Slic Vs Control Data

200 views

Published on

Mid-year data results for Striving Readers project at Montgomery Middle School, San Diego, CA

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
200
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Criteria for randomization selection for SLIC Intervention classes: -B on CST -B on DRP (different raw score for both 7 th and 8 th grades) -CELDT (Intermediate and below, if attending District for more than 3 years)
  • The two groups are comparable, although there are more Sp. Ed. Students in the SLIC Intervention
  • Numerical growth = students whose raw scores increased from one year to the next Categorical Growth = students whose raw scores not only increased, but they moved into a higher category, e.g. Basic (B) to At/Close (AC) to Grade level DRP is not administered to 6 th graders, therefore, we only have data for comparison on DRP for current 8 th grade students
  • Program adjustments this year in pursuit of stronger program fidelity in implementation.
  • ***These numbers are drawn from the Striving Readers’ pre-assessment, administered to all 7 th and 8 th grade students.
  • ***These numbers are drawn from the September pre-assessment in the previous slide and the Striving Readers’ December assessment, administered to all 7 th and 8 th grade students in SLIC intervention classes.
  • Slic Vs Control Data

    1. 1. Striving Readers Program Data Analysis <ul><li>Assessment Comparisons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DRP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CST </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-Assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-Assessment… December Benchmark </li></ul></ul>Update: 2/2009
    2. 2. Number of Students Compared 94 - 7 th Graders 100 – 8 th Graders Total n – Control & Intervention Control and SLIC Intervention Students all meet criteria for Striving Readers program (CST, DRP, CELDT); Grouping into Control or Intervention determined through randomization by UCSD faculty.
    3. 3. Breakdown of Students <ul><li>SLIC Intervention enrollment = 95 students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>7th grade </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>30/46 = 65% EL’s </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3/46 = 6.5% Sp. Ed. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8th grade </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>19/39 = 49% EL’s </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4/46 = 8.7% Sp. Ed. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Randomized Control group = 99 students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>7th grade </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>37/48 = 77% EL’s </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4/48 = .08% Sp. Ed. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8th grade </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>26/55 = 47% EL’s </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1/55 = 1.82% Sp. Ed. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    4. 4. DRP - Percentage of Students* Who Made Growth Fall 2007 – Fall 2008 *Current 8 th Grade students only (no data available for current 7 th graders, Fall 2007)
    5. 5. CST - Data Spring 2007 – 2008 % of students increased numerically Average point gain Largest gain Categorical results 7 th SLIC Intervention 61% 15.03 pts 60 pts 12 students increased; 15 students sustained 7 th Control 39% -7.08 pts 24 pts <ul><ul><li>7 students increased; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>24 students sustained </li></ul></ul>8 th SLIC Intervention 54% 25.57 pts 88 pts <ul><ul><li>13 students increased; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>21 students sustained </li></ul></ul>8 th Control 63% 19.48 pts 84 pts 13 students increased 24 students sustained
    6. 6. CST – Data Spring 2007 – 2008. Data not currently available for ELD Control students for last year’s students % of students increased numerically Average point gain Largest gain Categorical results 7 th & 8 th SLIC - ELD Intervention 47% 28.63 pts 60 pts 4 students increased; 11 students sustained
    7. 7. <ul><li>7 th Graders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No statistical difference between SLIC Intervention and Control groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expected outcome = 1 st year in SLIC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8 th Graders* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 areas statistically significant ~ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intervention group – showing more growth on determining text form by previewing text features </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intervention group – showing more growth on synthesizing information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Control group – showing more growth on categorizing information </li></ul></ul></ul>Pre-Assessment (Control vs. Intervention) *(33/55 = 60% returning assignment; 16% “graduated”) ~determined by Pearson’s Chi-Square with .05 significance
    8. 8. <ul><li>Strong program fidelity in current year </li></ul><ul><li>7 th Grade Results - Statistically significant in 8 skill/strategy areas </li></ul><ul><li>8 th Grade Results – Statistically significant in 5 skill/strategy areas </li></ul>~determined by Pearson’s Chi-Square with .05 significance Comparison within Striving Readers’ assessments (SLIC Intervention only)
    9. 9. 7 th Grade Results - Statistically significant in 8 skill/strategy areas: <ul><ul><li>Determining text form from previewing text features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrating information, cross-checking and confirming using text features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Determining main idea using knowledge of paragraph structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration information, cross-checking and confirming using text features and running text </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inferring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Summarizing to a task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analyzing, critiquing, and evaluating author’s intent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Making meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. 8 th Grade Results - Statistically significant in 5 skill/strategy areas: <ul><ul><li>Categorizing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Summarizing to a task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analyzing, critiquing, and evaluating author’s intent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Synthesizing information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Making meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Five Key Findings about what makes the difference in adolescent literacy <ul><li>Increase frequency of reading </li></ul><ul><li>Orientation to text </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teaching students text form, and how to orient themselves to the text is a tremendous support in allowing them to access grade level text </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Increased opportunity for independent meaning-making </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Note-making is a powerful tool for helping students create understanding as they read </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consistency of literacy expectations across curricula </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Struggling students, and those not identified as struggling, have increased knowledge of how text works within each content and experience higher incidence of success </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Increase in process questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Students who can say HOW they figured something out, or HOW knowledge of text structure, or form, can help them are more successful than those who cannot </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Student Reflection

    ×