Using Data to improve Student Learning

Student Assessment Results

Standards

Answers

Zoran B

Zyntar C.

Zup C.

Zancy D.

Zinvis E.

Zuitar F.

Zirii G.

Zhield H.

Zorelda I.

Zamsung K.

Zucy S.

Zon D.

1. M:01:NO:6.2 (S)

C

D

A

C

C

C

A

C

C

C

C

C

C

2. M:02:GM:6.3 (S)

D

B

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

B

D

D

D

B

B

B

B

C

D

D

B

C

4. M:02:GM:6.7 (S)

C

B

C

C

D

C

B

C

D

C

D

C

C

5. M:03:FA:6.1 (S)

C

D

C

D

D

A

C

C

D

A

B

C

C

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

B

D

A

C

C

A

A

A

D

B

D

A

A

7. M:03:FA:6.2 (S)

B

B

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

8. M:03:FA:6.3 (S)

C

C

B

D

C

C

C

C

B

C

B

C

C

9. M:03:FA:6.4 (S)

D

D

D

D

C

D

D

A

C

D

C

D

C

10. M:04:DSP:6.2 (S)

C

C

C

D

C

C

C

C

D

C

A

C

C

Overall Correct

4

4

6

6

8

7

8

3

8

3

9

7

Percentage

40%

40%

60%

60%

80%

70%

80%

30%

80%

30%

90%

70%

Standard for RTI

1. M:01:NO:6.2 (S)

1. M:01:NO:6.2 (S)

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

4. M:02:GM:6.7 (S)

5. M:03:FA:6.1 (S)

1. M:01:NO:6.2 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

Standard for RTI

2. M:02:GM:6.3 (S)

2. M:02:GM:6.3 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

5. M:03:FA:6.1 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

4. M:02:GM:6.7 (S)

9. M:03:FA:6.4 (S)

4. M:02:GM:6.7 (S)

5. M:03:FA:6.1 (S)

4. M:02:GM:6.7 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

Standard for RTI

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

3. M:02:GM:6.6 (S)

8. M:03:FA:6.3 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

5. M:03:FA:6.1 (S)

5. M:03:FA:6.1 (S)

9. M:03:FA:6.4 (S)

Standard for RTI

4. M:02:GM:6.7 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

10. M:04:DSP:6.2 (S)

9. M:03:FA:6.4 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

Standard for RTI

5. M:03:FA:6.1 (S)

7. M:03:FA:6.2 (S)

8. M:03:FA:6.3 (S)

8. M:03:FA:6.3 (S)

Standard for RTI

6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S)

8. M:03:FA:6.3 (S)

9. M:03:FA:6.4 (S)

9. M:03:FA:6.4 (S)

Standard for RTI

10. M:04:DSP:6.2 (S)

10. M:04:DSP:6.2 (S)

Possible Intervention Small Grouping

Group #1

Group#1

Group # 2

Group # 2

Group # 2

Group # 2

Group#3

Group#1

Group#3

Group#1

Group#3

Group#3

Possible Intervention Type needed

Tier 3

Tier 3

Tier 2

Tier 2

Tier 1 Group

Tier 2

Tier 1 Group

Tier 3

Tier 1 Group

Tier 3

Tier 1 Group

Tier 2

Link to Data in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F2NziJuEzECbrj4Fz2_4VmHTPYfibV7fHvCVvoU3RBQ/edit?usp=sharing

             The chart above was made with Google Sheets and the data was taken from an assessment that these students took to inform the teacher on possible interventions based on each question and standards. The class is a heterogeneous classroom and each student has their own differentiated needs. Google sheets is an excellent way for a teacher to organize data and use it to guide instruction. Google Sheets allows the teacher to input the data and easily color code information to  break it down, and let the teacher "dig into it to find meaning that they can use (Logan, 2015)." Looking at the results above, it is easy to see what students did not have correct answers for each of the standards. Using this data, the teacher can create intervention groups to reteach standards that students are not competent in. Adding color to the data makes it easier to identify trends and problem areas. One of the weaknesses of this data collection was that the data was collected by an assessment that was not easily transferred into the Google Sheets. The teacher needed to input the information by hand into the sheet. The strength of an online program like Google Sheets is that it can take data from a Google Form and automatically collect it. This would have produced more data in the form of graphs and summary of results. Google Sheets is also great because of its ability to be cloud based and accessed by the teacher wherever there is internet. The data can also be turned into individual student reports by using mail merge and google doc templates. Google for education has a whole suite of applications to "help monitor and collect data all the time—through everything from homework and quizzes to super-quick exit tickets and in-class spot checks (Logan, 2015)."  

                     This type of Web 2.0 tool functionality can apply to authentic classrooms or school-wide scenarios. Google forms and Google sheets makes it easy to perform school wide assessments and collect data on students. The 2.0 Web nature of the application allows for collaboration and easy sharing of information because of the ability to share sheets online with collaborators at a click of a button. This technology also allows for the data to be "communicated with other teachers across grade levels " and updated in real-time (Logan, 2015). Google Drive and sheets allows for an online database of important student data that can be used to drive real-time instruction and intervention. This leads to a more authentic classroom because assessments can be designed based off of students level of understanding and can be differentiated using data. This type of data collection can reveal "which of your students performed advanced, proficient, basic and below basic (Alber, 2011)." Teachers knowing this information can make data driven decisions based on what their students need and design assessments that allow the teacher to "step away from the podium" and take a "guide on the side" role (Alber, 2011). This type of pedagogy with data driven decisions allows for more authentic learning in the classroom. 

               Based on the student data collected from the class in this document, it is easy to see where students stand in their proficiency each of the standards. Looking at it holistically can give the teacher some insight into the the effectiveness of some of the standard based instruction delivered in the classroom. The data would seem to suggest that the formative assessments for the standard "M:03:FA:6.2 (S)" where successful in preparing students to answer question #7 because only one student in the class answered that question incorrectly. Conversely, the formative assessments used for preparing students for the standard "M:01:NO:6.4 (S)" did not seem effective because only two students provided a proficient answer for number 6. This data determines that the class as a whole does not need re-teaching of the standard "Demonstrates conceptual understanding of linear relationships (y = kx; y = mx + b) as a constant rate of change by constructing or interpreting graphs of real occurrences and describing the slope of linear relationships (faster, slower, greater, or smaller) in a variety of problem situations; and describes how change in the value of one variable relates to change in the value of a second variable in problem situations with constant rates of change" as over 90 percent of the class answered the question proficiently. The data does suggest that the class may benefit from some more formative assessments for the standard "Accurately solves problems involving single or multiple operations on fractions (proper, improper, and mixed), or decimals; and addition or subtraction of integers; percent of a whole; or problems involving greatest common factor or least common multiple" because of the number of students who did not provide a response that proves their proficiency with that standard. The rest of the standards will need to be re-assesed by grouping students and developing differentiated instruction based on the student needs of those groups.   

             Using the student data, the teacher of this class could put students in three different groups of four students based on the standards they need intervention on. Group #1 consist of students that need more re-teaching on the first 5 standards assessed in the assessment. Group #2 consists of students needed re-teaching on the middle standards and Group #3 needs re-teaching on the last four standards assessed. The teacher knowing these groupings can now design student centered lessons that cover the competencies needed to be re-assessed. The initial scoring on the assessment can be considered the baseline. Before the interventions can start, it is important that the groups have similar "student’s baseline performances to serve "as an initial marker against which to compare his or her outcome performance at the end of the intervention ("Helping Teachers to Structure Their Classroom (Tier 1) Data Collection," n.d.)." The teacher will use these groups to set goals and create a lesson that will allow them to "monitor the student’s progress formatively during the intervention to judge whether the intervention is successful in helping the student to attain the goal ("Helping Teachers to Structure Their Classroom (Tier 1) Data Collection," n.d.)." 

              Another way to group the students would be their intervention level needed based on their performance on the assessment. Based on the data, four students would need Tier 3 intervention based on the overall number of standards they did not prove proficiency in. These students need to "receive individualized, intensive interventions that target the students' skill deficits for the remediation of existing problems and the prevention of more severe problems("Tiered Instruction/Intervention," n.d.). The teacher would need to make a plan with paraprofessionals and work to catch these students up with more intense individual attention and may need to modify some of the students assessments based on their needs. This grouping also may need a conversation with the student or review information "from cumulative files (Alber, 2011). " Sometimes, students are struggling because of non academic issues and this data and lead to conversations that may give the teacher " an opportunity to provide empathy, acknowledge their hardship, and then set some goals together for the child to improve academically." Four other students would need tier 2 interventions, which would require the teacher to provide more scaffolding and slowly increase intensive instruction based on their need. the rest of the students seem to be responding to the tier 1 instruction of the class but may need periodic additional support ("Tiered Instruction/Intervention," n.d.). 

                   Using data in the classroom is a great way to make informed decisions as a teacher to enhance student learning. Teachers need to have a system of collecting data and using technology tools like google can make teachers not be "afraid of the data" collecting(Logan, 2015). Data can be an important tool for creating authentic classroom learning and should be a part of every teacher's curriculum to drive their instruction. 

References

Alber, R. (2011, December 06). 3 Ways Student Data Can Inform Your Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/using-student-data-inform-teaching-rebecca-alber

Logan, L. (2015). 5 ways to use data to improve your teaching. Retrieved from http://www.amplify.com/viewpoints/5-ways-to-use-data-to-improve-your-teaching

Helping Teachers to Structure Their Classroom (Tier 1) Data Collection. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.interventioncentral.org/response_to_intervention_structuring_teacher_data_collection

Tiered Instruction/Intervention. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction