Spreadsheet Data Analysis using Flubaroo.

For this post, I'd like to share a simplistic way to analyze student data.  Normally when I give a summative exam that contains many multiple choice questions, I will do so using a Google Form.  The beauty of this is that when the students have finished the exam, the teacher now has all of their answers in a spreadsheet.  Now,  Google does a really nice job analyzing data from a Google Form, and will generate different graphs and tables to help one visualize said test results.  I have even stumbled upon a great Google Sites Widget called, "Awesome Tables" that can take any data in spreadsheet form (not just Google Form results) and turn them into detailed graphs and visuals.  Awesome Tables, however, is a post for another time.

Today, I'd like to focus on a simple and effective tool for analyzing student data in spreadsheet form:  Flubaroo.  Flubaroo is a Google Sheets add-on that corrects and grades test results.  For this assignment, the data given was in a PDF format.  I first took that data and made it into a Google Sheet that looked like this:

When using Flubaroo, one should leave the A column blank (That is usually where the time stamp goes on a Google Form).  You will also notice that I added the answer key to the bottom row.  When using Flubaroo, one must have an answer key in the document to choose when you want to grade the results.

Next, I went up to "Add-ons" and selected Flubaroo.  After checking off a few different options, the data was analyzed using the chosen answer key, and then generated onto another tab looking like so:

Here are both of those sheets in one Google Sheet.  Please notice that to get to the graded summary, click on the "Data Sorted" tab at the bottom of the sheet.


You will notice that Flubaroo has added in some important details.  It has summarized:

• Possible points
• The average amount of points scored
• How many submissions there were
• How may low scoring questions there were

Flubaroo has also totaled:

• How many total points each student received
• How those points translate into a percent
• How many times they attempted the exam

Lastly, Flubaroo has colored coded not only students that have scored below 70%, but questions that received less than 60% correct answers.  This allows the teacher to not only quickly ascertain low scoring students that need help, but identify standards that were not addressed thoroughly during instruction. (or possible poorly worded questions).

Check out this video to learn more about the Web 2.0 Tool, Flubaroo.

Now, when one looks at the data on the latter sheet as opposed to the first, the following statistics stand out more readily:

Only half of the students scored more than 70%.  This means that only half of the students could be considered "proficient" on the topic that was being assessed.  

Zinvis, Zuitar, Sirii, Zorelda, Zucy, and Zon have all met the standards with at least a 70% proficiency rating, while Zyntar, Zup, Zancy, Zhield, Zamsung, and Zoran all scored 60% or lower.

 

When looking at the low scoring questions, the teacher could assume that the following standards in red need to be re-addressed and re-taught in another fashion.  These are the standards that are consistent with the low scoring questions.

Standards Assessed

Question #	Standard Identifier	Standard
1	M:01:NO:6.2 (S)	Demonstrates understanding of the relative magnitude of numbers by ordering or comparing numbers with whole number bases and whole number exponents, integers, or rational numbers within and across number formats (fractions, decimals, or whole number percents from 1–100) using number lines or equality and inequality symbols.
2	M:02:GM:6.3 (S)	Uses properties or attributes (shape of bases, number of lateral faces, number of bases, number of edges, or number of vertices) to identify, compare, or describe three-dimensional shapes (rectangular prisms, triangular prisms, cylinders, spheres, pyramids, or cones).
3	M:02:GM:6.6 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of perimeter of polygons, the area of quadrilaterals or triangles, and the volume of rectangular prisms by using models, formulas, or by solving problems; and demonstrates understanding of the relationships of circle measures (radius to diameter and diameter to circumference) by solving related problems. Expresses all measures using appropriate units.
4	M:02:GM:6.7 (S)	Measures and uses units of measure appropriately and consistently, and makes conversions within systems when solving problems across the content strands.
5	M:03:FA:6.1 (S)	Identifies and extends to specific cases a variety of patterns (linear and nonlinear) represented in models, tables, sequences, graphs, or in problem situations; or writes a rule in words or symbols for finding specific cases of a linear relationship; or writes a rule in words or symbols for finding specific cases of a nonlinear relationship; and writes an expression or equation using words or symbols to express the generalization of a linear relationship (e.g., twice the term number plus 1 or 2n + 1).
6	M:01:NO:6.4 (S)	Accurately solves problems involving single or multiple operations on fractions (proper, improper, and mixed), or decimals; and addition or subtraction of integers; percent of a whole; or problems involving greatest common factor or least common multiple.
7	M:03:FA:6.2 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of linear relationships (y = kx; y = mx + b) as a constant rate of change by constructing or interpreting graphs of real occurrences and describing the slope of linear relationships (faster, slower, greater, or smaller) in a variety of problem situations; and describes how change in the value of one variable relates to change in the value of a second variable in problem situations with constant rates of change.
8	M:03:FA:6.3 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of algebraic expressions by using letters to represent unknown quantities to write linear algebraic expressions involving any of the four operations and consistent with order of operations expected at this grade level; or by evaluating linear algebraic expressions (including those with more than one variable); or by evaluating an expression within an equation (e.g., determine the value of y when x = 4 given y = 3x – 2).
9	M:03:FA:6.4 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of equality by showing equivalence between two expressions using models or different representations of the expressions (expressions consistent with the parameters of M:03:FA:6.3), solving multi-step linear equations of the form ax + b = c, where a, b, and c are whole numbers with a not equal to 0.
10	M:04:DSP:6.2 (S)	Analyzes patterns, trends, or distributions in data in a variety of contexts by determining or using measures of central tendency (mean, median, or mode) or dispersion (range) to analyze situations, or to solve problems.

Standard 7 received the highest proficiency rating with all but one students answering its corresponding question correctly.  Conversely, only one student answered the question that corresponded with standard 6 correctly.

From looking at this data, I would proceed by pairing one proficient student with a non-proficient student and have each pair work on a project that will exemplify and teach one of the non-proficient standards.  Since there are 6 groups but only 5 standards that contained low scoring questions, I would have one group repeat standard 6, the lowest scoring standard.

Through this exercise, students would work together to re-teach each of the low scoring standards.  After this mini-project, students will be re-assessed.

In conclusion, Flubaroo is a great tool for quickly sorting student data.  It works even better when the data is already gathered from a Google Form.  It took me a few attempts to input the data from the given PDF so that Flubaroo would read it correctly and not leave any of the students out.  Overall, it is an effective tool for sorting and color coding concrete data for further analysis. 

Technology Integration Tutorial

Technology Assessment Survey

In order to successfully assist teachers in integrating technology into their curricula, one must first assess the needs of the teachers in their community.  Knowing which skills teachers currently posses, and what they wish to accomplish is important information for any Technology Integration Specialist.  Here is an example of a survey that could be used to assess the needs of a teaching community.


Alternate Link

TPACK

TPACK, or Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework model, provides a way for educators to practice technology integration as a fluid, second nature, integral piece of their planning and teaching. It takes the complex practice of teaching, and breaks it down into three interrelated parts: Pedagogy Knowledge, Content Knowledge, and Technological Knowledge. "Teachers must understand how technology, pedagogy, and content interrelate, and create a form of knowledge that goes beyond the three separate knowledge bases" (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg 2013). See Figure one for further explanation of these knowledge bases, and how they interplay with one another in the TPACK model.

figure 1

There have been many different methods created and tested for the implementation of TPACK.  One that will be highlighted here is learning by technology by design and activity types.

TPACK works off of the concept of understanding by design, where it is always important to start with learning standards and outcomes. By keeping the end in mind, educators can select appropriate technologies that support their lesson plans. "In this approach, teacher first formulate goals for students learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Then, they choose activity types appropriate for the specified goals. Finally, they select specific technologies based upon their choice of activity types"(Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg 2013). Staying true to the TPACK model, this type of implementation strategy sees technology as a tool that aids students in their learning goals. It does not teach technology independently of the learning processes, but rather, integrates it naturally into planning, teaching, and learning.

The difficulty in implementing this model stems from lack of teacher knowledge of what technological tools may be available to them. Teachers have more than a full plate nowadays, and spending time researching the newest and best digital tools for their content area is not always a priority. The very nature of technology, and how it evolves and changes at such a rapid pace, can be a deterrent for teachers who may be interested in doing said research, but really do not know where to start. This is where a skilled technology integration specialist comes in. A TIS can help model this practice with teachers, and give them suggestions as to which tools they should add to their toolbox. These tools should always be added to said box with content and pedagogy in mind. A TIS should not introduce a tool in a vacuum, but rather show how a particular tool can help students meet learning goals.

In an article entitled, "Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development", many great sample activities and their technological equivalents are listed and discussed. Although these tools are meant to be included in a Social Studies curriculum, many, if not all, can be included in almost any core subject. For example, the authors of the article suggest using digital texts and websites for reading text, Podcasts and Audacity for listening to audio, and PowePoint, Photostory, iMovie, MovieMaker, Inspiration, and videoconferencing for viewing presentations. All of these tools can be used in any common core subject, and have even been improved upon since the publication of this article. For example, the authors list creating Scantron forms as a means for taking a test. In the almost six years since this article's publication, we now have a myriad of digital means of disseminating a test, such as Google Forms and Socrative. We even have Google add-ons, such as Flubaroo, that will grade a test given with Google Forms.

As we continue to encourage teachers to integrate technology into their curricula using the TPACK model, hopefully this process will be facilitated by the emergence of amazing, interactive technologies that really cannot be ignored.  Differentiation use to be viewed as printing an easy, medium, and hard version of a test.  With technology, teachers can truly differentiate for those students who are at, below, and exceeding grade level expectations.  By keeping the TPACK model in mind, teachers may introduce technology into their teaching in order to allow student learning and understanding to truly flourish.

References

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2009, 99-108. 

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Akcaogl, M., & Rosenberg, J.  The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework for Teachers and Teacher educators.

TPACK in 2 Minutes. (n.d.). Retrieved December 07, 2014, from http://youtu.be/FagVSQlZELY

Technology Integration: More than a Computer Teacher

 A technology integration specialist is not a computer teacher.  I repeat-  they do not exist to teach students how to type and and use a computer.  A technology integration specialist helps teachers to seamlessly included these skills into their own content areas, making technology the means by which students learn, not just some extra luxury.  This post will explain why a technology integration specialist may have a difficult time shedding the hat of typing teacher, and why technology integration is still so narrowly defined.         

To begin, professional development in an integral part of encouraging and implementing technology integration within schools. Training needs to be both accessible and ongoing, and in my personal experience, not crammed into a half-day session. I have found that it is nearly impossible to provide effective professional development, which defined by Darling-Hammond et. al. is, "That which results in improvements in teachers' knowledge and instructional practice, as well as improved student leaning outcomes" in a one size fits all workshop (Darling-Hammond, Jaquith, Mindich, Eri, 2010). Just like our students, teachers all have different ranges of abilities.  Professional development for teachers, especially when it comes to technology, should be differentiated according to teacher strengths, abilities, and in some instances, their content areas. For example, English Language Arts and Social Studies teachers may need extensive training in Google Docs, since students tend to write a lot of essays in those content areas. Math teachers, on the other hand, may want to learn different programs or subscriptions that help students practice important Math skills. In order for PD to be effective for teachers, one must first determine the needs and goals of said teachers, just as one would for their very own students. When delivered in this fashion, teachers would be more likely to utilize the technologies that have been tailored for their teaching styles, which in turn may help teachers feel more comfortable in expanding their uses of technology.

Secondly, technology integration cannot be taught nor implemented without having pedagogy in mind. "Infusing technology into a curriculum is less likely to make an impact on students’ learning if technology is not considered as a component of instruction.Technology should not be treated as a separate entity but should be considered as an integral part of instructional delivery" (Okojie, Olinzock, Okojie-Boulder, 2006). Technology can have great impact on both teaching and student learning when seen as a tool that can be used in varied parts of the educational process. Direct instruction can be given via presentations or other flipped classroom methods, and even assessments can be created as digital games, or by more formal means like a Google Form. Students can collaborate on digital projects, and really show what they have learned by evoking those higher levels of Blooms, such as "create". Technology integration is more than a PowerPoint presentation and word processing. By linking technology integration with pedagogy, an educator can see how it can truly be used to help students reach their learning goals, and then some.


Lastly, one of the larger problems schools and technology integration specialists are face when trying to implement technology programs is, in my experience, lack of effective professional development. Many will also state that the lack of technology in schools is also a reason for the problems with its integration. I have seen, however, that even when schools do acquire sufficient technology, this alone will not cease the difficulties of technology integration. The technology itself is useless unless teachers are comfortable enough, and encouraged enough, to implement it into the different facets of teaching. "An ongoing action research project has shown that most in-service teachers have a narrow view of technology integration. When they were asked to briefly state why they need to apply technology in their teaching, most of the student teachers (70%) maintain that it is a tool for instruction" (Okojie, Olinzock, Okojie-Boulder, 2006).  This data shows the shortsightedness that still exists when correlating technology to teaching practices. In order for teachers to see the true potential of technology in education, a potential that extends far beyond instruction, they must be provided with ample professional development opportunities to use and discover different technologies.

References

JOTS v32n2 - The Pedagogy of Technology Integration. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2014, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/v32n2/okojie.html

Meltzer, S. T. (2012). Step-by-step professional development in technology. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.