Analyzing Assessment Data MSCIN Program, Western Governors University D184:TASK 3 Sta, Essays (university) of Nursing

Download Analyzing Assessment Data MSCIN Program, Western Governors University D184:TASK 3 Sta and more Essays (university) Nursing in PDF only on Docsity!

D184 Task 3-Task 3

Standards-Based Assessment (Western Governors University)

Analyzing Assessment Data MSCIN Program, Western Governors University D184: Standards-Based Assessment (OKM1) Kim Jennings March 7, 2023

students. For subgroup 2, the average summative proficiency score is 2.09 and this subgroup

consisted of 6 students. For subgroup 3, the average summative proficiency score is 3.16 and this subgroup consisted of 9 students. For subgroup 4, the average summative proficiency score is 2.99 and this subgroup consisted of 11 students. For subgroup 5, the average summative

• subgroup 1, the average summative proficiency score is 3.38 and this subgroup consisted of
  • Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Subgroup 3 Subgroup 4 Subgroup proficiency score is 3.48 and this subgroup consisted of 14 students.
  • Student
  • Avg: 3.
    • Student
    • Avg: 3.
      • Student
      • Avg: 3.
        • Student
        • Avg: 3.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
  • Student
  • Avg: 3.
    • Student
    • Avg: 3.
      • Student
      • Avg: 3.
        • Student
        • Avg: 2.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
  • Student
  • Avg: 2.
    • Student
    • Avg: 2.
      • Student
      • Avg: 3.
        • Student
        • Avg: 1.
          • Student
          • Avg: 2.
  • Student
  • Avg: 4.
    • Student
    • Avg: 1.
      • Student
      • Avg: 2.
        • Student
        • Avg: 1.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
  • Student
  • Avg: 3.
    • Student
    • Avg: 1.
      • Student
      • Avg: 1.
        • Student
        • Avg: 3.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
  • Student
  • Avg: 3.
    • Student
    • Avg: 1.
      • Student
      • Avg: 3.
        • Student
        • Avg: 3.
          • Student
          • Avg: 4.
      • Student
      • Avg: 4.
        • Student
        • Avg: 4.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
      • Student
      • Avg: 3.
        • Student
        • Avg: 4.
          • Student
          • Avg: 4.
      • Student
      • Avg: 4.
        • Student
        • Avg: 3.
          • Student
          • Avg: 4.
        • Student
        • Avg: 4.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
        • Student
        • Avg: 3.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
          • Student
          • Avg: 4.
          • Student
          • Avg: 3.
          • Student
          • Avg: 4.
  • Average: 3. Subgroup
    • Average: 2. Subgroup
      • Average: 3. Subgroup
        • Average: 2. Subgroup
          • Average: 3. Subgroup

Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Assessment 3 Assessment 4 Assessment 5 Assessment 6 Assessment 7 Assessment 8 Avg: 1.9 Avg: 2.05 Avg: 2.4 Avg: 2.5 Avg: 2.75 Avg: 2.85 Avg: 2.95 Avg: 3. Shown above are the whole class averages for each of the eight assessments. Looking at the data, the class average increased each time the students took the assessment. Since the whole class average increased each assessment, that means most of the students were able to increase their scores throughout the eight times they took the assessment. Furthermore, the overall average proficiency score for the 20 students is 3.07. Since the overall score falls into the 3. category level, it’s appropriate to say that the class average proficiency score shows that the class is proficient in the area/content being assessed. Taking a look at individual student data, students 1-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 consistently showed improvement over the course of the eight assessments. These students never had a decrease in scores throughout the eight assessments. It can be concluded that these students had a positive trend in scores over the course of the eight assessments. When breaking down the data, students 12-15, 18, and 20 all ended with a 4.0 (advanced) on the final assessment. Students 1-6 and 17 all ended with a 3.0 (proficient) on the final assessment. Student 8 ended with a 1.0 (emerging) on the final assessment, but it can be noted this student scored a 0.0 on the initial assessment. This student may need extra support and interventions. This student could also be a student with an IEP or 504 plan. The next group of students is students who showed both increases and decreases in their scores over the course of the eight assessments. Students 11, 16, and 19 all had increases and decreases at different points of the assessments. When looking at student 11, this student had the

When looking at the data, one outlier that is present is for student 1. This student scored a 1.0 on the initial assessment and then went up to a 2.0 on the second. The student then stayed at a 3.0 for all rest of the assessments. This student was able to quickly increase their score from 1. (emerging) to 3.0 (proficient). Since, the student was able to do this relatively quickly and was able to keep the 3.0 (proficient) score, as well as, get an overall summative proficiency score of 3.61, I would consider that the initial 1.0 score is an outlier. Another outlier that is present is for student 19. This student had the following scores: 0.0, 2.0, 3.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0, and 3.0. This student had an initial score of 0.0, but was able to quickly increase their score to a consistent 3.0 for assessments 5-8. Since the student was able to quickly increase their score and overall received a score of 3.0, I would consider the 0.0 to be an aberrant score due to the fact that the student usually scored a 3.0. Some other outliers were students 7, 8, and 9. These students were the only students to not get at least one 3.0 (proficient) score on any of the assessments. Students 7 and 9 each had an overall summative proficiency score of 1.0 and scored a 1.0 on all of the eight assessments. Student 8 had an overall summative proficiency score of 1.25. This student scored 0.0 on the first three assessments and 1.0 on the next five assessments. The average summative proficiency score of these three students is 1.08. Subgroups The students in subgroup 1, had an average summative proficiency score of 3.38. There were six students in this subgroup and 5 out of the 6 students had summative proficiency scores of 3.0 (proficient) or higher. Based on this data, subgroup 1 has an overall good (proficient) understanding of the measurement topic since most of the students were able to get a proficient score.

Subgroups 3 and 5 were also very similar to subgroup 1. Subgroup 3 had an average summative proficiency score of 3.16 and subgroup 5 had an average summative proficiency score of 3.48. Subgroup 3 had 7 out of the 9 students in the subgroup have a summative proficiency score between 3.0-4.0. Subgroup 5 had 13 out of 14 students in the subgroup have a summative proficiency score between 3.0-4.0. Overall the students in these two subgroups have a proficient or advanced understanding of the measurement topic. Students 6 (subgroup 3), student 9 (subgroup 3), and student 5 (subgroup 5) are the three students who did not have a summative proficiency score of at least 3.0 (proficient). These students could benefit from more target practice. Subgroup 4 is relatively similar to subgroups 3 and 5. However, subgroup 4 just barely missed having a 3.0 (proficient) average summative proficiency score. Subgroup 4 ended with a 2.99 average summative proficiency score. For subgroup 4, 8 out of the 11 students in the subgroup had a summative proficiency score between 3.0-4.0. The majority of the students in this subgroup had a proficient understanding of the measurement topic, however, students 5, 7, and 8 all scored in the emerging (1.0) or the developing (2.0) levels for the measurement topic. These students could benefit from small-group targeted practice. Based on the disaggregated data, subgroup 2 had the lowest summative proficiency score average out of all the subgroups. Subgroup 2 had a summative proficiency score of 2.09. Only 2 out of 6 students in this subgroup were able to have a summative proficiency score of 3. (proficient) or higher. The other four students scored in the emerging or developing range for the measurement topic. This means that the majority of the students in this subgroup need significant help in understanding the measurement topic. These students can benefit from extra small-group instruction, target learning, and continued support with the measurement topic.