1 / 17

ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO

ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO. Brandi Williams EDP 667 Summer 2004. Table of Contents:. Explanation of Organization Slide 3 Syllabus Slide 4 Weekly Calendar Slide 5 On-line Postings Slides 6-10 Journal Evaluation Slides 11-16 Summary Slide 17.

duncan-brewer
Download Presentation

ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO Brandi Williams EDP 667 Summer 2004

  2. Table of Contents: • Explanation of Organization Slide 3 • Syllabus Slide 4 • Weekly Calendar Slide 5 • On-line Postings Slides 6-10 • Journal Evaluation Slides 11-16 • Summary Slide 17

  3. Explanation of Organization and Meaning: In order to create this portfolio, I used the checklist provided to us by Dr. Sherman and included the necessary slides. Please see the Table of Contents to find where items can be located.

  4. Syllabus: • The syllabus contained some useful information that assisted in our learning for this class, including the link to the text’s web page and tutorial quizzes. Also, the link to the ERIC digests can be helpful in the future. The objectives seemed to be very vague and unspecific. • Link to Syllabus

  5. Weekly Calendar: • The weekly calendar was a useful tool to keep track of where we were and where we were headed. The web-based Statistical programs were interesting. • Link to Weekly Calendar

  6. On-line Postings: • Brandi WilliamsDate: June 29, 2004 at 14:05:06Subject: Reflection #1Reply: Hi all!! This is Brandi. I teach kindergarten and am working toward a Masters as an Early Childhood Education, Intervention Specialist. I also work as a clown, and in an embroidery shop. I am a little worried about statistics, because I took it before and really struggled. I know it will help me understanding research for our school and also in conducting research about our school. Have a great day !!!! • Brandi WilliamsDate: June 29, 2004 at 14:34:43Subject: ReactionReply: I am sure that you will do fine with statistics. You are a dedicated person who is not afraid to ask. You will do great!!! • Brandi Date: June 29, 2004 at 16:02:12Subject: ResponseReply: J.D., I didn't want you to be forgotten either. You must be a hard working person to accomplish what you have so far, and this seems to be a group of people who will really help and support each other. I am sure the math will come back to you quickly.

  7. On-line Postings (cont.): • Brandi WilliamsDate: July 03, 2004 at 23:06:50Subject: Reflection #2Reply: First of all, installling StatView was cake. It came up easily and took care of installation all on it's own. I am looking forward to trying it out on an actual data set. I feel like I am doing fairly well with the problems so far. I had a short setback on problem #21 in Chapter 2. I couldn't think about how to find the percentile ranks, but after review, I remembered to create a cumulative frequency column to help. I will check in later to see if I can help anyone, or if I run into another problem. Good luck preparing for the test. • Brandi williamsDate: July 05, 2004 at 17:17:54Subject: Reaction to #2Reply: I must agree with everyone about the need for repetition. I would be great to have some specific examples in the class to try to assist in making the concepts permenant in our brains. Good luck to everyone • Brandi WilliamsDate: July 08, 2004 at 07:50:38Subject: Reflection #3Reply: First, thanks Nneka for stepping up to start the discussion this time. I feel better about the testing in the class. I was a little unsure about the format, but if future tests have a similar format, I would be happy. Have a great day everyone, and I will see you in class.

  8. On-line Postings (cont.): • Brandi WilliamsDate: July 12, 2004 at 13:30:41Subject: Reflection 3Reply: I did fairly well with the problems. The only difficutly I ran into was paying attention to the population formulas versus the sample formuals. I calculated one problem and was sure I was correct, but when I checked the answers, I was wrong. When I looked at the problem again, I realized that it said the 4 scores were a population and I used the sample formula. I will have to pay careful attention to that in the future. • Brandi WilliamsDate: July 15, 2004 at 16:11:53Subject: Reflection 5Reply: So far, I feel pretty good about what I have learned and the use of StatView. I really like the program and the ability to easily create and copy tables into papers. I have already thought of ways that Z-Scores may be useful in my classroom and am excited to try it out next year. I know with what I have learned I will be better able to read and understand research and to describe and analyze any research I will do in the future. As far as this test goes, the true-false questions caught me a little bit. I argued with myself on each one of them and am curious to see how that section turns out on Monday. I hope everyone has a good weekend!!!!!

  9. On-line Postings (cont.): • Brandi WilliamsDate: July 19, 2004 at 19:34:03Subject: Reflection #6Comment: Hi all! I know I wasn't supposed to start this round, but I had a comment, so here we go. I found a problem in Chapter 7 that tripped me up and I just thought I would give you a heads up about it. On number 15, they ask you to compute the probability of a sample mean falling between 45 and 55 on a particular test. I tried to compute the z-score for these and then find the distance between them. What I forgot was that these are not separate scores, but sample means. I used the standard deviation to compute Z rather than the standard error. Watch out for this one. I am sure I will have more problems as the night continues and I will keep you posted. • Brandi WilliamsDate: July 25, 2004 at 19:16:47Subject: Reflection #7Reply: Hamilton, Chad, Shinn, Mark R. (2003) Characteristics of Word Callers: An Investigation of the Accuracy of Teachers’ Judgements of Reading Comprehension and Oral Reading Skills. School Psychology Review. 32 (2), 228-240. I chose this article because I use a lot of observation in my class to determine what my students know, and I have never had a great deal of confidence in the curriculum based assessments that accompany the reading series. That is the topic of this article, and I think it will be enlightening for me to review this study. I can observe means, standard deviations, ANOVA analysis and alpha levels just by glancing through the article. There are also some line graphs that will be interesting to review for this paper.

  10. On-line Postings (cont.): • Brandi WilliamsDate: July 25, 2004 at 19:16:47Subject: Reflection #7Reply: Hamilton, Chad, Shinn, Mark R. (2003) Characteristics of Word Callers: An Investigation of the Accuracy of Teachers’ Judgements of Reading Comprehension and Oral Reading Skills. School Psychology Review. 32 (2), 228-240. I chose this article because I use a lot of observation in my class to determine what my students know, and I have never had a great deal of confidence in the curriculum based assessments that accompany the reading series. That is the topic of this article, and I think it will be enlightening for me to review this study. I can observe means, standard deviations, ANOVA analysis and alpha levels just by glancing through the article. There are also some line graphs that will be interesting to review for this paper. • Brandi WilliamsDate: August 02, 2004 at 10:41:39Subject: Reaction 8Reply: I think we are getting the hang of using Statview to solve these. I was excited to learn Power Point, but I am still curious about the content of this portfolio we are supposed to create. What is "The Evidence"? Anybody have any insights???? • Link to On-line Discussion Page

  11. Journal Evaluation: • Title: Characteristics of Word Callers: An Investigation of the Accuracy of Teacher’s Judgements of Reading Comprehension and Oral Reading Skills.        Authors: Chad Hamilton, and Mark R. Shinn        Journal: School Psychology Review        Date: 2003        Volume: 32-2        Pages: 228-240 • INTRODUCTION        The title of this article gives a hint that we will be comparing teacher’s judgements of student performance with some more standardized measure of that performance.  There is also the impression that this study will be multifactored concerning both Reading Comprehension and Oral Reading.  The independent and dependent variables are not directly mentioned in the title of the article, but looking through the text, one can find the statistical tools used in this study in the results section of the paper. 

  12. Journal Evaluation (cont.): • ANALYZING THE VARIABLES • The independent variables in this study are the groups that the children are put into, specifically, Word Callers (WC), or Similarly Fluent Peers (SFP).  Students were placed into one of these groups based on the perceptions of their teachers as to their ability to read and comprehend an age appropriate text.  This is a nominal and discrete variable with only two possible values, Word Callers or Similarly Fluent Peers.   Also these variables are paired where one student from one classroom in one group is matched with another student from the same classroom in the other group.         The dependent variables are the scores that the students earn on four different tests as well as the estimate of the score that the teacher believed the students would earn.  Each of the test scores will be compared with the estimates of the teachers in order to judge the accuracy of their predictions based on observation of the students in their room. 

  13. Journal Evaluation (cont.): • HYPOTHESES        The article clearly states two questions that the researchers are trying to address.  “Are students identified by their teachers as word callers reading fluently but not comprehending”, and “Given that word callers are predicated on teacher’s judgements of individual students’ oral reading and comprehension skills, are teachers accurate in their judgements of these skills?”.  However, the article never clearly states the hypothesis of the researchers.  It never says that they believe the teacher’s judgements to be accurate or that they do not.  Based on a knowledge of statistical principals I assume that their null hypothesis states that there is no difference between teacher estimates of scores and actual scores earned on the assessments used.  (Ho: ì (teacher estimates) = ì (actual scores)).  The alternative hypothesis would then state that the two would be different from eachother (Ho: ì (teacher estimates) < ì (actual scores), or ì (teacher estimates) > ì (actual scores)).  The hypothesis does not have a definite direction.  The alpha level in this study appears to be .05.  This is the highest p value in the article where the authors write that a significant statistical difference has been found. 

  14. Journal Evaluation (cont.): • SAMPLE        I believe that the sample was sufficient in size with a total of N=66 (WC: n=33, SFP: n=33).  Each group had more than 30 people, causing the distribution of sample means to approximate a normal distribution.  The researchers provide us with N, the mean of each test group, and the standard deviation for each group, so the Standard Error of the Mean can be computed.  The following table shows this information: R-CBMCBM-MazeCQTWRMT-PCW.C. (M) 129.9   89.112.2    9.15.4    5.292.4W.C.(SD) 42.8    19.95.0    3.01.0    1.912.7W.C. (S)* 7.46    3.470.87    0.520.17    0.332.21SFP (M) 138.1   116.220.9    13.68.8    8.299.6SFP (SD) 47.2    22.66.2    3.00.8    1.49.8SFP (S)* 8.22    3.941.08    13.60.14    0.241.71 Note: The bold face scores are the Teacher Estimates, while the plain text shows the actual scores. *S= Standard Error of the Mean In each F statistic, the researchers compared the teacher’s estimate with the acutal score, so df=1 in the numerator, and df=64 in the denominator.  It appears (although it is never directly stated) that the researchers are using á=.05 which would required and F value of 4.00 or greater to be in the critical region.

  15. Journal Evaluation (cont.): • RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONSA homogeneity of variance test was not used as far as I can tell.  An F-Max test can be conducted for this test.  With each ANOVA test having 2 samples and n=33 the F-Max value must not exceed 2.07 to be a valid test.  The following table shows the F-Max scores for each of the tests that were compared. • R-CBM CBM-MazeCQTWRMT-PCWord Callers Variance 396.019.03.61161.29S.F.P. Variance 510.769.01.9696.04F-Max 1.291.01.841.68

  16. Journal Evaluation (cont.): • Based on the F-Max test, the number and types of variables and the research question being asked, I feel that using ANOVA and MANOVA were appropriate statistical tests to use.          The authors also used a table to present the means, standard deviations, and mean differences for each test and each group.  It made it much easier to view the relationship between the teacher’s estimates and the actual scores, as well as the difference between the scores of the word callers and the similarly fluent peers.  Also, three Interactive Line Plots were presented showing the differences between the actual scores of each group as well as the predicted scores of each group.  These graphs also provided good visual information that made the results appear much more tangible and understandable.          By looking at the results, the investigators conclude that in this case the teacher’s overestimated the fluency of the word callers in so much as they were less fluent than the students that the teacher paired them with.  Both students struggled with comprehension, showing that the definition of a “word caller” may not be accurate.  The students are not reading as fluently as the teachers predict that they are.  The means of the actual scores of each group did show a significant statistical difference for the two groups F(4,61)=19.4, p>.001.  This would cause the authors to reject their null hypothesis and accept the research hypothesis.          I do not believe that the researchers over-conclude in this study, because they are very cautious about the validity of their test.  They insist that the study needs to be replicated and that the geographic limitations of this study may affect it’s results.  But it does conclude that teachers need to be cautious about their understanding of the difference between fluency and accuracy.  These students may read each word correctly, but that does not translate to fluency.    • Link to Journal Evaluation    

  17. Summary: • Overall, this class has given me a basic grasp of the statistical techniques that I may observe in my professional readings and research. I have found uses for some of these methods in my classroom and am anxious to try them out. After looking at the syllabus and reflecting on the class, I was surprised by the lack of cooperative activities in the class. I did not see any benefits from the on-line postings, because we were meeting daily and discussing our problems and concerns together in class. I could see it’s use in a regular semester, but it did not seem useful here. The paper was a useful tool to see how the statistics are used, but it was very difficult to complete, because we did not have the knowledge to understand the statistics until the Friday before the paper was due. It would have been helpful to have a group of articles to choose from that had the simplistic statistics that were presented early on in order to do a complete job on the paper. This portfolio was a good way to learn Power Point. • As I continue with research in my pursuit of my Master’s Degree, this understanding of Statistics will prove to be useful.

More Related