STAT21+portfolio

Success through Assessment and Technology: ESA Region 2 Grant Project Marlys Hauck-Fenner, Freeman Jr-Sr High School 8th Grade Science

I. Problem Identification: I will use data from the Dakota STEP test to determine the science standard on which Freeman 8th graders score the lowest. The standards are. S.N.1 Understand the nature and origin of scientific knowledgeAn S.N.2 Apply the skills necessary to conduct scientific investigations S.P.1 Describe the structures and properties of, and changes in, matter S.E.1 Analyze various structures and processes of the earth system S.E.2 Analyze essential principles and ideas about the composition and structure of the universe S.S.1 Analyze various implications/effects of scientific advancement within the environment and society S.S.2 Analyze the relationships/interactions among science, technology, environment and society

II. Background Data: According to eMetric data of the Dakota STEP test, the following results summarize the achievement of Freeman 8th graders in science during the 2 years that science has been part of the test: __2007__ (28 tested) Of the 28 tested, 25% were at the basic level and 75% at the proficient level.
 * Standard || Mean || Max || Score (%) || Lowest Score ||
 * S.N.1 || 4.3 || 7 || 61.7% ||  ||
 * S.N.2 || 4.4 || 7 || 62.8% ||  ||
 * S.P.1 || 9.2 || 14 || 65.6% ||  ||
 * S.E.1 || 14.1 || 21 || 67.3 % ||  ||
 * S.E.2 || 4.0 || 7 || 57.7% || X ||
 * S.S.1 || 5.1 || 7 || 73.5% ||  ||
 * S.S.2 || 5.3 || 7 || 75.5% ||  ||

2008 (23 tested) Of the 23 tested, 5% were below basic, 30% basic, 55% proficient and 10% advanced
 * Standard || Mean || Max || Score (%) || Lowest Score ||
 * S.N.1 || 5.2 || 7 || 73.9% ||  ||
 * S.N.2 || 4.1 || 7 || 59% ||  ||
 * S.P.1 || 8.0 || 14 || 57.1% ||  ||
 * S.E.1 || 12.4 || 21 || 59.2% || X ||
 * S.E.2 || 3.9 || 7 || 55.9% || X ||
 * S.S.1 || 4.6 || 7 || 65.2% ||  ||
 * S.S.2 || 5.0 || 7 || 72% ||  ||

Data from both years show that Standard S.E.2 (Analyze essential principles and ideas about the structure and composition of the universe) is the most problematic for Freeman's 8th grade students. This broad standard has been sub-divided into the following (SD Science Standards): S.E.2.1 Students are able to compare celestial bodies within the solar system using composition, size and orbital motion S.E.2.2 Students are able to differentiate the influences of the relative positions of the Earth, moon and sun

Data from 2008 shows a lower score for Standard S.E.1 ( Analyze various structures and processes and structures of the Earth system.) One of the standards within this broad standard is S.E.1.3 (Explain the factors that create weather and the instruments and technologies that assess it.) Since this is a standard that we often don't address prior to taking the Dakota STEP test, I will make an effort to cover this material prior to testing.

III. Action Plan: Using the information collected from the data, I will design a pre-test for Standard S.E.2 using the Achievement Series and administer the test to students prior to teaching the unit. I will then incorporate technology into the unit by having student pairs use digital/movie cameras to take still and moving pictures. They will use Movie Maker to develop these pictures into movies about celestial bodies and their impact on the Earth itself. Examples from Teacher Tube will be shown for "inspiration." As a class, students will develop a rubric to score the movies. Movies will be shown to the class and peer/teacher scored. Each team will be responsible for creating review questions related to their movie to use as an interactive class review on the SMART board. Following the activities, students will take a teacher created (Achievement Series) post-test. My goal is a 10% improvement in test scores from pre- to post-test. Hopefully this will translate to a 2% improvement in STEP test scores.

I will also design pre- and post-tests for Standard E.1.3. I will incorporate technology into this unit through the use of computer based labs on the South Dakota Mobile Science Lab. Each student will prepare and present a power point slide show on one aspect of weather. Each student will also participate in a class blog (LiveJournal) related to the weather. They will have 5 prompt questions to address as well as a general response to weather forecasts and conditions. Again, my goal is a 10% improvement in Achievement Series test scores and a 2% improvement in STEP test scores.

IV. Time Line September 2008: attend Digital Communications class October 2008: attend eMetric & Achievement series class October 2008-January 2009: attend minimum of 3 technology concept classes December 2008: create e portfolio for STAT 21 classroom project January 2009: attend Formative Assessment class January 2009: develop achievement series pre- and post-tests; complete technology-infused lesson plans February or March 2009: administer pre-test technology lessons administer post-test April 2009: complete e portfolio-- results of action research

V. Results Pre- and post-tests were administered for Standards SE2.1 and SE 2.2 on January 25 and February 10, 2009. Results are as follows: This shows an increase of 7%. Interestingly, it shows that 7 students scored lower on the post-test.
 * Student ||  || 1/25/09 space pre-test || 2/10/09 Space post test ||
 * Class Average ||  || 55.70% || 62.70% ||
 * Alshare, Dina ||  || 41.70% || 73.30% ||
 * Anderson, Garrett W. ||  || 58.30% || 66.70% ||
 * Baker, Sydney ||  || 41.70% || 33.30% ||
 * Bauer, Shelby ||  || 75.00% || 66.70% ||
 * Gering, Grace M. ||  || 75.00% || 73.30% ||
 * Graber, Lea ||  || 66.70% || 86.70% ||
 * Graber, Lexi J. ||  || 58.30% || 60.00% ||
 * Kaufman, Dana J. ||  || 58.30% || 60.00% ||
 * Kleinsasser, Mitchell J ||  || 41.70% || 66.70% ||
 * KOERNER, KAHLER ||  || 50.00% || 46.70% ||
 * Lager, Carli ||  || 41.70% || 60.00% ||
 * Lang, Caleb G. ||  || 75.00% || 80.00% ||
 * Lickteig, Arron C. ||  || 66.70% || 93.30% ||
 * Longbrake, Caliber ||  || 58.30% || 60.00% ||
 * Lupo, Brandon ||  || 66.70% || 53.30% ||
 * Munkvold, Andrew ||  || 58.30% || 53.30% ||
 * Nash, Kristina M. ||  || 66.70% || 33.30% ||
 * Pelletier, Jennifer ||  || 25.00% ||   ||
 * Prouty, Jason L. ||  || 58.30% || 33.30% ||
 * Rinehart, Jordan ||  || 50.00% || 86.70% ||
 * Rowland, Sarah ||  || 50.00% || 40.00% ||
 * Ruml, Stefanie ||  || 66.70% || 80.00% ||
 * Saarie, Dustin M. ||  || 41.70% || 73.30% ||
 * Schamber, Brian ||  || 75.00% || 73.30% ||
 * Scherschligt, Derek J. ||  || 50.00% || 66.70% ||
 * Spader, Molly A. ||  ||   || 80.00% ||
 * Stricherz, Jeremy ||  ||   || 20.00% ||
 * Tribe, Heather ||  || 66.70% || 66.70% ||
 * Ulmer, Terrence ||  || 33.30% || 66.70% ||
 * Vetch, Morgan ||  || 50.00% || 53.30% ||
 * Walter, Joey ||  || 66.70% || 66.70% ||
 * Weber, Kurt ||  || 50.00% || 60.00% ||
 * York, Seth ||  || 41.70% || 73.30% ||
 * Class Average ||  || 55.70% || 62.70% ||

Part 2 Pre- and post-tests were administered for standard E.1.3 on March 22 and April 30. Results are as follows.
 * Student || 3/22/09 weather pre-test || 4/30/09 Weather post-test ||
 * Class Average || 56.00% || 56.40% ||
 * Alshare, Dina || 50.00% || 40.00% ||
 * Anderson, Garrett W. || 70.00% || 60.00% ||
 * Baker, Sydney || 60.00% || 40.00% ||
 * Bauer, Shelby || 60.00% || 70.00% ||
 * Gering, Grace M. || 60.00% || 80.00% ||
 * Graber, Lea ||  || 70.00% ||
 * Graber, Lexi J. || 30.00% || 70.00% ||
 * Kaufman, Dana J. || 60.00% || 100.00% ||
 * Kleinsasser, Mitchell J. || 70.00% || 90.00% ||
 * KOERNER, KAHLER || 30.00% || 30.00% ||
 * Lager, Carli || 50.00% || 60.00% ||
 * Lang, Caleb G. || 60.00% || 70.00% ||
 * Lickteig, Arron C. || 70.00% || 70.00% ||
 * Longbrake, Caliber || 40.00% || 40.00% ||
 * Lupo, Brandon ||  || 70.00% ||
 * Munkvold, Andrew || 40.00% || 40.00% ||
 * Nash, Kristina M. || 60.00% || 50.00% ||
 * Pelletier, Jennifer ||  || 30.00% ||
 * Prouty, Jason L. || 40.00% || 70.00% ||
 * Rinehart, Jordan || 50.00% || 60.00% ||
 * Rowland, Sarah || 30.00% || 20.00% ||
 * Ruml, Stefanie || 60.00% || 60.00% ||
 * Saarie, Dustin M. || 60.00% || 50.00% ||
 * Schamber, Brian || 80.00% || 80.00% ||
 * Scherschligt, Derek J. || 70.00% || 60.00% ||
 * Spader, Molly A. || 60.00% || 50.00% ||
 * Stricherz, Jeremy || 50.00% || 30.00% ||
 * Tribe, Heather || 70.00% || 70.00% ||
 * Ulmer, Terrence || 60.00% || 30.00% ||
 * Vetch, Morgan || 60.00% || 60.00% ||
 * Walter, Joey || 70.00% || 50.00% ||
 * Weber, Kurt || 60.00% || 40.00% ||
 * York, Seth || 50.00% || 50.00% ||

This shows an increase of only .4%. Only 9 students showed a higher score on the post-test. The unit was a longer time period with many of days of absences for illnesses, music and sports events. Also, the students were not responsible for research and presentation with the second unit to the extent of the first.

In summary, the use of technology was motivating for the students. The type of technology seemed to have a different level of results. Neither of the projects produced the results I had hoped for. Although there were 152 responses to the blog, the students didn't research the answers to the questions, but just responded to what they "thought." This may have been a mistake on my part by not requiring a written follow-up to the blogging that included their information sources. Part of the process is learning how to use the technology more effectively from the teaching process. These techniques will be used in the future with modifications.

VI. Reflection Using the Achievement Series has been a real eye-opener for me. I allowed the students to see their scores from the pre-test so they could see which concepts they needed to focus on while studying the units. I was disappointed in the post-test scores, especially from the weather unit. Next year, I plan to use the pretest scores to tailor the units more directly to the topics that students have little knowledge of going into the unit. I enjoyed using more technology to learn the concepts--I found the technology made a greater impact when the students when they worked on group projects. This reinforces the 21st century skills of collaboration and cooperation. Also, it gave the students more opoportunity to experiment and even "teach the teacher" at times. That was enjoyable for all of us. I found that using formative assessment (UBD format) helps in planning classroom projects by starting with the end results and determining how the activties can help the students reach the end goals. It also keeps the students on the right track and results in fewer frustrations by clarifying instructions, goals, etc. After 35 years of teaching, there are still a lot of new tricks for this old to learn. It's been a great experience to experiment with additional technology and happily see some effective projects.