Student Growth Field Study (2015-2018)

---

From (2015-2018) Numeracy Consultants conducted a field study over the course of 4 years.  The study tracked data from 55 students for a minimum of 16 weeks.  Fourteen students participated in 2015, seventeen in 2016, eleven students in 2017, and thirteen students in 2018.  

The goal of the study was to observe if there was a correlation between growth on the Primary Numeracy Assessment and Framework and growth on the research based  adaptive  growth assessment (NWEA MAP Assessment).   

The age range of the participants was 6 years old (First Grade) to 9 years old (Third Grade).   The demographic data by race was 27 Caucasian students, 14 Hispanic, 12 African American, 2 Other. The gender breakdown was 29 females and 26 male students. 

A standard criteria for qualification for the study was predetermined.   All students who participated in the study would take the NWEA MAP assessment.  The MAP test would be used as both a screener to identify at risk students and as growth measurement tool to track their data.  All students would be tested at the beginning of the school year (August- September) and receive their intervention until (December/January)  where they would be tested again.  For students to qualify they had to score below the 30th percentile or already be labeled as at-risk through other state or federal criteria. 

Each student who qualified would receive a minimum of 12 weeks of intervention with a minimum of 4 days a week for a total of no less than 90 mins per week of instructional time. The intervention could be a one on one or in a group of five or less students .   

Once a student qualified the teacher would administer the Primary Numeracy Assessment and map the results on the Primary Numeracy Framework.   Teachers would then use the data with the Primary Numeracy Assessment Program and make their instructional decisions based on the training that they received. 

• There was a strong correlation between growth on the Primary Numeracy Assessment and the NWEA MAP Assessment.  

• 73% of students met or exceeded their NWEA RIT goal.  A RIT goal is personalized by the NWEA program for each student and is based projected growth from their initial assessment.  (Achieving a RIT goal is not the equivalent and is not  predictive of being proficient on state tests.)

•  27% students did not meet their RIT target goal.

• Second Grade students showed the most growth (possibly due to small sample size).

• There was no correlation between growth and the size of the group. (Students who received a one on one intervention did not have more growth than students who were placed in a small group)

• Teacher feed back showed a score of 4.8 out of 5 on program design and effectiveness.

• 100% of teachers felt they had adequate training, resources,  and materials to implement the program. 

• 100% of teachers reported that the program made them aware of skill deficits that they would have overlooked without the assessment.