! 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 %
! of !2 6 Kameron Williams FRIT 7236: Data Analysis
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)
! of !3 6 Kameron Williams FRIT 7236: Data Analysis
• 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
! of !4 6 Kameron Williams FRIT 7236: Data Analysis
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 !5 6 Kameron Williams FRIT 7236: Data Analysis
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.
! of !6 6 Kameron Williams FRIT 7236: Data Analysis
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.