Tiered Summative Assessment ii
The EFFECTIVENESS OF TIERED SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS IN A GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL MATH CLASS
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisor. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.
Scott W. Barnett
Certificate of Approval
_____________________________ ______________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.
Thesis Co-Chair Thesis Co-Chair
Education Department Education Department
Tiered Summative Assessment vii
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TIERED SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS IN A GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL MATH CLASS
A thesis submitted
by
Scott William Barnett
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
In
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
May 10, 2011
Abstract
This study explores the effectiveness of a tiered assessment model in a regular education multi-leveled Georgia high school mathematics classroom. Students from two classes were pretested, instructed and treated in exactly the same manner. The treated class was offered one of three student chosen summative assessments tiered by difficulty. The control class was unaware an option. Data were gathered, interpreted, and concluded using three focus questions guiding the study. Statistical and qualitative data were triangulated in determining the results. This study found that students did in fact benefit from tiered testing as an option serving as their summative assessment. This method is completely transferable to multiple subjects and disciplines. Other terms to look into: student choice, alternative assessments, multi-leveled tests.
Table of Contents
Abstract.…………………………………………………………………………………..…..iii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..iv
List of Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………..…..vi
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………..…………1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………...1
Significance of the Problem………………………………………………………...…2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks..……………………………………………3
Focus Questions……………………………………………………………………….6
Overview of Methodology…………………………………………………………….6
Human as Researcher………………………………………………………………….7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………..9
Constructivism………………………………………………………………………...9
Differentiation………………………………………………………………………..10
Assessments………………………………………………………………………….12
Student Outcomes…………………………………………………………...……….15
Teacher’s Reaction………………………………………………………………...…18
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………...…….. 22
Research Design……………………………………………………………………...22
Setting………………………………………………………………………………..23
Subjects……………………….……………………………………………………...23
Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………………………………………24 Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias…..……………………………...……29
Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………..………….34
Validation…………………………………………………………………………….36
Credibility……...…………………………………………………………………….36
Transferability………………………………………………………………………..37
Transformational……………………………………………………………………..38
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………………....39
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………………………...…48
Analysis of Results…..………………………………………………………………48
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………58
Implications…………………………………………………………………………..62
Impact on Student Learning………………………………………………………….64
Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………..……….....65
References…………...……………………………………………………………………….66
Appendixes…………………………………………..………………………………………71
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 3.1 Data Shell………………………………………………………………….…26
Table 4.1 Chi Square for Treatment and Control Student Surveys……...……………..45
Figures
Figure 2.1 The Assessment Equation……………………………………………………12
Figure 2.2 Grade Ranges on Tiered GCSE ..……………………………………………15
Tiered Summative Assessment 77
CHAPTER ONE -- INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Currently there is an outcry from the education community that learning is not taking place in classrooms across the United States at its potential. Students are not grasping the material as they should. Many scholars argue that mastery of the curriculum is not the problem, but it is the method of assessment of that curriculum that is failing. Wood (2005) says, “We have to establish assessments designed to reflect the variety of achievement targets that underpin standards: mastery of content knowledge, the ability to use knowledge to reason, demonstration of performance skills and product development capabilities” (p. 89). The notion of information in, information out of these empty vessels called students is outdated and not working. High stakes testing has expedited many to come to the conclusion that summative assessment in today’s education arena just has no place; that it is a false indicator of just how much a particular student really knows.
Education is in a transition period. And anyone who has been involved in the education process during the last twenty-five years can clearly see it. However, students are not ready to drop pencil and paper, break free from the classroom and teacher, and begin personal pilgrimages searching for their own educational Zen. In the meantime, educators push their students towards greatness using any strategy that they can imagine that makes that student, not just pass the curriculum, but learn the curriculum. In doing so, educators need to know, with the abundance of differing methods of assessment flooding today’s education arena, which one or few will give that educator a true depiction of just how much of the material did a given student learn. With alternate learning styles and differentiation here to stay, how do educators know if the assessment style they use is the correct indicator for what the students are learning?
Significance of the Problem
Wood (2005) says, “The entire method of evaluating what our high school students have learned is unique to the school setting itself. Nowhere else in our society, will one’s worth or abilities be measured by a paper-and-pencil test of short-term memory” (p.84). Statements like Wood’s are plentiful. Many are opinions and many have scientific backing. Summative assessments under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have not only been brought to the forefront of discussion in virtually every school system in the United States over the last eight years, but they have been, according to Cizek (2010), designated as an end all, be all decision maker whether a student graduates, transitions to the next level or course, or obtains a license or credentials from a course. Now, in some areas, it is under investigation that in the near future teacher’s pay could be based on the students’ scores from these types of assessments. With so much riding on these summative assessments, educators need to explore different methods of assessment; so promoting or retaining, or awarding or reprimanding these students is actually a result of not learning the curriculum, not understanding of the material, and failure to master the lessons. This thesis will explore alternative summative assessments to investigate whether differing assessment styles will have an impact on students’ grades.
Measuring a student’s mastery with the right assessment tool is vital in that student’s overall success in education on the whole. Many failing grades can cause some students to throw in the towel on particular courses and even on finishing school altogether. Sprick (2002) echoes, “The way you organize instructional content and evaluate student mastery of that content can play a major role in whether students’ expectancy of success is high or low” (p. 27). Poor test scores can cause students to have a poor outlook on that class; behavior can deteriorate, snowballing towards a poor outlook on school in general. This drowning in poor grades and test scores can increase the dropout rate thus effecting graduation rates (Sprick, 2002). Educators have got to find a way to assess what the student knows without damaging the student’s drive to succeed.
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
Constructivism is a guiding philosophy adopted by the Education Department of LaGrange College. In constructivism, a teacher or educator acts as a facilitator to education. Students are charged with constructing their own education in their own terms and background with steerage from the teacher. This increases the meaning of their education as something that they own, not borrowed from a lecturer riddled with unfamiliar terminology that means nothing to the pupil. Piaget describes constructivism as a method of teaching where the student owns his or her knowledge and learning (Ackermann, 2001). Students need to interpret what they are learning to make a personal connection with the material that is being presented. An interaction must take place from what is being taught to life and the world around the student. And finally, once personal connections are established, students will seek more knowledge (Ackermann, 2001).
Tenet 1 of LaGrange College Education Department’s [LCED] (2008) Conceptual Framework states an enthusiastic engagement in learning, coined the “professional knowledge tenet.” In this tenet, candidates (educators) will understand the concepts and structure of a given discipline and use that to create learning experiences that make the subject matter meaningful to students. Furthermore, educators will journey across the curriculum with the subject matter, linking it to real world applications making it more relevant to the student. Educators will employ a range of instructional tools and techniques while meeting state, national, and professional association content standards. Lastly, educators will understand their students from learning styles and developmental growth to diversity and culture and how they along with outside influences affect student learning and engagement. (LCED, 2008)
This study will align with LCED’s Conceptual Framework in every tenet and its core philosophy. The study will be conducted in the area of mathematics and summative assessment. The study will take place in an actual active classroom during the regular school year in a Georgia high school. Keeping students’ culture and learning styles on the forefront, differentiated instruction will be used to teach new material as well as reviewing old. A variety of methods of summative assessments will be used to gauge the progress of the student subjects and participants used in the study. This study will follow the current curriculum put forth by the state of Georgia and the county in which the study will take place. This study will be testing the effectiveness of summative assessments in a high school mathematics classroom; however, this study does involve real students during a real school year. At no time will the education of these students suffer or be jeopardized for the advancement of this study or its completion.
Tenet 2 of LCED’s Conceptual Framework states that educators will use professional teaching practices while working with and preparing for students in the classroom. For this study, backwards design will be used for instruction and assessment. Wiggins and McTighe (1999) define backwards design as a process where “One starts with the end – the desired results (goals or standards) –and then derives the curriculum from the evidence of learning (performances) called for by the standard and the teaching needed to equip students to perform” (p. 8). It is a process by which desired goals are determined, the assessment method by which mastery of those goals will be measured is created, and then instruction methods are derived, planned, and delivered to the students.
SSTs and IEPs will be considered, and modifications will be made as appropriate during the planning, delivery, and assessment of the subject matter during this study. The classroom management will be held to the highest standards, in terms of behavior plans, on-task engagement, and educational integrity. Students will be given high quality hands-on tasks suitable to the understanding of the curriculum and presented in such a way that is respectful and applicable to students and their needs.
Tenet 3 of Conceptual Framework illustrates a caring and supportive classroom and learning communities. This tenet requires the educator to be informed of a student’s struggles during and away from school. And, the educator should take into account these struggles in addition to the students’ cultures during instruction, assessment, and remediation. The educator is charged with conforming teaching methods to better fit the student’s background and learning style.
This study will take place in an environment conducive to learning. Remediation and support, group and individual, will be provided for those students who need it. The idea of student learning and success will remain paramount throughout the study. This study will mimic an everyday classroom in a real school. To be true to the study, the execution of it will go forth during the normal interactions of the school day, where multiple instances of collaboration with other students, teachers, and even administrators take place. As administrators of the school are aware and approve of this study, collaboration and the findings of this study will be shared with them.
Focus Questions
This study will pinpoint the effectiveness of a tiered assessment model of summative assessments in a single multi-ability math classroom by focusing on the following three questions that will guide the research.
1. How can tiered assessments be infused into the curriculum?
2. What is the process by which tiered assessment effectiveness can be measured?
3. How do students respond attitudinally to tiered assessments?
Overview of Methodology
This study was completed using action research. Hendricks (2009) says action research is a systematic, step by step, approach that allows findings through structured experimentation and ongoing reflection. The research process is not steered towards a desired outcome. Data are collected, evaluated, and concluded. Hendricks (2009) continues to explain that action research is implemented in such a way that it is ongoing, either by the individual performing the research or by future researchers to continue.
The study was performed using two classes of the same subject matter in a high school mathematics classroom. It consisted of approximately 50 high school junior subjects in Georgia’s Math 3, an equivalent to Trigonometry in the spring of 2011. Some of the students had Individualized Education Programs (IEP) and others had Student Support Teams (SST). Most were regular education students and the groups were quasi-randomly selected based on the fact that they had me as their teacher and which period they were placed in, neither of which I could control. For this study, the students were assessed over the same material by alternative methods to see if a tiered assessment model presented a more accurate account of a given student’s mastery of the curriculum. In order to do this, a baseline needed to be determined. A pretest was given prior to any instruction in a given unit. The same method of pretesting was given to all students in all classes participating in the study. All classes were instructed for exactly the same amount of time and in the same manner. The treated class was given the opportunity to choose one of three tiered summative assessments aligned by difficulty to the GPS. The control class was not offered an option, nor were they even aware there were multiple tests. The posttest scores were compared to the pretest scores in order to determine a baseline for natural learning and progress. The posttest scores were again compared with the baseline progress scores in order to determine if the test shows a different level of progress or decline. Finally, the posttest scores from each group were compared to determine if student chosen tiered summative testing positively impacted student outcomes.
For qualitative data, two surveys were given to the study subjects in order to collect data on the testing method that they prefer and why. Finally, I, as the administrator of the assessments and data collection, kept a reflective journal consisting of my findings and observations prior, throughout, and after the completion of the study.
In the planning stages, a unit plan and rubric for critiquing the unit plan was developed. The rubric was used by a highly qualified third party otherwise unassociated with the study, to ensure validity and aligned of the curriculum for the study.