Compare the results of the pre-assessment(attached) to the results of the summative assessment(attached) such as, the class as a whole, a student who demonstrated growth, and a student who did not demonstrate growth. Task 2: Evaluating Learning and InstructionPre-Assessment: Student ResultsPrior to teaching the lesson to the class, the teacher created and administered a pre-assessment to students to evaluatestudents' proficiency in prerequisite skills (key/signal words) and the problem skills and solution skills to be taught duringthe lesson. The following table shows the student results from this assessment:Student12 (EL)34 (SD)5678 (EL)9101112 (SD)13 (SD)14151617 (EL)181920Correct perQuestion% Proficientper QuestionTypeKey/SignalWordsMC MC MCXXXX75%XXXXXXXXXX85% 90% 55%ProblemMC35%XXXXXXXXCRXX****XXXXXXXFITB MCXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX60% 40% 25%X40% 25%35%SolutionMC CRXXXXXXAssessing Impact on Student Learning ScenarioXXXXXPAGE 6FITBXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX50% 55% 20% 25%XXX20% 25%OverallScore60%50%70%40%60%40%50%80%60%50%70%20%50%40%40%50%20%50%80%30%XW WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY.WUMC = Multiple choiceCRFITB = Fill in the blankKey= Question answered correctly= Question answered incorrectly=Looking at each question, teachers can determine how many students are proficient on each individual question. Forexample, the first Key/Signal Words MC column, 17 out of 20 students answered it correctly, so 85% were proficient onquestion 1. The % Proficient are in the last row of the table above."Overall Score" Proficiency Scale: 0-49% = Not Proficient; 50-69% = Approaching Proficiency; 70-100% = ProficientConstructed response Summative Assessment: Student Proficiency.After giving and grading the summative assessment, the teacher analyzes the data by creating the same tables as was done for thepre-assessment. The first table lists each skill (i.e., key/signal words, problem, and solution) and how many students were proficient inthose skills based on item type. The second table lists the students by subset (i.e., all students, English learners, and students withdisabilities) and how many students were proficient in each skill. The final table created lists the student subsets and how manystudents from each subset were nonproficient, approaching proficiency, and proficient on the overall assessment.For example, in the Summative Assessment: Skill Proficiency by Item Type table below, the number and percent of students isdetermined using the Summative Assessment: Student Results table above. Proficiency is set at 70-100%. The Key/Signal Words, MCcolumns (first four on the above table), indicate that 18 out of 20 students answered t least 70% correctly. So, 18, or 90% of studentswere proficient when looking at all the MC questions.Summative Assessment: Skill Proficiency by Item Type# (%) StudentsItem TypeMultiple ChoiceConstructed ResponseFill in the BlankStudentsAll StudentsEL OnlySD Only# (%) StudentsProficient -Key/Signal Words18 (90%)N/AN/AStudentsAll StudentsEL OnlySD Only# (%) StudentsProficient -ProblemSummative Assessment: Skill Proficiency by Student Subset# (%) StudentsProficient-Key/Signal Words18 (90%)# (%) StudentsProficient -Problem# (%) StudentsProficient -Solution3 (100%)3 (100%)11 (55%)12 (60%)14 (70%)# (%) StudentsNot Proficient3 (15%)0 (0%)1 (33%)Proficient -Solution13 (65%)2 (67%)1 (33%)10 (50%)7 (35%)11 (55%)Summative Assessment: Overall Proficiency by Student Subset# (%) StudentsApproaching1 (5%)1 (33%)0 (0%)8 (40%)0 (0%)1 (33%)# (%) StudentsProficient16 (80%)2 (67%)2 (67%)

Assessing the impact of instructional methods on student learning is a fundamental component of…

Compare the results of the pre-assessment(attached) to the results of the summative assessment(attached) such as, the class as a whole, a student who demonstrated growth, and a student who did not demonstrate growth.

Compare the results of the pre-assessment(attached) to the results of the summative assessment(attached) such as, the class as a whole, a student who demonstrated growth, and a student who did not demonstrate growth.

Management, Loose-Leaf Version

13th Edition

ISBN:9781305969308

Author:Richard L. Daft

Publisher:Richard L. Daft

Chapter19: Managing Quality And Performance

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 3CFCA: Cousins Jeri Lynn De Bose, Tish Hoover, and Josephine (Joey) Parks looked forward to meeting up...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Cousins Jeri Lynn De Bose, Tish Hoover, and Josephine (Joey) Parks looked forward to meeting up during the Christmas holidays to compare notes on the results of midyear teacher evaluations. All were public school teachers in districts scattered over the state. In the pressured search for new levels of teacher accountability demanded by legislators, the state department of education joined 16 other States in implementing a new teacher evaluation system. The goal is to hold teachers account-able for student learning progress in the classroom. Under the guidance of the National Council for Teacher Quality, criteria varies by State, but in most cases, 40 percent of each teacher's accountability score would be based on the principal's evaluation and ranking based on personal observation, 30 percent would be based on personal observation by a master teacher from outside the district, and the Other 30 percent would be based on student test score gains. The state department of education would set a performance goal each school district, and the principal would set a performance goal for each teacher. In preparation, the State conducted intensive training sessions for principals and designated master teachers who would conduct the evaluations based on four class observations per teacher Officials used standardized achievement tests to derive value-added scores that measure student learning over the year. Teacher ratings were 1-5, with I am being the lowest and 5 representing near perfection. The publication of the first year's evaluations stirred interest and controversy, particularly among teachers who worried about the possible long-term effects on job retention and tenure. Now, with the first-year evaluations in hand, the three cousins pored over their experiences. The three represented different types of school systems within the state. Jeri Lynn worked for a metropolitan system in the state capital. The system included many low-income students whose first language was nor English, and several schools within the system were teetering on the brink of State takeover if improvement in student scores didn't materialize this school year. Tish worked in a county System dominated by upper-income residents, and Joey taught in the rural community in which all three grew up. The rural community had high unemployment, and a low percentage of graduates went on to college. As a result, the cousins came to the table with differing teaching experiences. "The numbers are all over the place," Jeri Lynn remarked as she studied the pages. "The whole system is flawed, and they need to make changes," Joey said. "It's too subjective. The principal and master teacher observations are subjective because there are personal factors that affect a true outcome." "Yeah, look at the numbers from your upper-income district," Jeri Lynn said to Tish. "How can 60 percent of the teachers score 5s?' Tish chuckled. "Yeah, lucky us. Our schools are overflowing with children from wealthy families. These are the kids who will apply to Ivy League schools. I can tell you that the principals are going to avoid confrontation on all fronts. No principal is going to give any indication that their students are receiving an education that's less than perfect, and that means cramming the rankings with 5s. They claim a higher level of motivation for students, and thus the selection of an elite team of educators. So with those pressures, I don't think we get personal feedback that is accurate." "At the other end of the spectrum, we have my rural district," Joey said. "The big problem is that the principals know everyone and have longstanding relationships with everyone in the county, so I think scores are based on personal history. We could almost predict who would get high or low scores before the observations. For principals, it can go back as far as 'his daddy and my daddy hated each other in high school, and now I get to evaluate his daughter "I think that in many cases, principals feel pressure to align scores with state expectations. The stare expected my district to have high scores and expected rural schools such as yours to be lower," Tish said. "But isn't that partially offset by lower goals for the rural school distracts responded Joey. "The key to the accountability system is the principal in each school," Jeri Lynn suggested. "With several of the schools in Metro teetering on the edge of state takeover by the end of the year, we had lots of strict principals who wanted to hold our feet to the fire with lower scores." "I thought the whole idea was to provide the teachers With feedback so that we would know the areas where we need improvement," Tish said. "The principals were supposed to conduct two observations in the fall and two more in the spring," Jeri Lynn said. think that's asking too much of them when they already have so much on their plates. I think a lot of them are skimping on their visits. know I only had one observation last semester, and I'm sure Mr. Talley just faked the second set of numbers. The master teachers make only two observations a year, which may be more objective but counts for less." "I'm wondering, too, how a principal measure performance in a course area outside his area of expertise, such as math," Joey said. "If the guy has a phobia about math, anything the teacher says or does is going to 100k brilliant-thus a 5." Tish and Jeri Lynn looked at each other and laughed. "Maybe we picked the wrong subjects," Tish said. "My question is one of perception," Jeri Lynn said. "A large percentage of my students are ELL. That affects their scores. How do you measure a 3 in my situation against a 5 for Tish? At the end of the school year, little Carlos is thrilled that his reading in English has improved, but there`s no Big Bang here. a slow steady improvement that may not actually show up in big strides for a couple of years: "So, the question is how do they create a system that is fair?" Tish asked. "And accurate," added Jeri Lynn. How might the state control the accuracy of principals who are conducting teacher evaluations? Explain.
Cousins Jeri Lynn DeBose, Tish Hoover, and Josephine (Joey) Parks looked forward to meeting up during the Christmas holidays to compare notes on the results of midyear teacher evaluations. All were public school teachers in districts scattered over the state. In the pressured search for new levels of teacher accountability demanded by legislators, the state department of education joined 16 other States in implementing a new teacher evaluation system. The goal is to hold teachers account-able for student learning progress in the classroom. Under the guidance of the National Council for Teacher Quality, criteria varies by State, but in most cases, 40 percent of each teacher's accountability score would be based on the principal's evaluation and ranking based on personal observation, 30 percent would be based on personal observation by a master teacher from outside the district, and the Other 30 percent would be based on student test score gains. The state department of education would set a performance goal each school district, and the principal would set a performance goal for each teacher. In preparation, the State conducted intensive training sessions for principals and designated master teachers who would conduct the evaluations based on four class observations per teacher. Officials used standardized achievement tests to derive value-added scores that measure student learning over the year. Teacher ratings were 1-5, with I am being the lowest and 5 representing near perfection. The publication of the first year's evaluations stirred interest and controversy, particularly among teachers who worried about the possible long-term effects on job retention and tenure. Now, with the first-year evaluations in hand, the three cousins pored over their experiences. The three represented different types of school systems within the state. Jeri Lynn worked for a metropolitan system in the state capital. The system included many low-income students whose first language was nor English, and several schools within the system were teetering on the brink of State takeover if improvement in student scores didn't materialize this school year. Tish worked in a county System dominated by upper-income residents, and Joey taught in the rural community in which all three grew up. The rural community had high unemployment, and a low percentage of graduates went on to college. As a result, the cousins came to the table with differing teaching experiences. "The numbers are all over the place," Jeri Lynn remarked as she studied the pages. "The whole system is flawed, and they need to make changes," Joey said. " It's too subjective. The principal and master teacher observations are subjective because there are personal factors that affect a true outcome." "Yeah, look at the numbers from your upper-income district," Jeri Lynn said to Tish. " How can 60 percent of the teachers score 5s?" Tish chuckled. "Yeah, lucky us. Our schools are overflowing with children from wealthy families. These are the kids who will apply to Ivy League schools. I can tell you that the principals are going to avoid confrontation on all fronts. No principal is going to give any indication that their students are receiving an education that's less than perfect, and that means cramming the rankings with 5s. They claim a higher level of motivation for students, and thus the selection of an elite team of educators. So with those pressures, I don't think we get personal feedback that IS accurate." "At the other end of the spectrum, we have my rural district," Joey said. "The big problem is that the principals know everyone and have longstanding relationships with everyone in the county, so I think scores are based on personal history. We could almost predict who would get high or low scores before the observations. For principals, it can go back as far as 'his daddy and my daddy hated each other in high school, and now I get to evaluate his daughter." "I think that in many cases, principals feel pressure to align scores with state expectations. The stare expected my district to have high scores and expected rural schools such as yours to be lower," Tish said. "But isn't that partially offset by lower goals for the rural school distracts responded Joey. "The key to the accountability system is the principal in each school," Jeri Lynn suggested. "With several of the schools in Metro teetering on the edge of state takeover by the end of the year, we had lots of strict principals who wanted to hold our feet to the fire with lower scores." "I thought the whole idea was to provide the teachers With feedback so that we would know the areas where we need improvement," Tish said. "The principals were supposed to conduct two observations in the fall and two more in the spring," Jeri Lynn said. think that's asking too much of them when they already have so much on their plates. I think a lot of them are skimping on their visits. know I only had one observation last semester, and I'm sure Mr. Talley just faked the second set of numbers. The master teachers make only two observations a year, which may be more objective but counts for less." "I'm wondering, too, how a principal measure performance in a course area outside his area of expertise, such as math," Joey said. "If the guy has a phobia about math, anything the teacher says or does is going to 100k brilliant—thus a 5." Tish and Jeri Lynn looked at each other and laughed. Maybe we picked the wrong subjects," Tish said. "My question is one of perception," Jeri Lynn said. "A large percentage of my students are ELL. That affects their scores. How do you measure a 3 in my situation against a 5 for Tish? At the end of the school year, little Carlos is thrilled that his reading in English has improved, but there's no Big Bang here. a slow steady improvement that may not actually show up in big strides for a couple of years." "So, the question is how do they create a system that is fair?" Tish asked. "And accurate," added Jeri Lynn. Is a 1-5 grading System by principals and master teachers a valuable part of a feedback control system for teachers? Why?
Cousins Jeri Lynn DeBose, Tish Hoover, and Josephine (Joey) Parks looked forward to meeting up during the Christmas holidays to compare notes on the results of midyear teacher evaluations. All were public school teachers in districts scattered over the state. In the pressured search for new levels of teacher accountability demanded by legislators, the state department of education joined 16 other States in implementing a new teacher evaluation system. The goal is to hold teachers account-able for student learning progress in the classroom. Under the guidance of the National Council for Teacher Quality, criteria varies by State, but in most cases, 40 percent of each teacher's accountability score would be based on the principal's evaluation and ranking based on personal observation, 30 percent would be based on personal observation by a master teacher from outside the district, and the Other 30 percent would be based on student test score gains. The state department of education would set a performance goal each school district, and the principal would set a performance goal for each teacher. In preparation, the State conducted intensive training sessions for principals and designated master teachers who would conduct the evaluations based on four class observations per teacher. Officials used standardized achievement tests to derive value-added scores that measure student learning over the year. Teacher ratings were I —5, with I am being the lowest and 5 representing near perfection. The publication of the first year's evaluations stirred interest and controversy, particularly among teachers who worried about the possible long-term effects on job retention and tenure. Now, with the first-year evaluations in hand, the three cousins pored over their experiences. The three represented different types of school systems within the state. Jeri Lynn worked for a metropolitan system in the state capital. The system included many low-income students whose first language was nor English, and several schools within the system were teetering on the brink of State takeover if improvement in student scores didn't materialize this school year. Tish worked in a county System dominated by upper-income residents, and Joey taught in the rural community in which all three grew up. The rural community had high unemployment, and a low percentage of graduates went on to college. As a result, the cousins came to the table with differing teaching experiences. "The numbers are all over the place," Jeri Lynn remarked as she studied the pages. "The whole system is flawed, and they need to make changes," Joey said. " It's too subjective. The principal and master teacher observations are subjective because there are personal factors that affect a true outcome." "Yeah, look at the numbers from your upper-income district," Jeri Lynn said to Tish. "How can 60 percent of the teachers score 5s?" Tish chuckled. "Yeah, lucky us. Our schools are overflowing with children from wealthy families. These are the kids who will apply to Ivy League schools. I can tell you that the principals are going to avoid confrontation on all fronts. No principal is going to give any indication that their students are receiving an education that's less than perfect, and that means cramming the rankings with 5s. They claim a higher level of motivation for students, and thus the selection of an elite team of educators. So with those pressures, I don't think we get personal feedback that IS accurate." "At the other end of the spectrum, we have my rural district," Joey said. "The big problem is that the principals know everyone and have longstanding relationships with everyone in the county, so I think scores are based on personal history. We could almost predict who would get high or low scores before the observations. For principals, it can go back as far as his daddy and my daddy hated each other in high school, and now I get to evaluate his daughter "I think that in many cases, principals feel pressure to align scores with state expectations. The stare expected my district to have high scores and expected rural schools such as yours to be lower," Tish said. "But isn't that partially offset by lower goals for the rural school distracts responded Joey. "The key to the accountability system is the principal in each school," Jeri Lynn suggested. "With several of the schools in Metro teetering on the edge of state takeover by the end of the year, we had lots of strict principals who wanted to hold our feet to the fire with lower scores." "l thought the whole idea was to provide the teachers With feedback so that we would know the areas where we need improvement," Tish said. "The principals were supposed to conduct two observations in the fall and two more in the spring," Jeri Lynn said. think that's asking too much of them when they already have so much on their plates. I think a lot of them are skimping on their visits. know I only had one observation last semester, and I'm sure Mr. Talley just faked the second set of numbers. The master teachers make only two observations a year, which may be more objective but counts for less." "I'm wondering, too, how a principal measure performance in a course area outside his area of expertise, such as math," Joey said. "If the guy has a phobia about math, anything the teacher says or does is going to 100k brilliant—thus a 5." Tish and Jeri Lynn looked at each other and laughed. Maybe we picked the wrong subjects," Tish said. "My question is one of perception," Jeri Lynn said. "A large percentage of my students are ELL. That affects their scores. How do you measure a 3 in my situation against a 5 for Tish? At the end of the school year, little Carlos is thrilled that his reading in English has improved, but there's no Big Bang here. a slow steady improvement that may not actually show up in big strides for a couple of years: "So, the question is how do they create a system that is fair?" Tish asked. "And accurate," added Jeri Lynn. What do you see as the major strengths and flaws in the feedback control system used in the schools in this scenario? What changes do you recommend to overcome the flaws?
Describe the scorecard claims.
Cose 27: Housekeeping Guest Satafaction Scores 81 Case 27 Housekeeping Guest Satisfaction Scores Case Type: Head Case Main Subjects: Motivation, Rewards • Shakia Andrews, Executive Housekerper Who's Who: hakia was desperate. The guest satisfaction scores for the Housekeeping department have Sbeen extremely low for the past year. Though the Housekeeping management has been in place for several years, nearly all of the guestroom attendants have been employed by the Royal Hotel for less than two years. Shakia was ot sure what had caused the perceived level of service and cleanliness to suffer. 1. Why are the guest servine scores for the Housekeeping department usually low? 2 Housekeeping managers often valize that probably the hardest part of their job is to moti- vate their staff. Explain. 3. Where should Shakia begin to raise the guest satisfactions scores? 4. To maintain the comnitment of housekeepers, identify creative intrinsic' and extrinsic rewards Notes Intrinsie rewards are…
XYZ Rural Bank implemented its initial attempts to manage the performances of its 150 employees. XYZ Rural Bank has 10 branches all over Zamboanga Peninsula and each branch is supervised by a branch manager and has 10-15 employees working directly under his supervision. In its initial implementation of its own performance management system, its HR department sent a Performance Appraisal (PA) Template that all branch managers need to fill out. PA tool includes the following aspects of the employees performances:• Attendance (lates, absences, undertime etc)• Successful collection done (for Account Officers, Loan Officers, Credit Investigators)• Loans processed (For Account Officers and Loan Officers) Every July and January, all branch managers should submit the filled-out PA templates to HR for recording and consolidation. One week before the deadline for such PA template to be submitted to HR, the branch managers fill out the templates themselves based on their own observations. These…
A restaurant manager tracks complaints from the diner satisfaction cards that are turned in at each table. The data collected from the past week's diners appear in the following table. Complaint Frequency Food taste 27 Food temperature 9 Order mistake 5 Slow service 19 Table/utensils dirty 47 Too expensive 9 Using a classic Pareto analysis, what top categories comprise 80% of the total complaints? Part 2 A. Food taste, Food temperature, Order mistake, Slow service, Too expensive B. Table/utensils dirty, Food taste, Slow service C. Table/utensils dirty D. Food taste, Food temperature, Order mistake, Slow service, Table/utensils dirty
Consider the ways in which the concepts of Human Centered Design (HCD) influence the practice of User Experience Design (UXD) and the role of formative assessment in reinforcing HCD principles throughout the UXD process.
Evaluation of Etihad Airways Organization Statutes on TQM Factors:
What are some reliability strengths of questionnaires?
Develop a cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagram to address everything that impacts your grade in this course. How much is under your control?
Identify one the QSEN RN competencies. Develop a plan for improving your knowledge, skills, and attitude (KSA) for the competency during this course.