A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to

2012

1

CST English Language Arts Results Rosetta Stone Elementary Students

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

A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to

2012

3

CST English Language Arts Results Rosetta Stone Elementary Students

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to

2012

14

CST English Language Arts Results Language!

Elementary Students

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

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

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.

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.

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.

CST English Language Arts Results Read 180

Secondary Students

A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to

2012

20

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

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

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.

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.

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.

iPad PilotA Qualitative Review

26

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

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

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

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

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