Unit Assessments for High School Geometry
Abstract Eight unit tests closely aligned with the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum for high school geometry were developed. Five of these were administered, each to the same 115 students spanning all ability and attainment levels in a magnet school in a semi-rural Louisiana district. The results...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Others |
Language: | en |
Published: |
LSU
2012
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07052012-115636/ |
id |
ndltd-LSU-oai-etd.lsu.edu-etd-07052012-115636 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-LSU-oai-etd.lsu.edu-etd-07052012-1156362013-01-07T22:54:13Z Unit Assessments for High School Geometry Jegart, Damayanthi Srimathi Natural Sciences (Interdepartmental Program) Abstract Eight unit tests closely aligned with the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum for high school geometry were developed. Five of these were administered, each to the same 115 students spanning all ability and attainment levels in a magnet school in a semi-rural Louisiana district. The results were analyzed to determine the quality of the questions as well as to glean information about student-learning. The test scores were compared to the results of the state-administered end-of-course test for high-school geometry. The main findings were as follows: a) most students do not communicate their reasoning or justification unless directed to do so, and even then only poorly, b) very basic skills are problematic for a very small (but troubling) number of students, c) pre-requisites from more recent grades are problematic for larger numbers, d) many students fail to read or understand directions, e) understanding the types of mistakes students make in these tests is likely to be useful in planning future lessons, f) only one of the unit tests was a good predictor of end-of-course results, suggesting that the end-of-course test might not represent all units in the course evenly. Madden, James Sundar, Padmanabhan Neubrander, Frank LSU 2012-07-17 text application/pdf http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07052012-115636/ http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07052012-115636/ en unrestricted I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached herein a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to LSU or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below and in appropriate University policies, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
en |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
topic |
Natural Sciences (Interdepartmental Program) |
spellingShingle |
Natural Sciences (Interdepartmental Program) Jegart, Damayanthi Srimathi Unit Assessments for High School Geometry |
description |
Abstract
Eight unit tests closely aligned with the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum for high school geometry were developed. Five of these were administered, each to the same 115 students spanning all ability and attainment levels in a magnet school in a semi-rural Louisiana district. The results were analyzed to determine the quality of the questions as well as to glean information about student-learning. The test scores were compared to the results of the state-administered end-of-course test for high-school geometry.
The main findings were as follows: a) most students do not communicate their reasoning or justification unless directed to do so, and even then only poorly, b) very basic skills are problematic for a very small (but troubling) number of students, c) pre-requisites from more recent grades are problematic for larger numbers, d) many students fail to read or understand directions, e) understanding the types of mistakes students make in these tests is likely to be useful in planning future lessons, f) only one of the unit tests was a good predictor of end-of-course results, suggesting that the end-of-course test might not represent all units in the course evenly.
|
author2 |
Madden, James |
author_facet |
Madden, James Jegart, Damayanthi Srimathi |
author |
Jegart, Damayanthi Srimathi |
author_sort |
Jegart, Damayanthi Srimathi |
title |
Unit Assessments for High School Geometry |
title_short |
Unit Assessments for High School Geometry |
title_full |
Unit Assessments for High School Geometry |
title_fullStr |
Unit Assessments for High School Geometry |
title_full_unstemmed |
Unit Assessments for High School Geometry |
title_sort |
unit assessments for high school geometry |
publisher |
LSU |
publishDate |
2012 |
url |
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07052012-115636/ |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT jegartdamayanthisrimathi unitassessmentsforhighschoolgeometry |
_version_ |
1716478176872366080 |