Running Head: DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS 1

Signature Project Part 1: Data Gathering and Analysis

Lesley S. Danford

University of West Alabama

IL572 Summer 1

Dr. Darlene F. Atkins, Ed.D.

May 30, 2021

Running Head: DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS 2

Signature Project part 1: Data and Gathering Analysis

In order to establish the problem area of weakness I want to improve, I generated a

Google Form and emailed it to the entire staff at Headland Elementary School. I asked three

questions: What can we do better to improve student learning at HES? What do you feel is a top

priority for improvement with student learning right now? What do you think we are doing well at

Headland Elementary School to contribute to student learning? Twenty individuals, including

classroom teachers, specialists, and team leaders, completed the survey. Responses were

varied, but there was a shared consensus for an explicit phonics curriculum. Explicit phonics

curriculum through both software and direct instruction was also highly represented to question

what is a top priority for HES.

While waiting for the survey results, I met with my principal to request approval to get the

information needed for research. We discussed possible weaknesses that data had shown from

last year. Due to Covid-19 end of the year, data for testing is unavailable from last year, but she

recommended different possibilities for gathering data. I requested an attendance report for the

2020-2021 school year that was detailed to include absences and tardies broken down by grade

levels. I also met with the assistant principal to gather data from Scantron Reading and Math

test, i-Ready Reading, and i-Ready Math from the 2020 – 2021 school year. I also met with our

reading coach to request data from Dibels 8th Edition screenings and assessments for the

current school year. I requested a yearly grade report for K-5 grades. As I develop my Signature

Project, I will gather more information regarding grades and the specific correlation linked to

other specified data.

After reviewing the data, I found that many students were considered on grade level

according to the i-ready Reading Diagnostic assessment but scored in the 5th percentile rank on

the Dibels assessment. The percentage of students reading on grade level was as follows:

Kindergarten 89%, first grade 73%, Second grade 60%, and third grade 66%. The most
Running Head: DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS 3

concerning part of the i-Ready Reading data was the percentage of students who were one

grade level below overall. In kindergarten, 11% of students were one grade level behind in

placement. In first grade, 23% of students were one grade level behind in placement. In second

grade, 37% were one grade level behind in placement. In third grade, 15% were one grade level

behind in placement (Figure1). In each grade level, the number of students one or more grade

levels behind was wide-ranging from class to class as well.

Figure 1

I also looked at the diagnostic growth in i-Ready Reading. The percentage of growth for

overall placement in kindergarten through 4th grade was as follows: 48% were mid or above

grade level, 25% were early on grade level, 22% were one grade level below, 5% were two

grade levels below, and 1% were three or more grade levels below. However, When I looked at

the growth of individual students, the results varied greatly. I continued to investigate the

i-Ready data and concluded that in kindergarten, 13% of students are below grade-level

phonics and scored 2% limited vocabulary. In first grade, 30% of students are below grade level
Running Head: DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS 4

in phonics and scored 5% limited vocabulary. In second grade, 39% of students are below

grade level and scored 18% limited vocabulary. In third grade, 31% of students are below grade

level and scored 38% limited vocabulary (Figure 2). I found no correlation between attendance

record data and assessment scores.

Figure 2

After evaluating the data and receiving the survey results, I met with my principal to get

her feedback on the survey results and the collected data. I observed at this point that risk

indicators increased each grade level, the increase in limited vocabulary at each grade level,

and the percentage of students who did not meet stretch growth proficiency by the end of year

assessment. She was not concerned about the percentages of stretch growth goals not met;

this goal is achieved during two or three academic years and since our typical growth data was

sufficient. Kindergarten through third grade had access to the i-Ready program for the first time

this year. She was concerned about the percentage of students that scores reflected Dibels
Running Head: DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS 5

intensive support. Another area of concern for her was the scores related to limited vocabulary.

She also stated that teachers in kindergarten through third grade would need to increase

phonics instruction, differentiate instruction, and explore vocabulary strategies to close learning

gaps quickly. She added that those combined areas of weakness could significantly impact

overall students' success as the literacy law goes into effect; she is worried that the trends

would lead to a high number of retentions in third grade if not corrected.

After studying the data collected, interviews, and the electronic survey I conducted, I

want to improve explicit phonics instruction within kindergarten through third grade classrooms. I

want to see a decrease in below-grade level phonics percentages each year. Teachers will need

to be furnished scientifically-based curriculum, knowledge, and skills to meet the students’

diverse needs in their classrooms, and students will need to participate in meaningful activities

that are rigorous but available, and content needs to be helpful to all learners.