Midterm 1

Running Head: Midterm

Spring 2012 Midterm NELS88: Math Proficiency Exam Scores Nadiyah Edwards Social Work 300 Tuskegee University March 1, 2012

Midterm 2

Abstract The following problem definition paper is based on a study done to assess students test scores based off of their time spent watching television and their SES. Students that watch more than 5 hours of television a day will score lower on exam opposed to someone that doesnt watch as much television. Students with lower SES tend to receive Free or Reduced lunch while watching an excessive amount of television as well. Students that spend more time watching television will continue to make poor scores.

Midterm 3

Hypothesis The number of hours a student watches television has an impact on their overall math proficiency exam score. In this way the more an individual student watches television the more likely they will be to have poor performance scores. The independent variable being the amount of hours a student watches television; the dependent variable being the overall performance scores on the math proficiency exam. The independent variable values range from those that do not watch television to those that watch television more than five hours a day. The dependent variable was measured in four performance levels. The control variable measured the percent of students that received free lunch as well as the students gender. The percent of students values ranged from those that did not receive free lunch to 100 percent of students that received free lunch between males and females. The number of hours a student watches television decreases their overall math proficiency exam scores based on rather or not they receive free lunch. In this way the greater percent of students that receive free lunch will have poorer test scores that those that do not qualify. Female students will score higher than male students while watching less television.

Midterm 4

Rationale Students that watch more television than others will have poorer test scores because they spend less time studying or doing academic based work. The students retention of information learned in school throughout the day is loss in the hours spent watching television. The more time a student has to work and not watch television will increase their performance on test. The greater percent of students that receive free lunch will have poorer performance scores; their lower socioeconomic status does not provide a progressive environment to encourage studying. Since students lack the encouragement and a productive environment they spend more time watching television. As a result of the greater time spent watching television their scores will be lower. Female students will have higher scores because female students tend to perform better in school than male students. Female students spend less time watching television as well, which also contributes to females better performance than males.

Midterm 5

Results

Table1 Math Proficiency Exam Score Levels by Rs Hours of Television Watched (%) Rs Hours of Television Watched __________________________________________ 1-3 hours 4-5hours 5+hours Totals 13.0 27.5 22.8 36.7 14.7 (799) 10.8 30.0 26.3 32.9 39.1 (2121) 12.7 35.6 26.0 25.7 40.9 (2215) 12.1 32.4 25.3 30.2 100 (5422)

Level Below Level One Level One Level One and Two All Three Levels Totals (N) Source: NELS88.dat

Do not Watch 15.3 38.3 19.2 27.2 5.3 (287)

Midterm 6

Table 2 Math Proficiency Exam Score Levels by Rs Hours of Television Watched Controlling for Rs Gender (%) ______________________________________________________________________________ Age Group of R ________________________________________________ Level Do Not Watch 1-3hours 4-5hours 5+hours Totals ______________________________________________________________________________ Male Respondents Below Level One Level One Level One and Two All Three Levels Totals (N) 14.0 43.0 16.5 26.4 4.7 (121) 12.0 24.2 21.5 42.4 14.4 (368) 10.8 25.7 29.0 34.5 38.2 (976) 14.6 32.4 25.9 27.1 42.6 (1088) 12.7 29.1 26.0 32.1 100 (2553)

______________________________________________________________________________ Female Respondents Below Level One Level One Level One and Two All Three Levels Totals (N) 16.5 34.1 21.3 28.0 5.8 (164) 13.5 30.5 24.3 31.7 14.9 (423) 10.8 33.9 23.8 31.5 40.0 (1133) 11.0 38.7 25.8 24.5 39.2 (1111) 11.6 35.3 24.5 28.6 100 (2831)

______________________________________________________________________________ Source: NELS88.dat

Midterm 7

Table 3 Math Proficiency Exam Score Levels by Rs Hours of Television Watched Controlling for Rs Free Lunch Students (%) ______________________________________________________________________________ Percent of students with Free Lunch Students ________________________________________________ Level Do not Watch 1-3hours 4-5 hours 5+ hours Totals ______________________________________________________________________________ None-10% Below Level One Level One Level One and Two All Three Levels Totals (N) 6.3 24.1 21.5 48.1 7.7 (79) 6.3 13.5 26.1 54.1 20.2 (207) 6.7 20.8 25.7 46.8 39.5 (404) 9.0 27.5 27.8 35.6 32.6 (334) 7.3 21.8 26.2 44.7 100 (1024)

______________________________________________________________________________ 11%-30% Below Level One Level One Level One and Two All Three Levels Totals (N) 9.1 54.5 9.1 27.3 4.0 (33) 10.9 16.8 24.4 47.9 14.5 (119) 8.1 26.0 25.4 40.4 40.6 (334) 8.6 28.5 29.4 33.5 40.9 (337) 8.7 26.9 26.2 38.2 100 (823)

______________________________________________________________________________ Source: NELS88.dat

Midterm 8

Table 4 Math Proficiency Exam Score Levels by Rs Hours of Television Watched Controlling for Rs Free Lunch Students (%) ______________________________________________________________________________ 31%-75%

Level Below Level One Level One Level One and Two All Three Levels Totals (N)

Do not Watch 10.0 43.3 16.7 30.0 5.1 (30)

1-3hours 6.7 30.0 20.0 43.3 15.2 (90)

4-5hours 9.4 29.6 22.9 38.1 37.5 (223)

5+hours 12.4 33.9 25.5 28.3 42.3 (251)

Totals 10.3 32.2 23.2 34.3 100 (594)

______________________________________________________________________________ 76%-100% Below Level One Level One Level One and Two All Three Levels Totals (N) 20.9 39.5 18.6 20.9 4.7 (43) 12.4 30.5 25.7 31.4 11.5 (105) 9.3 31.9 29.0 29.8 42.5 (389) 14.8 32.2 23.7 29.3 41.4 (379) 12.4 32.2 26.0 29.4 100 (916)

____________________________________________________________________________ Source: NELS88.dat

Midterm 9

Discussion I hypothesized that too much television has a negative impact on academic performance and testing of students. The bivariate analysis of 8th grade students math proficiency exam scores show that the more time spent watching television does have a negative effect on test performance. Majority of students that watched five or more hours of television, 35.6%, only scored in the level one category. Level one shows that students can perform simple arithmetical operations on whole numbers. This was followed by 26%of students that also watched five hours or more scoring in levels one and two but not in all three levels. This shows that they are only able to perform simple operations with decimals, fractions and roots, but cannot perform at level three. I feel that students that watch more television are unable to remember the mathematical procedures learned in school. They also spend more time watching television and less time practicing their math skills. The best way to improve mathematical scores amongst students is to modernize the way they practice their math. Math being practiced with a modern high tech approach allows students to utilize their most commonly used gadgets to complete their work. The satisfaction of being able to use common technology will encourage students to incorporate math into their high tech day. The hypotheses that the multivariate relationship between the percent of students that receive free lunch compared to how much television they watched would have a negative effect on their math scores was proven correct. The students that did not receive free lunch but watched the same 5+ hours of television had higher percentages in level one and two as well as all three levels. The 27.8% of students who do not receive free lunch that scored in the level one and two as well as the 35.6% of students that scored in all three levels proves the hypotheses correct. This shows that students who did not receive free lunch were able to perform simple operations with

Midterm 10

decimals, fractions and roots and could perform lower level math problems. Students that do not receive free lunch spends less time watching television and sometimes they spend the same amount of time and still have more progressive test scores. That demographic of students are able to still score well because they have spent less time wasting brain cells and energy by watching television. There should be an emphasis put on spending moderate amounts of time on school work instead of television. The second hypotheses that states, male students will have poorer math scores than females, was correct as well. Female students had a lower fraction of 11% to score below level one compared to males that had 14.6%; while both groups identified with watching more than five hours of television a day. Females that did not watch television had a portion 21.3% compared to males that had 16.5 to score within level one and two. This is showing that a greater number of male students are scoring either very low on their math exam as well as continuously scoring below females in the higher levels. The results also show that overall female students perform better on exams rather they dont watch television at all or 5+hours a day. However the results do expose overall that females watch more television than males. A larger percent of males around the age of an 8th grader can be more into sports rather than watching television. Female students in 8th grade are typically maturing more physically and are less interested in sports, which can contribute to their need to watch television more often than males. The balance in scores was uneven due to the lack of the males presence in school and their poorer performance skills.

Midterm 11

Appendix

Midterm 12

Midterm 13

Midterm 14

Midterm 15

Midterm 16