Presentation on theme: "Using STAAR data to guide learning August 20, 2014 District Professional Learning Session #174 1."— Presentation transcript:
Using STAAR data to guide learning August 20, 2014 District Professional Learning Session #174 1
Intended outcomes Understand the use of thresholds to set student goals and monitor growth Identify critical TEKS to serve as the focus for learning improvement for students and teachers Model a process for performing an item analysis of STAAR and other assessment results 2
lead4ward resources http://lead4ward.com/resources/ – Released tests and snapshots tab Process standards – Tools to know, ways to show Released tests - items organized by SE STAAR Snapshots – readiness, supporting and process SEs TEKS Snapshots – Aligned SEs in non-tested grades TEKS Scaffolding – SEs supporting tested readiness standards from current and prior grade levels 3
lead4ward resources http://lead4ward.com/STAARIntervention/ PW: STAAR-Ready – Original ppt presentation – Original handout 4
Well Prepared (Advanced Performance) Sufficiently Prepared (Gr. 3-8 Level II Final) Getting There Sufficiently Prepared (Level II Phase 2) Really Well Prepared (Exceed Progress) Likely to pass STAAR this year 3 3 Goal for highest performing students (2 points Index 2) Likely to pass STAAR at final standard (Index 4) Meeting Level III Performance (Index 2 and Index 3) Knows more than half the content OR Knows most but can’t apply
FactFib All students can exceed progress and earn 2 points for your campus in Index 2 Fact 1 = Fact; 2 = Fib
Index 2: Student progress Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math 1529 Exceeded Progress 2 points for campus Met Progress 1 point for campus Did Not Meet Progress 0 points for campus 1599 1677 148 pts 70 pts <70 pts Top performing students receive 2 pts (0-2 incorrect) Students in guessing range earn 0 points Level III Level II Final Level I
Student progress with thresholds Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math 75% Exceeded Progress Met Progress Did Not Meet Progress 75% or more 85% 95% Level III Level II Final Level I <75% Leveling Up
STAAR 2014 Goal for 2015 3 3 T H R E S H O L D S Leveling Up
5 5 Met Progress What do they all have in common?
Identifying focus standards Compare 2013 STAAR to 2014 STAAR Classify readiness and process standards – Increase/decrease of more than 5 points – Greater than/less than campus target Identify areas of strength and concern Select standards for teacher learning and student growth Most customarily an August activity 38
p. 40 16 6.1B6.2C 6.2B6.3C 6.10D 6.4A 6.2E 6.5A6.6C 6.8B All of us helped more kids OR One of us figured it out ! All of us helped more kids OR One of us figured it out ! For Students Engage the Emerging For Teachers Learn the Low Positive outcomes Not so positive
What might teachers want to learn? For Teachers Learn the Low
p. 40 16 6.2B 6.8B 6.5A 6.4A 6.6C 6.2C 4 612 135135 211 14 Questions to consider How have these standards been taught and assessed in the past? What will need to be learned by teachers? How will student tasks be modified this year to better align with STAAR?
≥75% questions in Math (Grades 3-8) ≥40% questions in Science ≥30% questions in Social Studies 48 ≈ 82% ≈ 60% ≈ 55% Reading? ≈ 50% Fig. 19 Process Standards Assessed in Context Readiness Supporting STAAR process standards are assessed with Readiness or Supporting Standards in the same question (i.e. double coded).
Process Standards… “Game Changers” 8.5 (E) identify the foreign policies of presidents Washington through Monroe and explain the impact of Washington's Farewell Address and the Monroe Doctrine; Readiness Standard IDENTIFY and EXPLAIN Potential Rigor… Cause/Effect Compare/Contrast Predict 8.29 (B) analyze information by sequencing, categorizing, identifying cause-and-effect relationships, comparing, contrasting, finding the main idea, summarizing, making generalizations and predictions, and drawing inferences and conclusions; RIGOR
Process Standards… “Game Changers” Which of the following foreign policies are best associated with Presidents Washington through Monroe? RIGOR IDENTIFY and EXPLAIN Potential Rigor… Cause/Effect Compare/Contrast Predict What issues are common in both Washington’s Farewell address and the Monroe doctrine?
Considering your focus SEs What goals will you set for student performance in these areas? How will your PLCs work to increase understanding of readiness and process SEs? What will you do differently this year when planning for learning and assessing for learning? How will you help students understand the content, context and cognitive rigor of assessed SEs? How will you ensure that students have ample experience with process standards? 55
OBJECTIVE 3 Model a process for performing an item analysis of STAAR and other assessment results 56
Item analysis process 1.Write standards assessed in margin 2.Write percentage for each answer choice 3.Circle correct answer – What must students know and be able to do to answer correctly? 4.What is content, context and cognitive rigor evident in the item and in the assessed standard(s)? 5.Inspect distractors – Is one distractor attractive to students? What errors in thinking may cause students to choose it? Are guessing patterns evident? Are differences in answering patterns evident by student group? 6.What types of prompts/graphics were used? Were they needed to answer correctly? If not, what prior knowledge and skills were needed? 62
Item analysis process 7.What academic or general vocabulary must be understood in order to answer correctly? With which terms would students most likely struggle? Were these same terms used as part of instruction? 8.Identify the most difficult items assessed. When these standards were taught, what tasks were students assigned to assist in their learning? How well were the tasks aligned with what students are expected to do on STAAR? 9.What changes in instruction will be considered based on the analysis? 63
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.