Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Patuxent High School Collaborative Action Research Plan


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Patuxent High School Collaborative Action Research Plan

  1. 1. PHS CARP<br />Stacey, Cameron, Matt, Cat, Brennan<br />
  2. 2. Area of Need<br />Students have difficulty taking tests because they don’t understand the language or intent of the questions. <br />“Often students do not know how to devise a plan to use for studying and are unorganized when they come to the test, which can result in lower test scores” (Bass et al. 2002, p. 27)<br />
  3. 3. Our Strategy <br />Identifying Key Words <br /><ul><li>Circle the word that tells you what to do</li></ul>Rephrase Test Questions<br /><ul><li>Student puts question in his/her own words</li></li></ul><li>Purpose of our Research<br />To see if explicitly teaching test-taking skills will improve students’ overall test-taking ability. <br />Increase test scores across subject areas.<br />Improve classroom assessment and high stakes testing scores. <br />
  4. 4. Rationale<br />How does this tie into school improvement?<br />Principal Highsmith identified that interpreting test questions is difficult for students across disciplines<br />Example: Algebra<br />Why is this significant? (“so what?”)<br />Nearly all subjects require some kind of high-stakes test<br />This project can ameliorate test-taking ability across disciplines<br />May lead to improvement of test scores<br />HSA, SAT, AP<br />
  5. 5. Population<br />Biology, AP Environmental Science, Social Studies, and English students<br />Beneficial to all students <br />Could help HSA and AP scores<br />
  6. 6. Strategy Justification<br />“In order to perform well on a test a student needs to develop effective strategies for reading, learning, and studying” (Bass et al. 2002, p. 27)<br />Peer-reviewed research supports the specific test-taking strategies that we have chosen (Chittooran & Miles 2001)<br />
  7. 7. Research Questions<br />Did our strategies help students become better test takers?<br />Do students use the strategies that we suggest?<br />
  8. 8. Description of Procedures<br />Administering pre-test of test-taking strategies<br />Teach mini-lesson on strategies (one per week)<br />Post-test to assess effectiveness of lessons<br />
  9. 9. Data Collection Plan<br />
  10. 10. Observation Guidelines<br />The following will be done at least three times during the study: <br />Look for supplemental marks on tests other than answer indication.<br />Look for student use of test strategy skills without being prompted. <br />
  11. 11. Pre-post Assessment<br /><ul><li>Short Lickert Scale questionnaire
  12. 12. Sample question:</li></ul>1. How often do you circle or underline parts of a test question to help you answer that question?<br /> 1 – Never<br /> 2 – Not often<br /> 3 – Sometimes<br /> 4 – Very often<br /> 5 - Always<br />
  13. 13. Pre/Post Data Analysis<br /><ul><li>We analyzed our data using a paired T-Testto test for significance.
  14. 14. We wanted to know if there was a significant difference in students responses between the pre and post test surveys </li></li></ul><li>Pre/Post Data Analysis<br />We configured our survey results so that a 5 on the Lickert scale was always positive.<br />Scored student pre/post tests for each of our classes<br />Compared pretest and posttest results of each class using a T-Test (alpha level 0.05). <br />Compiled data across classes and compared pretest and posttest results using a T-Test (alpha level 0.05). <br />
  15. 15. Class Data – Ms. Meyer <br />1st period standard biology <br />n=15<br />Pretest Average = 18.5<br />Posttest Average = 17.8<br />p > 0.05 so the treatment effect was not significant <br />This means that implementing implicit and explicit instruction in our two test-taking strategies did not produce a significant effect. <br />
  16. 16. Observations/Student Work<br />I observed very few students using the strategies during class work<br />Results were slightly better when I looked at students quizzes and observed students while testing which was encouraging. <br />Ex. Organelle vs. Process<br />
  17. 17. Class Data – Mr. Stone<br />Data from 4 Periods of Academic English<br />n = 76<br />Pre Test Average = 16.50<br />Post Test Average = 17.42<br />p = .034034<br />Since p < .05, this means that implementing implicit and explicit instruction in our two test-taking strategies did produce a significant effect.<br />
  18. 18. Observations/Student Work<br />I observed a moderate amount of students using the strategies during daily class work. <br />However, during exams when students were reminded of the strategies and encouraged to use them I observed a greater number of students applying the strategies.<br />
  19. 19. Class Data – Mr. Davis<br />Social Studies<br />
  20. 20. Class Data – Ms. Holland<br />English<br />
  21. 21. Class Data – Mr. Leischer <br />English<br />
  22. 22. Overall Results <br />After performing a T-Test using data from all of our students combined we found that our treatment effect was not significant<br />p = 0.0581 n=256<br />Since our data is approaching significance it may be that with more time and/or more data points the effect may be significant.<br />