2007-2008 12th Grade Cohort & Fine Arts Enrollment Comparison
A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012
description
Transcript of A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012
![Page 1: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to
2012
1
CST English Language Arts Results Rosetta Stone Elementary Students
![Page 2: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overall Summary
• This report includes a review of the effectiveness of the following initiatives in the 2011-12 school year:• Rosetta Stone• Language!• Read 180• iPad Pilot
• Overall, we found that Rosetta Stone, Language!, and Read 180 were more effective for students needing the most intensive intervention than other students performing below or at grade level. • We also found that teachers who participated in the iPad
pilot during the 2011-12 school year believed that teaching and learning was enhanced by using tablet technology.
2
![Page 3: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to
2012
3
CST English Language Arts Results Rosetta Stone Elementary Students
![Page 4: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Rosetta Stone Background
• Rosetta Stone is a computer-based software designed to help users learn a new language.• This program is used in Lodi USD to assist students
in learning / improving English language skills primarily in grades K thru 6.• Students with a California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) level of Beginning or Early Intermediate (1 or 2) were recommended for participation, along with CELDT Intermediate (level 3) students as determined by individual sites.
4
![Page 5: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone
• Rosetta Stone was more effective at helping all students at the Far Below Basic level increase by one CST level than students not using Rosetta Stone.• However, Far Below Basic students not using Rosetta Stone
were more likely to increase by two or more CST levels than students using Rosetta Stone.
• Additionally, Far Below Basic students who previously scored at CELDT Level 1 or 2, and used Rosetta Stone, were more likely to increase CST levels compared to their counterparts who did not use Rosetta Stone.
5
![Page 6: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone (continued)
• Rosetta Stone was not as effective at helping all students at the Below Basic level increase CST levels than students not using Rosetta Stone.• However, Below Basic students who previously scored at
CELDT Level 1 or 2, and used Rosetta Stone, were more likely to increase CST levels compared to their counterparts who did not use Rosetta Stone.• Rosetta Stone was generally not as effective at helping all
students at the Basic level increase CST levels than students not using Rosetta Stone.• Rosetta Stone was generally not as effective at helping all
students at the Proficient or Advanced level maintain or increase CST levels than students not using Rosetta Stone. 6
![Page 7: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011
7
201 students who were previously Far Below Basic used Rosetta Stone across the district.
![Page 8: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011 & 2012 CELDT Level 1 or 2
8
90 students who were previously Far Below Basic & CELDT Level 1 or 2 used Rosetta Stone across the district.
![Page 9: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011
9
348 students who were previously Below Basic used Rosetta Stone across the district.
![Page 10: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011 & 2012 CELDT Level 1 or 2
10
70 students who were previously Below Basic & CELDT Level 1 or 2 used Rosetta Stone across the district.
![Page 11: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Basic in 2011
11
438 students who were previously Basic used Rosetta Stone across the district.
![Page 12: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Proficient in 2011
12
145 students who were previously Proficient used Rosetta Stone across the district.
![Page 13: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Advanced in 2011
13
32 students who were previously Advanced used Rosetta Stone across the district.
![Page 14: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to
2012
14
CST English Language Arts Results Language!
Elementary Students
![Page 15: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Language! Background• Language! is an English Language Arts replacement
core for students at two or more years below grade level. • This program is used as a replacement core in Lodi
USD in grades 3 thru 6.• Students with a CST level of Far Below Basic or Below
Basic (and a CELDT level Beginning, Early Intermediate or Intermediate) were recommended for participation.
15
![Page 16: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
CST ELA Results for Students Using Language!
• Language! was generally more effective at helping students at the Far Below Basic level increase by one CST level than students not using Language!.• However, Far Below Basic students not using
Language! were generally more likely to increase by two or more CST levels than students using Language!.• Language! was generally not as effective at helping
all students at the Below Basic or Basic levels increase CST levels than students not using Language!. 16
![Page 17: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Language! Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011
17
93 students who were previously Far Below Basic used Language! across the district.
![Page 18: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Language! Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011
18
118 students who were previously Below Basic used Language! across the district.
![Page 19: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Language! Who Were Previously Basic in 2011
19
28 students who were previously Basic used Language! across the district.
![Page 20: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
CST English Language Arts Results Read 180
Secondary Students
A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to
2012
20
![Page 21: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Read 180 Background• Read 180 is a computer-enhanced English Language
Arts replacement core for students at two or more years below grade level. • This program was used as a replacement core in Lodi
USD in grades 7 thru 12 during the 2011-12 school year.• Students at the CST Far Below Basic level or Below
Basic level (and CELDT level 1 or 2) were recommended for participation.
21
![Page 22: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180
• Read 180 was generally more effective at helping students at the Far Below Basic and Below Basic levels who made 2 or more years growth in the program increase one or multiple CST levels than students not using Read 180.• However, Read 180 was generally not as effective at
helping all students at the Basic level who made 2 or more years growth in the program increase one CST level than students not using Read 180.
22
![Page 23: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180 Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011
23
156 students who were previously Far Below Basic used Read 180 across the district.
![Page 24: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180 Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011
24
263 students who were previously Below Basic used Read 180 across the district.
![Page 25: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180 Who Were Previously Basic in 2011
25
239 students who were previously Basic used Read 180 across the district.
![Page 26: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
iPad PilotA Qualitative Review
26
![Page 27: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
iPad Pilot Background
• Six classrooms were given class sets of iPads to use during the 2011-12 school year in an effort to increase student achievement:• 4 elementary classrooms, including 1 combination
classroom• 1 middle school History-Social Science classroom• 1 high school English Language Arts classroom
• Feedback was obtained from the teachers as part of a qualitative review of the impact of 1-to-1 tablet technology upon teaching and learning.
27
![Page 28: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
iPad Pilot Teacher FeedbackTeacher Observed Instructional Benefits:• Highly engaging for students of all abilities• Able to differentiate curriculum for differing needs• Research opportunities at each child's fingertips at the same
time- no waiting for shared books or classroom computers, no waiting for lab spot once a week• Allows for quick differentiation of instruction and for more
targeted teaching.• Interactive apps allow: • Teachers to observe the students’ learning and make modifications as
necessary. • Students to have text read to them giving them access to the core instruction.• Tracking of student progress, which increases the student accountability and
again allows for modifications in instruction. 28
![Page 29: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
iPad Pilot Teacher FeedbackTeacher Observed Impact on Student Success:• Several apps give immediate feedback and show
improvement. (AR, RocketMath, Spelling City)• With the differentiation available, students are able to
experience success at their own instructional level.• We have been able to get accurate, up to date, information
instantly. This has helped my EL students who often need help building background knowledge.• Students often come into class on their own time to use them
which has increased their daily practice/drill time.
29
![Page 30: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
iPad Pilot Teacher FeedbackTeacher Observed Implementation Successes:• Students were highly engaged• Students learned how to use iPads very quickly.• Students’ time on task on has increased.• Using the “Personal iPad Time” (free time) apps, students
were able to access curriculum in music, arts, science, and social science in addition to reading and math. • Students had a greater opportunity to pursue their own
interests and learning.
30
![Page 31: A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070406/56814175550346895dad630a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
iPad Pilot Teacher FeedbackTeacher Observed Implementation Challenges:• The syncing protocol (iPad set up) is an involved process and
takes time.• Making sure the students are always working on the assigned
task can be difficult.• Everything keeps changing/improving at a rapid pace, and you
have to work at constantly staying informed.• It’s a bit frightening to be responsible for the high cost of
these easily portable devices.• Restrictions on how iPads could be used- many apps could not
be used due to district network restrictions
31