table 1. data: students' item...

! of !1 6 Kameron Williams FRIT 7236: Data Analysis

Strength = >80% correct

Weakness = <40% correct

Table 1. Data: Students' Item Scores

Items on Test

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8 7 1 6

6 1 12 13 14 2 15 4 63 17 18 10 5 18 9 25 35 66 39 23 4 14 32 78 86

Students +5 7+3 +7 +12 +5 9-8 6+9 +2 +1 +11 -3 +40 -13 +11 +7 +7 -2 +5 -11 +16 -46 -27 -10 +7 -5 -13 +43 -57

Grant 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jayla 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Kaleigh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Nicole 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Austin 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zachary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Quin 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Garrett 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emma 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Jacob 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emily 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nolan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Braylon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

Cole 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

Ava 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lilly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Drew 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Marilyn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annie 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

Olen 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chase 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sophia 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cooper 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Percentage Correct

83 %

92 %

92 %

75 %

61 %

68 %

75 %

75 %

67 %

88 %

88 %

29 %

46 %

50 %

63 %

42 %

50 %

50 %

38 %

29 %

25 %

21 %

29 %

33 %

25 %

13 %

0 %

0 %


Section 1 - Students: This group of learners are 2nd grade students at Walker Park Elementary in Monroe,

Georgia. The class consists of 24 students ranging in age from 7-9 years old, with a median age

of 8. The class is comprised of 20 Caucasians and 4 African Americans. There are 12 girls and 12

boys. Seven students have tested for and been identified as gifted and are served for two

segments per day. Five students have been identified for EIP (Early Intervention Program), 2

being served for math and reading and 3 being served for reading only. Six students have been

labeled as economically disadvantaged, 2 students come from single family homes, and 2

students live with family members other than parents.

Section 2 - Course: Students took this assessment during whole-group math. This is a regular education

classroom following the Common Core standards for 2nd grade math. This assessment, the

MCOMP (Math Computation), is a benchmark probe and was administered during the second

week of school to provide a baseline for student performance. The MCOMP assesses standards

related to sizes of numbers, column addition, basic facts, and complex computation. The

Common Core standards addressed come from the Operations & Algebraic Thinking and

Number & Operations in Base Ten domains. The specific standards include:

• MCC2.OA.2: Add and subtract within 20.

• MCC2.NBT.5: Fluently add and subtract within 100.

• MCC2.NBT.6: Add up to four 2-digit numbers.

• MCC2.NBT.7: Add and subtract within 1000.

Section 3 - Descriptive Analysis:

This benchmark assessment is administered at three times during the year, Fall, Winter,

and Spring. For the Fall assessment, the scores are interpreted as follows:

• Score of 33-50: Well Above Average (> or = 90th %ile)

• Score of 24-32: Above Average (> or = 75th %ile)


• Score of 16-22: Target (16.0)

• Score of 10-15: Average (> or = 25th %ile)

• Score of 6-9: Below Average (> or = 6.0)

• Score of 0-5: Significantly Below Average

As seen in Table 2., my students’ mean score is

20, which falls slightly above the target score of 16 for

Fall administration. While I have 10 students who

performed below the target score, I have 8 students who

performed in the above and well above range, thus

bringing the class average up. The influence of these

scores created a mean score that is not typical for the

distribution.

The standard deviation, or average amount by

which the scores differ from the mean, is 10.47. This

shows a wide spread in variability between scores, which

is representative of the population of students in my

class.

The class median is 17, which is a better

representation of of the expected target score. This

distribution makes me feel like the assessment is a

reliable source of data, particularly being that a score of

16 is considered average. This data also aligns well with

what I know about my students’ academic strengths and

weaknesses.

The MCOMP assessment is a timed assessment,

allowing only 8 minutes to attempt 28 items. Items #27

and #28 were not successfully completed by any students

in my class. This could be in part due to the time

constraints. However, these are also two of the most

Table 2. Student Test ScoresStudents Test Score

Garrett 6

Sophia 8

Grant 10

Jayla 11

Drew 11

Mary 12

Nicole 12

Zachary 12

Jacob 12

Quin 14

Austin 16

Marilyn 16

Chase 18

Ava 20

Olen 21

Lilly 22

Emily 25

Nolan 26

Kaleigh 28

Cole 29

Cooper 33

Annie 40

Emma 41

Braylon 44

Mean 20.29

Std Dev 10.47

Median 17


challenging items on the test, and include a double-digit column addition and subtraction

question, both of which require regrouping. These are concepts that are not introduced in 1st

grade, and being that this assessment was administered during the second week of school,

students had yet to be introduced to them. Overall, the subtraction items and addition with

regrouping items proved to be the most challenging for the students.

Spearman-Brown Reliability

The positive correlation coefficient can range from 0.00 to 1.00. The closer the correlation

coefficient is to 1.0, the stronger the relationship. A coefficient that is at or above .80 is generally

considered reliable. Table 3. shows that the correlation coefficient of the distribution is 0.94,

which indicates a strong relationship between the odd and even test scores. In applying the

Spearman-Brown formula, it is evident that the assessment has a very strong estimated reliability


of 0.94. I believe the length of the assessment positively impacts its reliability as it includes an

adequate set of test items to reliably assess students’ concept knowledge.

Section 4 - Analysis of Student Strengths and Weaknesses: This timed assessment was used as a benchmark to assess students’ beginning of the year

math computation skills. Some items were a review from 1st grade, while others covered 2nd

grade standards introduced later in the school year. The students’ strengths lied with single digit

addition and subtraction math facts. This was no surprise as students are expected to enter the

2nd grade with this knowledge. Double digit plus single digit addition proved to be slightly more

challenging, but this remained a strength. 67% of the class successfully added the first multiple

single digit addend item, however, only 33% correctly solved a later similar item. The eight

minute time constraint is clearly seen in the overall drop in percentage of items correct from the

beginning to the end of the assessment, and this helps to measure the students’ math fluency with

these concepts. Double digit addition with regrouping is seen as a weakness among students, as

well as double digit subtraction with and without regrouping. The greatest weakness is double

digit addition and subtraction problems that require regrouping and addition and subtraction

problems using numbers higher than twenty.

These results speak to the reliability of the test, as the students’ strengths and weaknesses

aligned with the objectives that were and were not taught in the 1st grade. Furthermore, the half-

test scores showed only a point difference, if not the same score, for all but a couple of students

and the Spearman-Brown reliability score was extremely high at 0.94. The students that fell into

the above and well above average are my high-achieving and gifted students, many of which

received accelerated instruction during advanced content math segments during 1st grade.

Students who scored low include my EIP students as well as students who struggle with math

fluency and focus. I did have one high achieving and motivated student who scored a 10 on the

assessment, which is not at all representative of his capabilities. For this student I must assume

there was an unknown personal or environmental reason for his low performance the day of

administration.


The results of this assessment show that my students need to continue working on their

math fluency, as the timed element of the assessment was a definite factor that affected students’

scores. A number of my students need further instruction to strengthen foundational skills related

to numbers and math facts. The assessment shows that my class’ math computation skills can be

fairly equally divided into low, average, and above average achieving students groups.

Section 5 - Improvement Plan: The data shows that students showed weaknesses in the areas of double digit addition

with regrouping and double digit subtraction with and without regrouping. Math fluency is also

seen as a weakness, as the percentage correct falls drastically on the final ten test items.

To improve students’ performance on the MCOMP, they will need repeated practice with

basic math facts. Aside from memorization of facts, students can be taught strategies that help

them strengthen their understanding of numbers, such as fact families, tens and doubles

strategies, and how addition and subtraction relate to one another. Additionally, students will

need plenty of opportunities to practice basic subtraction facts, particularly after they have an

understanding of the relationship between addition and subtraction.

Once students gain a stronger foundation in math computation, they need to be

introduced to strategies that will help them understand and solve double digit problems that

require regrouping. Students should be introduced to a variety of strategies and given multiple

opportunities to practice regrouping. Repeated practice will help to improve their understanding

of regrouping and build their fluency.

Next, students will need to be taught how to subtract double digit numbers that require

regrouping. Again, showing students that there are multiple ways to approach such problems will

help to build a stronger numeracy foundation. Instruction should be followed by plenty of

practice, as this will build students’ confidence and understanding.

Lastly, given the varying learning styles and ability levels in my class, my students will

require differentiated instruction to best address their needs. Whole-group and small-group

instruction should be provided and students should be given the opportunity to show what they

know in multiple ways. Reteaching should take place whenever it is deemed necessary.

table 1. data: students' item...

Documents