MAP Testing & Classworks
-
-
MAP Growth:
MAP Growth is a computer adaptive test created by NWEA that students take three times per school year (fall, winter, spring). The subject areas tested in MAP Growth in grades 2-8 are reading, math, and language, with science included in grades 3-7 and optional in grade 8. Computer adaptive tests adjust to each student’s learning level, providing a unique set of test questions based on the student’s responses to previous questions. If the student answers a question correctly, the next question is more challenging. If they answer incorrectly, the next question is easier. This results in a detailed picture of what the student knows and is ready to learn— whether it is on, above, or below their grade level. The results provide teachers with information to help them deliver appropriate content for each student and monitor each student’s academic growth over time. Students take the MAP Growth test on a computer or tablet during a 3-4-week testing window established by the Archdiocesan Schools Office. Each school will set its own schedule within each of the testing windows. This flexibility allows testing to fit the school’s schedule and become part of the flow of the school day.
The tests are untimed. Most students complete each subject test in less than an hour. Students who do not finish the assessment in the time scheduled for the testing session are able to resume the test at another time without the loss of test responses already submitted. The reports obtained from MAP Growth testing provide information about the student’s level of achievement and his or her growth over time.
Parent Tool Kit Link for Map Testing: https://www.nwea.org/parent-toolkit/
Classworks:
Classworks Efficacy Studies have been completed to show the levels of engagement and educational advantages of utilizing Classworks in and out of the classroom. Classworks utilizes a Tiered Intervention System which is directly connected to how each individual child performs on the NWEA MAP Assessment. Each child is implemented an ILP (Individualized Learning Plan) to enhance the skills that students may be struggling in.
All of our students have access to their Classworks accounts the website which is utilized to complete their tasks is: manager.classworks.com/catholicschoolsnj.org
Here is the Efficacy Study which was completed and is avaialable on the Classworks Website:
CLASSWORKS EFFICACY: READING AND MATHEMATICS WITH NWEA
ESSA Classification
An independent third-party review of the study design, population, methods, analysis, and results was conducted by SEG Measurement. The analysis concludes that this study meets the requirements for Level 2 evidence under the ESSA legislation. See the independent analysis and the full study.
About SEG Measurement
SEG Measurement provides educational publishers, technology providers, schools, and government education agencies with program evaluation and product effectiveness research services to support decision making. Backed by 30 years of research and evaluation experience, SEG helps organizations design and conduct scientifically-based research, from initial design to data analysis and reporting, and provides independent evaluations of research and efficacy studies. SEG provides advanced assessment solutions for K-12 and higher education, offering a range of assessment design, development, psychometric, and implementation services. SEG has delivered more than 100 million tests to tens of thousands of K-12 schools.
Type of Study
Quasi-experimental study consistent with the requirements for Level 2 evidence under the ESSA legislation
Measurement Data
Classworks Usage and NWEA Map Growth assessment data
Grade Levels
6 - 8
Study Size
1,840 students
Summary
Classworks is a supplemental, online instructional program that provides English language arts, reading, and mathematics instruction for students based on their NWEA MAPGrowth Reading and Mathematics assessment data. In addition, Classworks provides on-grade level, standards-based reading and mathematics instruction to support teachers in the classroom. While using Classworks, students engage with individualized content based on their assessment results. Assessments generated from Classworks measure student growth and progress, and teacher-facing reporting provide formative and longitudinal data, allowing teachers to make data-driven instructional decisions.Classworks provides instructional software to 30 NWEA school districts across the southeast.The current report explores performance trends from the 2018-2019 school year. The following evaluation questions are addressed in the present study:
● Do middle school students with exposure to Classworks instruction outperform students without exposure to Classworks instruction?
● What are the effects in reading versus mathematics?
● Do impacts on student outcomes vary by prior student achievement?
Results
The following results present an integration of all data collected regarding student achievement data and program usage data. We begin with the program usage data, showing how each grade interacted with the program. Then, we present the impact of the program on student achievement.
READING RESULTS:
Across all grades combined, after controlling for the covariates, students in the treatment group exhibited more growth on the NWEA Reading exam than students in the comparison group. The size of this difference was a statistically significant effect size of .263 [F(1, 1836) = 50.53, p < .001]. Analyses also examined differences between the groups for each grade level individually. Here, statistically significant differences favoring the performance of the students in the treatment group were found in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade (see Table 3). These results are summarized as follows:
● In sixth grade, the adjusted mean NWEA Reading assessment score for the treatment group was 212.06 and for the comparison group was 209.44. This difference reflected a statistically significant effect size of .183 [F(1, 592) = 8.75, p < .01].
● In seventh grade, the adjusted mean NWEA Reading assessment score for the treatment group was 213.72 and for the comparison group was 208.51. This difference reflected a statistically significant effect size of .283 [F(1, 554) = 21.94, p < .001].
● Lastly, in eighth grade, the adjusted mean NWEA Reading assessment score for the treatment group was 215.39 and for the comparison group was 211.33. This difference reflected a statistically significant effect size of .233 [F(1, 685) = 18.45, p < .001].
In addition to exploring the impact of the Classworks program on overall student achievement, additional analyses were performed that investigated whether or not the program was correlated with any significant impact for select subgroups of students. Specifically, an analysis of covariance was used to examine whether the Classworks program fostered any differential impact students below and above the 50th percentile in baseline reading score.Based on the results of these analyses, the reading performance of five student subgroups were found to significantly differ between the treatment and comparison groups.Seventh and eighth grade students in the treatment group who scored below the 50th percentile at baseline had significantly higher post-test scores than those students in the comparison group. Also, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students in the treatment group who scored above the 50th percentile at baseline had significantly higher post-test scores than those students in the comparison group. Table 4 below provides the adjusted mean scores for students in each of these subgroups.
MATHEMATICS RESULTS:
Across all grades combined, after controlling for the covariates, students in the treatment group exhibited more growth on the NWEA Mathematics exam than students in the comparison group. The size of this difference was a statistically significant effect size of .198 [F(1, 1902) = 36.26, p < .001]. Analyses also examined differences between the groups for each grade level individually. Here, statistically significant differences favoring the performance of the students in the treatment group were found in sixth and eighth grade (seeTable 3). In seventh grade, significant differences were not found between the groups. These results are summarized as follows:
● In sixth grade, the adjusted mean NWEA Math assessment score for the treatment group was 219.97 and for the comparison group was 217.06. This difference reflected a statistically significant effect size of .215 [F(1, 680) = 13.47, p < .001].
● In seventh grade, the adjusted mean NWEA Math assessment score for the treatment group was 221.95 and for the comparison group was 220.19. This difference reflected anon-significant effect size of .098 [F(1, 592) = 2.83, p = n.s.].
● Lastly, in eighth grade, the adjusted mean NWEA Math assessment score for the treatment group was 226.17 and for the comparison group was 222.92. This difference reflected a statistically significant effect size of .227 [F(1, 625) = 16.16, p < .001].
CLASSWORKS TIERED INTERVENTION
Classworks tiered intervention is the perfect solution for your school or districtwide RTI or MTSS program. The proof is in the millions of students we’ve helped to close gaps and accelerate growth. Give your teachers the capacity and the resources to make interventions successful!
Information derived directly from the NWEA MAP Assessment Site:
Teach. Learn. Grow. The education blog
-
-
-
NWEA on the future of state assessment
It’s time to rethink state assessment. District leaders and teachers have long desired less testing―not to mention timelier and more meaningful summative test results.
State departments of education are looking for ways to reduce overall testing and support teachers in challenging students to meet or exceed grade-level expectations.
The goals are shared, and yet a divide between district and state assessment has persisted. It doesn’t have to be this way. Just like our organization’s founders—educators determined to transform teaching and learning—we’re breaking the mold.
I’m excited to announce our development of adaptive, through-year assessment from NWEA.
This new approach uses assessments administered in the fall, winter, and spring to measure both growth and proficiency and produce summative proficiency scores at year’s end. We are building this solution for grades 3–8 in English language arts, mathematics, and science. Our goal is to support state departments of education in thinking differently about accountability assessment and in partnering with districts to improve teaching and learning.
Through-year assessment takes what districts love about MAP® Growth™ —that it meets kids where they are, regardless of grade level—and adds measurement of grade-level performance (otherwise known as proficiency). Grade-level performance information from the three assessments culminates in summative proficiency scores, eliminating the need for the annual summative test.
We can unify state and district assessments to amplify impact.
State departments of education that adopt through-year assessment will benefit from a more coherent and efficient assessment system. They will also see how much learning is happening in schools from fall to spring, providing a clearer view of school performance.
Growth measures currently used by states are rooted in year-over-year changes in summative proficiency, which is important data. But it doesn’t show when schools are growing students a lot, even if they aren’t yet proficient. Considering within-year growth as an additional measure will better inform states about which schools need the most help and which ones are using promising practices that could be shared with similar schools.
Districts in states that implement through-year assessment will experience a reduction in overall testing because it will provide the growth and benchmark data they get from current interim assessments while also replacing the annual summative test. Through-year assessment will be configured to reflect the specific “blueprint” a state uses for its summative test, so it will yield instructionally useful grade-level performance information, while still adapting outside of grade level as needed. In addition, it will link to the MAP Growth scale, so districts in states that adopt it will still have access to RIT information and our national norms.
It takes time and partnership to change the system.
What we’re doing has never been done before, so it is going to take time for us to build this solution. We’re lucky to have two partners on board with us to serve as critical early adopters: the state of Nebraska and a consortium of districts in Georgia (as part of Georgia’s participation in the federal innovative assessment pilot program). Both will engage in research studies with us starting in 2020 to inform their transition to through-year assessment. Through our work together, we’ll be able to ensure that we develop a valid, reliable solution that meets requirements for summative measures and produces timely information that is easily understood and applied in the classroom by educators.
That said, maybe as you’ve been reading this, you’ve thought to yourself, “That doesn’t sound like the right fit for our state or for us.” That’s okay, too. We understand that some states are perfectly happy with the traditional summative test and know that MAP Growth—our flagship product—will continue to be the right solution for many districts. Through-year assessment is just one more solution we are adding to our portfolio to support educators in fostering equity in opportunity to grow—and to achieve—for all kids.
We must do better for our students. Now, we can.
It’s time to challenge ourselves and the status quo. It’s time to dismantle the barrier between assessments that drive student learning and assessments that measure school performance. Together, we can build a unified, innovative approach to assessment. What better time than now?
Join us and learn more about through-year assessment .
Chris Minnich joined NWEA as CEO in January 2018. He’s held key leadership roles in the education industry throughout his career. Most recently, Chris served as the executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, where he led the organization to ensure all students in the public education system—regardless of background—graduated prepared for college, career, and life. Chris holds a BS in political science from the University of Washington and a master of public policy (MPP) from the University of Maryland, College Park. He currently serves as co-chair on the Oregon Business and Industry Education Committee and is a member of the University of Oregon President’s Diversity Advisory Community Council .
-