Running head: MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON

CORE STANDARDS










Module Evaluation: Technology Integration for Common Core Standards
Michelle Stuyt, Christina Freeman-Canavan, Griselle Arrieta-Rose
California State University Monterey Bay




IST622 Assessment and Evaluation
Professor Bude Su
Summer 2014
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


"
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
II. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 5
a. Prototype ............................................................................................................................. 5
b. Learners .............................................................................................................................. 6
c. Tryout Process .................................................................................................................... 6
1) Pre- & Post-Test (Appendix A) ..................................................................................... 6
2) Observation .................................................................................................................... 7
3) Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 8
4) Tryout Conditions .......................................................................................................... 8
III. Results ................................................................................................................................... 9
a. Entry conditions ................................................................................................................. 9
b. Instruction ........................................................................................................................ 10
c. Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 11
d. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 13
IV. Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................. 14
References .................................................................................................................................... 16
VI. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 17
a. Pre-Test & Post-Test ........................................................................................................ 17
b. Observation Script ........................................................................................................... 18
c. Sample responses to user questions during tryout process .......................................... 18
d. Observation Checklist ..................................................................................................... 19
e. Google Forms Post-Observation Survey ........................................................................ 20
f. Paired Two Sample T-Test ............................................................................................... 25
g. Pre- and Post-Test Scores ................................................................................................ 26







MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


#

I. Introduction
As states continue the process of implementing the Common Core State Standards in
schools across the nation, new ideas on how to prepare teachers to enact the standards into their
classroom are emerging. This instructional design project seeks to create an eLearning module
that will prepare teachers with the necessary skills, tools and ideas to successfully teach
technology-integrated lessons in the context of the Common Core State Standards.
In 2010, more than 40 states adopted a new set of educational standards for students
called the Common Core State Standards (CDE, 2013). These standards provide a clear and
consistent understanding of what students are expected to learn at each grade level, regardless of
the state in which they live. As these new standards are being implemented in schools across the
country, schools nationwide are looking for different ways to integrate them into current
curriculum. According to a report issued by Education First, The majority of states reported that
they have at least begun the process of developing plans to align their systems to CCSS by:
providing professional development to teachers (45 states), changing or devising curriculum
guides and other instructional materials (35 states), and revising the teacher-evaluation system
(38 states) (Porter, 2012). However, during the beginning phase of implementation, researchers
found that the focus of attention has shifted toward issues related to practical implementation,
such as the readiness for teachers to actually enact the new standards in the classroom (Porter,
2012).
The new standards include rigorous academic expectations at the highest levels and are
designed to ensure that high school graduates are prepared to go to college. They also
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


$
incorporate a new set of digital skills students must learn in order to be successful in the 21
st

century workforce, both nationally and globally. The International Society for Technology of
Education (ISTE) created a list of technology standards in 2008 for both teachers and students in
which many schools have adopted. The ISTE argue that if teachers want to be effective, they
should incorporate technology in all of their lessons. Teachers need to be prepared to use
technology effectively to meet the rigorous learning goals embedded in Common Core
Standards by providing access to tools and resources that personalize instruction and create rich,
engaging and relevant learning environments (ISTE, 2012). This project will design an
eLearning module that will give teachers the appropriate technology skills and tools needed to
successfully implement one section of the English Language Arts Common Core Standards: The
Anchor Standards for Writing. First, it will provide an exact definition and easy-to-understand
interpretation of each standard. Next, the module will highlight the technology embedded within
each standard and provide demonstrations and/or simulations of the necessary technological
skills needed to implement the standard. Finally, the module will provide technology ideas for
integration in the classroom.
The prototype for this analysis is an online eLearning module entitled Technology
Integration for the Common Core Standards, which was built on Adobe Captivate 7. The
eLearning module will focus on the English Language Arts Anchor Standards for Writing, in
particular for grades 6-8. The module will introduce the learner to a brief orientation to each of
the standards with a focus on technology and will also provide the learner with the skills and
ideas needed for successful implementation in the classroom.
In order to analyze the effectiveness of this module, a combination of items were used,
including a pre- and post-test, a Google Forms survey questionnaire, and an observation
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


%
checklist along with inferential statistics tests using Microsoft Excel. For middle school teachers,
the module provides a technology training on the basic functions of Google Docs. The module is
designed to address the integration of technology as directed by the Common Core State
Standards. It is formatted into four sections, including a demonstration, a simulation, an
assessment quiz, and a summary. This analysis will provide the developer with significant
information regarding the efficiency and overall design of the module.
II. Methodology
a. Prototype
The module is designed to provide technology instruction to middle school instructors
teaching grades 6-8. The module is specifically designed to prepare teachers with the appropriate
technology skills to teach Common Core State Standards in grades 6-8. The purpose and course
objectives are clearly outlined at the beginning of the module along with an explanation of the
Common Core State Standards and technology integration. The module focuses on Writing:
Standard 6, which states that students must use technology to produce and publish writing as
well as collaborate with others (Common Core State Initiative, 2010). In order to fulfill this
requirement, the module focuses on the use of Google Docs as a form of writing and
collaboration amongst students.
The module provides the user with an audio narration of the course objectives along with
the guided steps included in the training. The narration provides the user with instructions on
where to begin the training. The module follows the structure principle in its overall design and
navigation. Navigation for the content is placed in a table of contents menu on the left-hand side
of the screen with designated tabs for the various topics of the course. The current menu tab in
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


&
use is designated in a dark green color, which supports the simplicity principle of navigation and
design. The table of contents allows users to pace the lesson sequence by skipping or repeating
parts of the module. The navigation design for this module provides access to learning support,
for learners may use the tabs to repeat lessons, review course objectives and examples.
b. Learners
The learners for this design project are middle school teachers, in grades 6-8. The
learners are credentialed teachers ranging from one year teaching experience to 25 years. Their
educational backgrounds range from having a Bachelors degree to a Masters degree. Every
teacher has a personal computer in their classroom, with a minimum of two computers available
for student use. There are two computer labs and one class set of laptops that are available to
classrooms on a sign-up basis. Middle school teachers from all subject matter areas will be
responsible for implementing the Common Core State Standards and will thereby benefit from
this training.
c. Tryout Process
The tryout process involved a three-step procedure, including a pre-test of prior
knowledge regarding the Common Core State Standards implementation of technology, a one-
on-one observation along with an observation checklist and a Google survey questionnaire to
measure user satisfaction after the tryout.
1) Pre- & Post-Test (Appendix A)
Each user was given a ten question pre-test in order to assess their entry skills and
background knowledge on the subject. Similarly, the same ten question test was given to
each user after completing the module in order to determine learning achievement at the
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


'
end of the instruction. In order to accurately measure the learning gains achieved by each
user at the end of the module and to measure the effectiveness of the module as an
instructional tool, the same ten question quiz was used as a pre-test and as a post-test.
Each user completed the pre-test on a paper before beginning the module, and the
developer collected each pre-test for further analysis after the tryout. At the end of the
module, each user once again completed the ten-question quiz on paper and the developer
collected each quiz for a comparison analysis of learning achievement.
2) Observation
During the tryout, the developer conducted a one-on-one observation of the user
as he/she completed the pre- and the post-test along with the module. The observations
took place during a two-week period during the month of July 2014. Each observation
ranged approximately 30 minutes. At the beginning of each observation, the user was
given a brief overview of the contents of the module, including general information about
the implementation of the Common Core Standards and its requirement for the use of
technology in the classroom. At this time, the developer also provided general
instructions regarding the completion of the pre-test, post-test, the module and Google
Forms survey. In order to clarify the tryout expectations and guidelines, the developer
utilized a pre-prepared script (Appendix B). This script allowed the developer to
structure the given directions to each user and provide only the necessary information for
completing the tryout. In regards to user questions during the tryout process, the
developer responded by providing only the necessary information to troubleshoot the
issue and with open-ended questions that allowed the user to troubleshoot the issue on
their own (Appendix C). During the observation, the developer utilized an observation
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


(
checklist to critically evaluate user response and behavior during the tryout process
(Appendix D).

3) Questionnaire
At the end of the observation, each user was instructed to complete an online
Google Forms survey questionnaire regarding their overall satisfaction with the module
(Appendix E). The survey included questions regarding user satisfaction in relation to
overall clarity, module navigation, and efficiency/satisfaction. The survey questions were
specifically designed to gain feedback in relation to the most commonly adhered to
general principles in instructional design (Lockwood, 2014), including user interface
consistency, navigation design, language accuracy, use of color and contrast, and
intuitable/logical design. Also, the survey included questions regarding the effectiveness
of the course instruction.
4) Tryout Conditions
In order to create a structured and organized environment for all users, the tryout
process including all observations, were completed in a classroom at a local middle
school in the Monterey area. Users completed paper copies of the pre-test. Users were
notified that they could either bring in their own laptop computer or use the school
equipment. Available school computer equipment included desktop PC computers with
17-inch monitors and Bose companion speakers for the audio narration of the module.
Users that brought in their own computer equipment brought in either Macintosh laptops
or PC laptops with internal speakers. The classroom setting allowed for the tryout to be
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


)
conducted in a professional and private environment where the user could effectively
focus on the demands of the tasks.

III. Results
The results for this analysis included an examination of the pre- and post-test
results in order to determine learning achievement after completing the module. Since pre-
and post-test results were compared, this analysis fit the description of a repeated measure,
which would utilize a dependent sample t-test. A t-test for dependent samples would help
determine the possible existence of a statistically significant difference between the two test
results, pre- and post-test. In addition, results were calibrated from the Google Forms survey
in order to determine the effectiveness of the module in relation to the most commonly
implemented general principles of instructional design.
a. Entry conditions
The module was designed and intended for middle school teachers. All users, with
the exception of the parent of a middle school student, were credentialed instructors with
experience ranging from one year, up to 25 years. The intended entry conditions aligned
with the observed conditions. For example, all of the users were relatively familiar with
the Common Core State Standards since their implementation will take place this
upcoming school year. Also, all the users had basic knowledge of technology, including
word processing, Internet searches, and Gmail accounts. Finally, users had little or no
knowledge of Google Docs as a tool for fulfilling the technology requirements designated
by the Common Core State Standards. Moreover, users had only general knowledge of
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*+
the steps necessary to create, upload, publish and share a Google document on Google
Drive. Since the intended and observed entry conditions were generally congruent, users
did not demonstrate any unexpected entry conditions.


b. Instruction
The intended and observed instructions were also generally congruent. The
intended instruction was for the users to identify the connection between the Common Core
State Standards, its technology requirements and the ways in which the use of Google Docs
may fulfill these requirements. Additionally, the intended instruction was for users to
produce a Google Doc by creating or uploading a document. Finally, the intended instruction
was for users to publish a document by sharing with other Gmail users or by publishing to
the web. Since the module distinctly separated the lesson phases into four steps, the observed
instruction was clear throughout the training. Step 1: Provided a direct-instruction
demonstration of the process for producing and publishing a Google document. Based on the
observation checklist utilized throughout the tryout process, the users were able to
independently follow along with this phase of direct instruction.
Step 2: Provided a guided practice phase of instruction where users selected the
appropriate location for various items, signing in to a Gmail account as well as creating and
publishing a Google document. In this phase of the instruction, the module provided text
captions along with the narrated audio in order to guide the user throughout the tasks. Based
on the observation checklist, users were again able to independently maneuver the various
tasks. Step 3: Provided an independent practice of the previously practiced tasks. According
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


**
to the observation checklist, the users were able to independently click the appropriate
locations on the screen in order to complete the tasks without any assistance. Therefore, the
intended and observed instructions were generally congruent as users were able to
demonstrate knowledge of the tasks required by the module.

c. Outcomes
An examination of the assessment outcomes for this module indicated a
statistically significant difference between pre- and post-test results. The pre- and post-test
had a total of 6 items with four of the items worth 10 points (40 points total) and two of the
items worth 30 points (60 points total) for an overall total of 100 points for the entire test.
Both pre and post-test results were calculated and utilized to conduct a paired two-sample t-
test to test for significance. Since the pre- and post-test results are repeated measures of a
users performance, a dependent paired two-sample t-test was appropriate to analyze the
outcome results (Appendix F). An analysis of the t-test revealed the following: (|t|=3.162 >
2.015). Since the t-stat is greater than the t-critical value, the null hypothesis can be rejected,
thereby yielding statistically significant results. An analysis of the p-value results also
indicates a statistically significant result. In relation to the p-value, the t-test demonstrated the
following: (0.025 < 0.05). Since the p-value is less than the designated 0.05, then once again
the null hypothesis may be rejected, thereby demonstrating a statistically significant increase
in user learning. Test reliability was accurate since the same items were used for both the
pre- and the post-test. Utilizing the same test items provided an accurate reading of the users
prior knowledge regarding the subject matter and knowledge gained after completing the
module.
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*"
The Google Forms survey, which users completed after the module, utilized a 5
point scale with the following:
a. Strongly Agree= 5 points
b. Agree= 4 points
c. Undecided= 3 points
d. Disagree= 2 points
e. Strongly Disagree=1 point
In terms of clarity regarding the course objective, users reported high scores with 66.4%
of users stating they strongly agreed that the course objective was clear. Therefore, the main
screen and audio narration provided users with a clear purpose for the module. In relation to
overall navigation, most users were undecided as to the consistency of the module.
According to the survey, 49.8% of users were undecided and 16.6% of users found the
navigation inconsistent. These results correlate with user comments regarding the lack of a
pause, rewind and skip button. Users reported that the overall navigation of the table of
contents was fairly clear, yet they lacked user control since they found it difficult to rewind
to an earlier lesson or pause to take notes. This data also coincides with question four
regarding the users ability to independently troubleshoot issues during the module. Users
were generally undecided (49.8%) in this area and reported in question nine that the lack of a
play or pause button contributed to this frustration.
However, a significant amount of users (33.2%) found the navigation of the
module consistent. This also matches user comments regarding the consistency in relation to
the four parts of the instruction (direct, guided, independent, assessment). Users reported in
the commentary sections of question #9 that these four phases were clear and consistent.
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*#
Moreover, in terms of consistency, users reported high satisfaction with the module color
design (66.4% strongly agree, 33.2% agree), contrast between text and background (100%
strongly agree) and logical organization (50% strongly agree, 50% agree). Commentary from
questions eight and nine support the effectiveness of the step-by-step organization of the
module as well as the neutral and user-friendly colors utilized. Overall, most users found the
module effective and successful as demonstrated by the t-test and by question #7. For
example, 33.2% of users strongly agreed and 49.8% agreed that the course improved their
knowledge of Google Docs and its relation to the Common Core State Standards and
technology requirement.
d. Recommendations
Based on the above findings, the following recommendations can be concluded:
Navigation Options: It was suggested that there be an option to play, pause, fast-
forward, and rewind the narration. The navigations options would give users the opportunity
to control learning environment based on their individual wants and needs. The opportunity
to navigate at their own pace would also allot users to pause to take notes if and when
necessary. Currently the navigation menu only allows users to jump forward to the next
screen, as well as go back to the previous screen.
Include More Practice Assessment Options: Presently speaking, the module only has
assessment items in the form of a multiple-choice questionnaire. In an effort to gain and
maintain user attention, it has been recommended that the assessment of the modules
incorporate more interactive opportunities to keep users engaged. Including more interactive
options would make the content more lively and interesting to the learner. Furthermore, with
varied assessment items, users could better recall the knowledge they learned in the module.
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*$
Closed Captioning: Currently, the closed captioning component is not working
properly. Having this function disabled limits usability for the hearing impaired. If this added
feature was fixed, the eLearning module could reach more users; therefore, benefiting a
greater population.
IV. Summary and Conclusion
The intended goal of this instructional design project is to create an eLearning
module that will prepare teachers with the necessary skills, tools, and ideas to successfully
teach technology-integrated lessons in the context of the Common Core State Standards. The
eLearning module includes clear descriptions of each standard and its correlation to
technology. It also includes tools and ideas for implementation that are relevant to the current
needs of teachers as well as providing demonstrations and simulations to be able to
effectively and appropriately teach the standard. It complements and supplements current
curriculum which allows teachers to go through the module at their own pace, repeating
lessons as necessary to ensure comprehension. Finally, it provides assessments and
knowledge checks as part of the learning experience.
The tests provided in this analysis generated a number of fascinating observations.
These observations may help to provide further clarification on the effectiveness of an
eLearning course. The commonality in the results show that, in the most general sense, all
users either agree or strongly agree with the effectiveness regarding the knowledge,
understanding, effectiveness, and satisfaction of the eLearning course specializing in
Common Core Standards. Meanwhile, recommendations have been given as well. The
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*%
general consensus is the following: Ease of navigation and more practice assessment options.
With the analysis of these results, we can assume teachers will be well versed in this area.
If teachers begin embracing technology, students will be prepared for the 21
st

century. This also means providing teachers with the proper training so they can have the
confidence effectively implement the Common Core State Standards. It is imperative to
present training solutions to teachers so they can have the technological knowledge, skills,
and support needed to create engaging lessons that enhance student motivation, learning, and
achievement.

MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*&
References
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core state standards for English
language arts & literacy in history/social sciences, science, and technical
subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
ISTE, (2012). In ISTE position Statement on the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved Mar.
9, 2014, from https://www.iste.org/standards/common-core
Lockwood, Nancy (2014). User interface. [Microsoft Word document]. Retrieved from Lecture
Notes Week 6 iLearn Web site:
https://ilearn.csumb.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=170195
Porter, W., Riley, R., & Towne, L. (n.d.). Preparing For Change: A National Perspective on
Common Core State Standards Implementation Planning. Ed Week. Retrieved July 13, 2014,
from https://www.iste.org/standards/common-core








MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*'
VI. Appendices
a. Pre-Test & Post-Test
1. Writing Standard 6 states students use technology, including the Internet, to ____________
and to collaborate with others.
a. produce and publish
b. research different topics
c. share Google Docs
d. create presentations
2. Google Docs allows you to upload files, create new files and share files with others.
a. True
b. False
3. ISTE stands for:
a. Internet Society Technology Engineering
b. International Society for Technical Engineering
c. International Society for Technology in Education
d. Internet Safety in Technology Education
4. Technology requirements are embedded within the Common Core State Standards.
a. True
b. False
5. Match the following:
___ Comment a. Inviting someone to edit your document
___ Publish b. Communication while editing
___ Share c. Sharing your document on the Internet
MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*(
6. Match the following:
___ Lesson Plan Collaboration a. Providing feedback on students work
___ Staff Meeting Notes b. Sharing agenda items
___ Writing Process c. Working on lesson plans together
b. Observation Script
Welcome to this usability test for an online e-learning module. During this tryout session,
you will first complete a ten-question pre-test regarding the use of technology in the
classroom. Then, you will complete an online training module on the use of technology,
specifically Google Docs, in the classroom. The module is intended to increase your knowledge
regarding the use of Google Docs as a tool for fulfilling the upcoming Common Core State
Standards and its technology requirements. Please go through the module as directed by the
audio narration. During the final portion of the module, you will complete a ten-question post-
test that assesses your knowledge after completing the various lessons in the module. Finally,
you will complete an online Google Survey in which you will provide feedback on the
module. This feedback will allow the developer of the module to make any necessary changes
and improvements that will better support user learning. Thank you for your cooperation.
c. Sample responses to user questions during tryout process
1. User: The button/link is not working to go to the next page?
Developer: Is there anything else you could try to troubleshoot the problem?
2. User: I cant back to the main page. What should I do?
Developer: Is there anywhere on the screen where you can go for help with this issue?

MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


*)
d. Observation Checklist
Checklist Yes No Comments
Does the user click the correct box in each screen?
Does the user go through each screen without the need to
troubleshoot?

Does the user follow the lessons at a consistent pace?
Is the user able to independently troubleshoot any issues with the
module?

Is the user able to skip required portions of the module?
Is the user able to use the table of contents to troubleshoot
problems with the navigation?

Is the user able to use the search engine in the table contents to
independently troubleshoot any problems?

Is the user able to demonstrate comprehension of stated language,
including acronyms and abbreviations?

Is the user able to successfully follow the steps in the assessment
portion of the module?


MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


"+
e. Google Forms Post-Observation Survey
Strongly Agree= 5 points
Agree= 4 points
Undecided= 3 points
Disagree= 2 points
Strongly Disagree=1 point
Question #1:
I clearly understood the course objective.








MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


"*
Question #2:
The navigation design of the module was consistent.

Question #3:
The course content was logically organized.




MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


""
Question #4:
I was able to independently troubleshoot any issues during the module.

Question #5:
The use of color was appropriate throughout the module.




MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


"#
Question #6:
The contrast between text and background was appropriate throughout the module.

Question #7:
My knowledge and/or skills have significantly increased as a result of this course.




MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


"$
Question #8:
Please write one comment about the effectiveness of the instruction in this module.
The step-by-step instructions provide for effective learning. It is easy to follow along with what
the module is explaining because it includes a how its done, where to click, and what happens
next component.
Question #9:
Please write one comment about the effectiveness of the overall design of this module.
The overall design is very clean and easy on the eyes. The screen capture design was by far the
most user-friendly component because everything viewed in the module is what we would be
faced with when we practiced. This allows for the ability to recall information.
Question #10:
Please write one recommended improvement for the module.
A recommendation would be an option to play, pause, fast-forward, and rewind the module and
narration. Incorporating this into the eLearning module would allow users to work at their own
individualized pace, providing an opportunity to take notes, rewind if something was missed, or
fast forward if that knowledge was already learned.






MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


"%
f. Paired Two Sample T-Test
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 71.66666667 85
Variance 176.6666667 110
Observations 6 6
Pearson Correlation 0.645607935
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 5
t Stat -3.16227766
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.012515508
t Critical one-tail 2.015048372
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.025031016
t Critical two-tail 2.570581835

MODULE EVALUATION: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR COMMON CORE
STANDARDS


"&
g. Pre- and Post-Test Scores












+
"+
$+
&+
(+
*++
*"+
* " # $ % &
,-./0.12
,312/0.12