 results) to compare their spring 2019 results to in order to determine if they met their projective growth. 6/13 students met their growth in math, 5/13 students met their growth in reading, 8/13 students met their growth in language usage, and 6/13 students met their growth in science.

Although this data is helpful to get an overall sense of how the students did, some of the students that fell into the "did not meet their growth" category only missed their projective score by one or two points. As a teacher, I would target the students who missed their projective scores by a large margin to try to make an intervention plan to get them back on track. I would also take into consideration that the students that missed their projective scores could have had an off day, have test anxiety, etc. and try to gauge their understanding using different methods.

rmuzzi — 2024-07-29 23:20:50 UTC

This is data from a 5th grade class with 13 students who took the test in spring 2019. Scores are shown from each of the students' tests in math, reading, language usage, and science. 5 students placed in the low achievement/high growth category. These students did not score very highly, but they improved a lot over the past year. 16 students placed in the low achievement/low growth categories. These students did not score very highly and did not show a lot of growth from the previous year. Students in this category may needed targeted intervention to help them grow. 12 students placed in the high achievement/low growth quadrant. These students performed very well, but did not improve much over the previous year. If they continue on this trend, the other students will eventually catch up with their achievement level and pass them. 19 students landed in the high achievement/high growth quadrant. Ideally, this is where everyone would land to show that they are reaching their full potential.

rmuzzi — 2024-07-29 23:48:29 UTC

I looked at the conditional growth index to determine if students were growing at a “normal” rate. According to the nwea website, “A CGI score of zero indicates a student showed the same amount of growth as the growth norms. Positive CGI scores indicate that a student’s growth exceeded the growth norms, whereas negative CGI scores indicate that a student's growth was less than the growth norms.” (https://connection.nwea.org/s/article/Conditional-Growth-Index?language=en_US)

In math, 6/13 students met or exceeded growth norms.

In reading, 5/13 students met or exceeded growth norms.

In language usage, 8/13 students met or exceeded growth norms.

In science, 6/13 students met or exceeded growth norms.

This data shows that students are making the most progress in language usage. Students will most likely need extra support in math to keep up over the years

bgoodson5 — 2024-07-30 18:24:00 UTC

The data lets us know that this is a 5th-grade class. The test was given in the Spring of 2018-2019. The school district is Hope-Page. The chart gives weeks of instructions. 13 students took the assessment test, which consisted of 4 subjects. The chart tells us that the subjects were Mathematics-Green, Reading-Purple, Language Usage-Red, and Science & General Science- light blue. The growth chart indicates findings based on colors.

The chart shows the % of students who met or exceeded Math 46.2%, Reading 38.5%, Languages Usage 61.5% and Science 46.2%.

% of Projected Growth, Math 100%, Reading 80.3%, Language 129% and Science 125%.

% of students was 13

Count of students who met or exceed their projection growth, Math 6, Reading 5, Language 8, and Science 6.

Median Conditional Growth % was Math 42, Reading 35, Language 64, and Science 4.

bgoodson5 — 2024-07-30 18:30:20 UTC

Based on the data students did not have a valid growth test event this term. SEM or RIT is greater than normal. SE on the observed growth range is greater than normal.

The chart indicates that projected growth falls within the standard error of observed growth. It states that due to statistical unreliability, summary data for groups less than 10 are not shown.

However, students who met or exceeded the projected growth were Language Usage 8 which gives a 64% median conditional growth. Science projected met or exceed was 6 with % of 44. Math had 6 projected growth with 42 growth %. Students are shown to be at 5 with reading with a conditional growth % of 35.

2024-07-31 18:19:20 UTC

ksporter1999 — 2024-07-31 18:24:06 UTC

ksporter1999 — 2024-07-31 18:26:32 UTC

Reviewing & Examining Data

parksmi1 — 2024-08-02 03:12:57 UTC

Looking at the chart, it is showing the achievement vs growth over a one year period for these students.

Each subject is shown with a different symbol. Both male and female students are shown, while white is the only ethnicity shown. The names of the students are not shown. The data is set up so students can fall within 1 of 4 quadrants, or possibly in between.

Reviewing and Examining Data

parksmi1 — 2024-08-02 03:20:32 UTC

The overall pattern looks to be at least a moderate positive relationship between achievement and growth. As achievement goes up, growth tends to go up overall.

The least common outcome is low achievement/high growth.

At a glance, the subjects seem to be scattered and not showing one subject is heavily in one or the other quadrant.

However, when counting the shapes, language usage is the most frequent in high achievement/high growth, while reading is the most frequent in low achievement/low growth.

Without the names being displayed, I can’t see students overall results for all subjects easily. I would click the box to display names to help look more closely at that.

C Winger Response 1

2024-08-04 13:40:44 UTC

C. Winger Response 2

2024-08-04 13:43:32 UTC

M5 Data Response

rssherman1997 — 2024-08-07 14:03:17 UTC

Looking at the data, a majority of the students fall into the high-achievement category. The data suggests that many of the students are high achievers but vary in their growth compared to previous testing. While students did meet their growth expectations, less than half of the students met or exceeded their projected scores based on the previous year.

M5 Data

rssherman1997 — 2024-08-07 14:06:45 UTC

Looking at the summary data allows teacher to see students growth as a whole. While many of the students met their projected growth, less than half of the student met their projected RIT.

By having this information, you can better understand what areas students are struggling in, and what should be reviewed in a whole group setting. This also allows the teacher to see which students struggle and offer tutoring or other resources to bring them to level.

cjdietz2 — 2024-08-07 15:50:47 UTC

Initially, the chart displays when the test was taken, who was the teacher that administered the test, and where the school location is for the individuals that took the test. The more we observe the data we will also notice that there were 13 students that took the NWEA testing. There were three tests for the students to take and they are as follows: Mathematics, Reading, Language Usage, and Science-General Science. The most important information that the data displays is that it expresses achievement status from Spring of 2018 and Spring of 2019. This is critical because it allows for educators and school personnel to see if the student is growing in their academic ability or not from year to year. The data also displays the percentiles in which the students belong and the success in which they have on the testing.

cjdietz2 — 2024-08-07 16:18:57 UTC

What is the most important to understand when looking at NWEA scoring is that yes projected growth and the score the students are projected to have is important, it is also important to understand that any growth is also a success. When looking at the data we can learn that Math is the biggest strength for the students. All 13 students had growth from one year to the next. Science was the second strongest strength as 11 of the 13 students had growth from the previous year. Reading and Language Usage both had only 9 of the 13 students grow from the previous year. What this displays is that the students have more of a strength in the math department because there are a lot of coinciding skills that work both math and science. What I have noticed in my two years of teaching is that even if the students do not reach their “projected” score, we still need to celebrate growth especially because if a student is already high in the first place it is more difficult for the student to keep obtaining such a drastic growth. What I have noticed the most from observing the data is that the 5th grade needs to focus more on reading intervention, that is the clear cut biggest need for the students to develop better skill sets.

jenmayo1 — 2024-08-07 19:14:22 UTC

jenmayo1 — 2024-08-07 19:16:25 UTC

Jessica Soto

jsoto266 — 2024-08-08 03:32:38 UTC