Heather Hagood

FRIT 7236 - Fall 2020

Technology-Based Assessment and Analysis

Key Assessment Stage 2: Data Analysis
Student Test Data Report

Section 1 - Students

The data for this analysis was obtained from a sixth-grade benchmark math assessment.
Twenty-five students took the assessment. The students attend Impact Academy, a hybrid school
in McDonough, GA. The school is a joint cluster of the elementary, middle, and high school
where students come in two days a week for class, and the remaining school days are at home
working on the program Edgenuity. Edgenuity is an online curriculum that contains lessons,
assignments, and tests for students to work on throughout the semester. The students are between
the ages of eleven and twelve years old. The group consists of six boys and fifteen girls.
Demographically, the students set is made up of 9 Caucasians. 10 African-Americans, 5
Hispanic, and 1 mixed-race student. Two students receive Special Education services and the
class ability ranges from below average to above average. There are eight students reading below
grade level and seven students whose math achievement is below grade level based on the most
recent MAP testing data report.

Section 2 - Course

This benchmark assessment was administered to all sixth-grade students in the school at the
mid-way point through Unit 2: Ratios and Rates. The purpose of the assessment was to gauge
student mastery of the math content taught over the first half of the unit. The online-based
assessment system, Illuminate, required students to answer questions using a fill-in-the-blank
format with students utilizing the number pad on the computer keyboard and multiple choice.
The assessment was automatically graded with the results of the data available in a report. The
assessment was based on the sixth-grade math standards below:

Georgia Performance Standard Question

MGSE6.RP.1 ​Understand the concept of a ratio and use ratio language to 3,7,12
describe a ratio relationship between two quantities.

MGSE6.RP.3 ​Use ratio and rate reasoning to solve real-world and 1,2,4,5,6,8
 mathematical problems utilizing strategies such as tables of equivalent ratios,
tape diagrams (bar models), double number line diagrams, and/or equations.

MGSE6.RP.3b ​Solve unit rate problems including those involving unit 9,10,11,13,
pricing and constant speed. 14,15

Section 3 - Descriptive Analysis

This assessment was given during class as a common assessment to check for students’

understanding of ratio, rates, and unit rates. The deviation for this test was high, with 20%

having a perfect score of 100 and some students scoring down in the 20s.

Mean Median Standard Deviation

 69 73 26

Standard Question Number Percentage of Average Standard

Correct Answers Performance

MGSE6.RP.1 3 60% 57%

Understand the
concept of a ratio and 7 36%
use ratio language to
describe a ratio 12 76%
relationship between
two quantities.

MGSE6.RP.3 ​Use 1 100% 82%

ratio and rate
reasoning to solve 2 52%
real-world and
mathematical 4 88%
problems utilizing 5 84%
strategies such as
tables of equivalent 6 80%
ratios, tape diagrams
(bar models), double 8 88%
number line
diagrams, and/or
equations.
MGSE6.RP.3b ​Solve 9 64% 61%
unit rate problems
including those 10 64%
involving unit pricing
and constant speed. 11 72%

13 80%

14 52%

15 36%

Spearman-Brown Reliability Calculation

Section 4 - Analysis of Students Strengths and Weaknesses

Standard Question Number Percentage of Common Mistake

 Correct Answers

MGSE6.RP.1 3 60% Students did not add

Understand the all items to find total
concept of a ratio and
use ratio language to 7 36% Selected Inverse of
describe a ratio Ratio
relationship between
two quantities. 12 76% Student(s) may not
have known how to
proceed with the
question or guessed
without considering
the question.

MGSE6.RP.3 ​Use 1 100% No mistakes

ratio and rate
reasoning to solve 2 52% The student selected a
real-world and ratio of 3:6 and may
mathematical have gotten confused
problems utilizing when simplifying the
strategies such as ratio to 1:2.
tables of equivalent
ratios, tape diagrams 4 88% The student correctly
(bar models), double reasoned that the
number line team will score 3
diagrams, and/or touchdowns per
equations. quarter, but
incorrectly found the
total number of
touchdowns for all 4
quarters of the entire
football game.

5 84% The student may have

incorrectly divided
the number of pieces
by the cost of the pie.

6÷4.50=1.3333333

6 80% The student may not

understand how to
use a ratio table to
find an equivalent
ratio. The student
may understand that
 the first number is
being multiplied by 3
to complete the ratios
in the table, but the
student has
mistakenly added 3 to
1 to get the
equivalent ratio.
1+3=4, so the ratio is
1:4.

8 88% The student may have

found the unit rate,
but not the distance
for 5 hours.
1242=x1
2x=124
x=62

MGSE6.RP.3b ​Solve 9 64% In this mix, the

unit rate problems student incorrectly
including those adds 6 to each part of
involving unit pricing the recipe since the
and constant speed. common factor is 6.

10 64% Students incorrectly

divided 4 by $2.80
instead of $2.80 by 4.

11 72% The student

incorrectly multiplied
5×22=110 hot dogs.

13 80% Student(s) may have

divided 60 by 4
instead of
multiplying.

14 52% Student(s) did not

understand the units
of rate and thought
one had to include the
number of hours in
the units.

15 36% Student(s) may have

known how to
 calculate the speed
but did not know
which units to attach
to it.

Spearman-Brown Reliability Calculation

The Spearman-Brown reliability of this assessment is .85 indicating a sufficiently

reliable assessment with room for improvement, as most tests should be high-reliability
of .90 or higher.

Section 5 - Improvement Plan

The Spearman-Brown reliability of this assessment is .85 indicating a sufficiently reliable

assessment with room for improvement, as most tests should be high-reliability of .90 or higher.
However, the student’s mean score of 69% indicates that this assessment’s validity as an
indicator of sixth-grade math standards mastery could be improved. Ways to possibly increase
the reliability would be to increase the number of questions on the assessment, increase time to
complete assessment, or provide more than one assessment to see if students are mastering the
standard.

In order to improve student scores on the assessment, I would recommend grouping

students based on skill strength and weakness. Students would receive additional small group
instruction and practice in weak areas based on their abilities. Students 1,4,5,6,10,13,14, 18, 19,
21, 22, and 24 would receive introductory instruction and tutoring.