Public opinion

UNCW Author/Contributor (non-UNCW co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)

Patricia H. Smith (Creator)

Institution

The University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW )

Web Site: http://library.uncw.edu/

Advisor

Marc Sosne

Abstract: Many students in Onslow County, North Carolina show deficiencies in writing as measured by the North Carolina State Writing Test. 61.3% of Onslow County’s fourth graders scored a Level 1 or 2 on the writing test. Although these students show deficits in written expression, when they take the Woodcock-Johnson Revised III Battery (WJRIII) they are still found to be ineligible for Special Education services under the category of Specific Learning Disabilities. Many of these students might benefit from these Special Education services. It is hypothesized that the manner in which the Onslow County evaluators (teachers or counselors) are prepared to administer the WJR-III and the way it is administered and interpreted by evaluators may be faulty. This study examined three factors that may have impacted the evaluation process in which the WRJ-III was administered and interpreted. These factors were the accuracy of evaluators’ test interpretations, training time of evaluators, and perceived adequacy of training time. Testing accuracy was determined by comparing five elementary evaluators’ scores to determine if there was acceptable consistency in their scoring. Surveys received from twenty-seven K-12 evaluators ascertained the actual training hours the evaluators received and if the evaluators felt the amount of time was adequate. It appeared that a substantial number of evaluators perceived their preparation time as inadequate. In addition, there was some inaccuracy shown in the administration and interpretation of the WJR-III scores. 31% of the evaluators felt they had not received enough preparation for administering and interpreting the WJR-III. The amount of time devoted to training did not appear to be positively correlated with the evaluators’ perceptions of how prepared they were to administer the test. In fact, 67% of the evaluators who received the most training (over twenty hours) said they did not receive an adequate amount of training. 29% of the evaluators’ scores were inconsistent when compared with other evaluators’ scores. One evaluator from the first school that data was collected, reported that he felt he had not received adequate training.

Public opinion
PDF (Portable Document Format)
39 KB
Created on 1/1/2009
Views: 903

Additional Information

Publication

Thesis

A Thesis Submitted to the University North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of School Administration

Language: English

Date: 2009

Keywords

Educational tests and measurements, Learning disabilities--Evaluation, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability

Subjects

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability

Educational tests and measurements

Learning disabilities -- Evaluation

Email this document to