Abby Studebaker

EDU 360
Professor Rubio
02.20.14
Data Analysis
In our first analysis !e "o#$ared ea"% &rade and t%e $er"enta&e of ea"% t%at su""eeded in
$rofi"ien"y. 'e found t%at all fi(e &rou$s su""eeded in &rade si) t!o of t%e fi(e &rou$s su""eeded in
&rade se(en and only one of t%e fi(e &rou$s su""eeded in $rofi"ien"y in &rade ei&%t. 'e t%en "o#$ared
"o%orts to ea"% ot%er. *%e first and t%ird "o%orts ea"% su""eeded in $rofi"ien"y t!i"e !%ereas t%e
se"ond "o%ort su""eeded only on"e. *%is is s%o!n in t%e "%arts $ro(ided.
+n t%e ,rade -e(el $a&e !e "o#$ared all fifty students and t%e $er"enta&es of t%eir
$rofi"ien"y. 'e found t%at o(er.all less t%an /00 of students !ere at least $rofi"ient. *%is infor#ation
!as "larified as to !%i"% tea"%ers tau&%t !%i"% &ender of students and %o! t%ey all su""eeded in t%e
botto# "%arts on our ,rade -e(el $a&e.
I found it interestin& t%at t%ere !as not a lar&e $er"enta&e of students t%at su""eeded in
$rofi"ien"y. *%e nu#bers1$er"enta&es for ea"% &rade all stayed around t%e /00 ran&e "onsistently. In
#y o$inion for a s"%ool to su""eed t%ere s%ould be a #u"% lar&er $er"enta&e of students re"ei(in&
$rofi"ient.ad(an"ed &rades and $ro(in& t%is in t%eir s"%ool!ork and assess#ents. *ea"%ers s%ould not
be satisfied !it% only %alf of t%eir students &ro!in& in t%eir kno!led&e.
Ra"%elle S#it% and I !orked on t%is $ro2e"t to&et%er. 'e s%ared an e3ual a#ount of !ork on it.