DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 1

Digital Assessment Project

Simone Robinson

Coastal Carolina University

EDIT 630
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 2

Introduction

The 2019-2020 school year has been my first-year teaching second grade. In teaching

second grade, I have learned how important data is and that data follows each and every student.

It is almost as if each student has a number that follows them and can define who they are

academically. In order to have data for each of my students in the second grade, they had to take

the MAP test. The MAP test, also known as the Measure of Academic Progress, is a

computerized test that helps teachers, parents/guardians and administrators to improve student

learning and help making decisions to promote student growth. Due to Hurricane Dorian, my

students were only allowed to take the MAP test twice for the year instead of three times. The

test is normally taken in the Fall, Winter and Spring. My students were only able to take it in late

Fall and in Spring. Their late fall score was considered their Winter score and their Spring score

remained the same for that Spring time period. In order to prepare my students for taking the test

in the Spring to meet their Spring goals, they practiced their comprehension skills on an app new

to the district called Freckle. Freckle is supposed to be aligned with each student’s initial MAP

score and is supposed to be a tool to build their comprehension skills. It is differentiated for each

student based on their own current skill level and trying to strengthen the skills they might be

currently falling behind in based on their Winter map score. Lexia is also a tool that I use in my

classroom to strengthen my student’s comprehension and grammar skills. Lexia is about

completing units and mastering different levels, which all vary in mastery level. My specific

research question that I have conducted and answered is: Can Freckle ELA and Lexia effectively

improve the reading fluency and comprehension skills of my second-grade students?

To conduct my research, I used by Winter MAP scores and compared them to my Spring

MAP scores. While comparing them, I am using the amount of time my students have spent on
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 3

both Freckle ELA app and Lexia correlating the time spent from November to February with the

scores. I am going to take my low to mid low-level students are using their Lexia usages and

compare it to their Spring MAP scores. I am going to take my mid-high to high level students

and using their Freckle ELA usage and compare it to their Spring MAP scores. I was also going

to use the ELA unit tests to compare with the scores as well, however, we do not record those

scores in PowerSchools because they are not an actual grade. My gradebook has been left at

work, where we are not allowed to go anywhere in the building except to receive student work. I

am currently without those grades.

Review of Literature

The first article I began to review was “Introducing an iPad app into literacy instruction for

struggling readers: Teacher perceptions and student outcomes”. One of the questions studied

was " Do students in Reading Recovery who are taught with the iPad LetterWorks app have

significantly greater scores on tasks closely related to alphabetics, namely, hearing and recording

sounds in words, letter identification and DIBELS’ letter naming fluency, on average, than

control students who are not exposed to the application?" The study was done amongst six and

seven-year old’s in high poverty level schools and with students who were also in Reading

Recovery classes. Results showed that students who used the LetterWorks recognition app

scored significantly higher at the end of the study when it came to letter and sound recognition

but there was not much greater difference in their reading and work recognition ability.

The second article I found to review was “Improving Early Reading Skills in Young

Children Through an iPad App: Small-Group Instruction and Observational Learning”. One

of the questions studied was "Will a research developed app for the iPad improve phonological

awareness skills of young children with mild developmental delays in a small group?" Results at
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 4

the end of the study showed that students tested in this Southwestern school that all children

improved their on-target performance but also were able to learn from their peers through

observation of them using the app within the same small group as them.

The third article that I reviewed as “Three-Year Longitudinal Study: Impact of a

Blended Learning Program--Lexia® Core5® Reading--On Reading Gains in Low-SES

Kindergarteners”. One of the research questions discussed in the journal article was "Does

participating in Core5 lead to yearly gains on a standardized reading test for elementary school

students from a low-SES background?" This was a three-year longitudinal study that tracked the

progress of 68 kindergarten students. Each school year students made major gains in their

standardized testing but lost those gains due to the "summer slide" each year. 90% of students

who scored below average during kindergarten were now average and above average when they

reached the second grade due to Lexia.

The fourth article I reviewed was “Can educational technology effectively differentiate

instruction for reader profiles?” The question discussed in the article and studied was "Can

educational technology effectively differentiate instruction for reader profiles?" Students in this

study were third-grade students who were shifting from learning to read to reading to learn.

Depending on each student's skill level is how long they got on each week. Students were able to

improve in each tier such as comprehension, fluency, word recognition etc. However, students

mixed deficits required additional assessments and one-on-one teaching instruction.

The final article I reviewed for my research was “A Comparison Study of the

Effectiveness of the Lexia Reading Programme”. The question studied and discussed in the

article was "Can Lexia be an effective reading program"? 37 students at a primary school were
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 5

used to evaluate if Lexia was effective for them through the reading process. All students tested

were from different grades, but were all students considered to be "at-risk". They were to be on

Lexia for 100 minutes per week for a single school term. It was found that Lexia had very

positive effects on the students who used it for a longer period of time each week, than those

who used just the minimum each week.

After reviewing my studies of literature, I found the information to be insightful. Being

on comprehension and phonics-based apps do improve literacy skills. Unfortunately, due to

COVID-19, I am unable to see if the benefits of literacy-based apps made a complete difference

in the 180 days of school and if they would have positively affected the scores of comprehension

unit tests that were to be taken in the past two months.

Methodology

I designed my study to have my students use Freckle or Lexia daily for 30-40 minutes

during Workstations each day before their Spring MAP test in March. They were to also take the

Imagine It unit posttests every 6 weeks until up their MAP testing. I also planned to create a

survey for my students to fill out about either Freckle or Lexia and how they think it affects their

learning. Due to COVID-19, I was unable to conduct this survey to include information from my

22 students. Also, I was unable to use my unit tests as a piece of data because we are not allowed

to go back in our rooms for anything until it is time to pack up for next year.

Analysis

The first step in analyzing data was to compare the Winter MAP scores to the Spring

MAP scores. This first data analysis helps me to see if my students even grew from October to
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 6

March. Below is a chart that represents the MAP data from October to March to see if there was

growth in between that time period. This map will score the percentage of students who met their

goal on October versus who met their goal in March.

Meeting MAP Goals

90
78
80
70
60
50 46

40
30
20
10
0
October March

Winter Spring

In October I only had 46% of my students meet their Reading MAP goals for Winter. At

this time, my students were just figuring out how to use Lexia and Freckle during Workstation

rotations. Therefore, they were not on these apps as much. In March, 78% of my students met

their reading MAP goal for the Spring. By this time, my students were on Lexia and Freckle

weekly for 20 minutes each day during Workstations rotations.

DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 7

Lexia Usage
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
October November December January February March

Column1 Column2

This chart describes the Lexia usage of my students from October to February. As

you can see, my students in October went from 25% to 75% in February of usage on Lexia.

During these 5 months, my students have had 50% growth on Lexia.

Freckle Usage

25%

75%
44%

55%
63%

October November December January February

DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 8

Between October and February, there was a 50% increase of usage. Students were only

on 25% in the month of October. In February, a month before the MAP test, students were on

Freckle for 75% of the time.

Low- Mid-Low Student Usage/Levels Gained Between October - February

Student Weeks Used % of Meeting Usage

Student A 17 40%

Student B 17 63%

Student C 17 47%

Student D 17 63%

Student E 17 47%

Student F 17 51%

Student G 17 64%

This table shows the weeks of usage in the classroom between October to February. This data is

driven from my students who are at a Lower to Mid-Lower level based on MAP testing scores

from October. Between this time period, out of the 7 students in these two groups, 57% were

meeting their weekly usage. The students who are below 50% are ESOL students who leave

during Workstations to go to their group. They do not have as much time on Lexia, than my

students who remain in the classroom for Workstations every day for 20 minutes on technology.
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 9

Mid-High to High Level students Freckle Usage from October to February

Student Weeks Used % of Meeting Usage

Student A 17 55%

Student B 17 60%

Student C 17 41%

Student D 17 65%

Student E 17 88%

Student F 17 78%

Student G 17 90%

Student H 17 80%

Student I 17 40%

Student J 17 84%

Student K 17 38%

This table has data based on my students who are on a Mid-High to High level group. The data

shows students who were in these two groups who have used the Freckle app from October to
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 10

February and their amount of usage in percentage. Out of these 11 students, 9 were on more than

50%. 2 students were below a 50% usage.

• For my two remaining students, who are in the On-Grade level group, were both over

50% in their Lexia Usage from October to February.

Findings

Based on COVID-19, I was unable to compare my MAP data with Imagine Unit tests to

see if there was any correlation of the unit tests improving my students MAP scores. From my

MAP scores from October and March, there was a 32% increase in my students’ scores. Based

on the data from both Lexia and the Freckle ELA app, I do believe that my students benefit from

using these apps during the months in between. In October, there was only a 25% amount of

usage in both Lexia and Freckle. In February, there was a 75% amount of usage for both apps.

The amount of usage with both apps did the same with the Spring MAP scores.

The study conducted by Ness, Couperus and Willey (2013) evaluated that it was found

that Lexia had very positive effects on the students who used the app for longer periods of time

rather than students who did not. With my class, I believe that my students that did not use Lexia

over 50% of the time each month, had a lower MAP score and did not meet their goal rather than

their classmates who did. Chai’s study (2017) researched whether or not a research developed

app for the iPad improved phonological awareness skills of young children with mild

developmental delays in a small group. I researched more in depth the usage of my higher-level

students when it came to Freckle ELA. However, I find that even my lower students have
DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 11

Overall, these apps did increase the Spring MAP testing scores of my students, along

with direct instruction in the classroom. Both Lexia and Freckle are designed to work on

standards that my students are seeing on MAP testing, based on their own RIT level. Being on

these apps give my students one-on-one direct practice and reinforcement that they need based

on their personal needs. I was very pleased with the results from both apps as well as my testing

scores. Going forward into the new school year, I definitely want to make being on Lexia and

Freckle a major priority during Workstations. I want to make both my students and myself more

accountable from being on these apps at the appropriate time with the respectable amount of

time, so there is a high percentage of usage each month.

DIGITAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT 12

References

D’Agostino, J. V., Rodgers, E., Harmey, S., & Brownfield, K. (2016). Introducing an iPad app

into literacy instruction for struggling readers: Teacher perceptions and student

outcomes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16

Chai, Z. (2017). Improving Early Reading Skills in Young Children Through an iPad App:

Small-Group Instruction and Observational Learning. Rural Special Education

Quarterly, 36(2), 101–111.

Macaruso, P., Wilkes, S., Franzén, S., & Schechter, R. (2019). Three-Year Longitudinal Study:

Impact of a Blended Learning Program—Lexia® Core5® Reading—on Reading Gains in

Low-SES Kindergarteners. Computers in the Schools, 36(1), 2–18.

Baron, L. S., Hogan, T. P., Schechter, R. L., Hook, P. E., & Brooke, E. C. (2019). Can

educational technology effectively differentiate instruction for reader profiles? Reading

and Writing, 32(9), 2327–2352.

Ness, M., Couperus, J., & Willey, M. (2013). A Comparison Study of the Effectiveness of the

Lexia Reading Programme. Kairaranga, 14(1), 16–2