DOCeMENT RESUME TM 003 448 Racine Feedback and … · 2014-01-14 · DOCeMENT RESUME. ED 088 900 TM...
Transcript of DOCeMENT RESUME TM 003 448 Racine Feedback and … · 2014-01-14 · DOCeMENT RESUME. ED 088 900 TM...
DOCeMENT RESUME
ED 088 900 TM 003 448
Racine Feedback and Diagnostic System.INSTITUTION Racine Unified School District 1, Wis.SPONS AGENCY' Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education
(DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C.PUB DATE an 73NOTE 39p.
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS,
ABSTRACT
MF-$0.75 HC-$1.85*Computer Programs; *Educational Diagnosis; Feedback;Information Processing; *Input Output; MultipleChoice Tests; *Scoring; Systems Analysis; *Tests;Test Scoring Machines
The system is a comprehensive set of computerprograms and procedures for assisting in the preparation, scoring andanalysis of multiple choice test batteries. The system may be usedwith either standardized or locally developed tests. For the uppergrades the system accepts pupil responses on mark-sense answersheets. For lower grades pupil responses may be keypunched. Whenmark-sense forms are used, the system can also interrogate the schooldistricts pupil files and preprint answer sheets for the pupils whoare to be tested. A number of tests for each pupil may be analyzed atthe same time. A score is computed for each test and a pupil'sperformance on each test relative to all pupils taking the test inthe district is reported. Various types of norms can be used with thesystem. Mean scores and .other summary statistics are reported forgroups of pupils. All computer programs are written in AmericanNational Standard COBOL to facilitate implementation on mostcomputers. The entire system is designed and written in a modularfashion to permit modifications to existing reports or additionalreports to be added. This design permits the system to be understoodby the computer analyst. For related document see TM003447. [Ibisdocument has been reproduced from the best copy available.) (EE)
YS ell *arta Wait 0* N$ 'MtnII DIKIten I WU Paltifeat IONA OnlitillaTe Of
II DOC/ TOONet lie Op neranstr Nonce
tuft 00Cuantaf nAS DEEM 10,0 Iles SIM FatsIns, ass waged
OuCED laCtiv AS ICfovED tCan Om doeseen Ise pessoune
C)THE PERSON on 04eGaaufat ton Oa 'Gin leTen0 lt Must, 01 burst On OmoosisSTATED 00 NOT nIECESSali
COSENT Or tiCfLnatiOna/ U strtutit Of
la ow imeghtet. Mit Ilbasensoft
EDUCA7,01 0.007,0* DI Kurt,DIM of wenn so Ins dearinp
0%h........ ess rent Ines.re hold ream lbw aplaial
COpoints ell wink
RACINE FEEDBACK AND DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM
Published ByUnified School District #1
of Racine CountyRacine, Wisconsin
The system described herein was developedwith the aid of a Title III grant from theU.S. Office of Education, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.
January, 1973
Overview
-The-Racine Feedback and Diagnostic System -:is- comprehensive set -of
computer programs and procedures for assisting in the preparation, scor.;ng
and analysis of multiple choice test batteries. The system may be used with
either standardized tests (such as Cie Stanford Achievement Tests) or with
diagnostic tests prepared by teachers or curriculum consultants within the
district. For the upper grades the system accepts pupil responses on mark
sense answer sheets. For lower grades pupil responses may be keypunched.
When mark-sense forms are used, the system can also interrogate the school
district's pupil files and preprint answer sheets for the pupils who are to be
tested.
All other input to the system is provided through common format input
coding sheets that are easy to use and require a minimum amount of coding to
be done for each test.
A number of tests for each pupil may be analyzed at the same time. All of
the tests together comprise a test battery. A score is computed for each test
and a pupil's performance on each test relative to all pupils taking the test
in the district is reported. If national norms (or other norm data) are
available for the test, this data may be provided as input and the performance
(grade equivalent, percentile and stanine) of each pupil relative to the norm
data is reported. Norms that are dependent on the age of the pupil (commonly
used with IQ tests) may be used also.
A number of statistics are reported for tests (or scoring sets) and the
items within them. The system also permits items to be grouped into other
categories called item sets.
-1-
Item sets are a means of grouping items into skill areas that are not
----necessarily-the- same-groupings-used- for-traditional-scoring-purposes- Among
other uses of item sets, the system lists the pupils in each room who do not
answer correctly at least a specified percent of items in each item set.
Mean scores and other summary statistics are reported for groups of
pupils. lypically these groups are rooms (and rooms are used in the
description below). Other groupings are possible however. Examples are_
groups such as "girls in room 103" or "pupils with special needs in
Westview school".
All computer programs are written in American National Standard COBOL
(ANS COBOL) to facilitate implementation on most computers. The system will
operate on a 32K byte machine. Expandable tables in the programs and other
features, however, permit taking advantage of larger machines and reducing
_the required running time. A non-technical Users Guide and a more technical
System Documentation Manual are available for the system. The Users Guide
.permits a non-technical user to prepare all required input for the system and
to-coordinate the test preparation, administration and analysis functions.
The System Documentation Manual is designed for the systems analyst or
computer programmer who is to maintain the computer programs and possibly
modify them.
The entire system is designed and written in a modular fashion to permit
modifications to existing reports or additional reports to be added. This
design also permits the system to be understood by the computer analyst with
a minimum amount of analysis and effort.
-2-
Reports Available from the System
A primary goal in the development of the system was to make the testing
process a valuable learning experience for the student and the teacher. The
reports prepared by the system reflect this goal in the amount of information
they provide to the student and the teacher in addition to the test analyst
or coordinator. Rather than simply giving the student a scores the system
has the capability of telling the student why his incorrect choices were wrong
and providing assistance in strengthening the students skills in his weak ones.
Other reports enable the teacher to identify areas in which the entire class
needs additional work and provide assistance in prescribing additional
instructional material.
A variety of reports are available with different information and varying
amounts of detail for the several users for whom the reports are prepared.
All reports are optional and are prepared only if requested.
0 Figure 1 shows the Individual Pupil Prescriptions for incorrect responses.
This report provides valuable feedback to the pupil by including a prescription
for each incorrect response. These prescriptions may indicate why the response
was incorrect or may direct the pupil to additional instructional material.
0 A summary of pupil scores for all pupils in each room is given on the
report shown in Figure 2. Each pupils performance relative to all test takers
in the district and relative to national norms is reported for each test taken.
() The Percentile report shown in Figure 3 provides the frequency of
_occurrance,_the_percentile_score_and the_stanine_for_each_raw score. This
report is produced for each room, for each school in the district and for the
entire district. The report may also be prepared for any other grouping of
rooms e.g., rooms using teacher aids, rooms using team teaching, inner city
3
kTSS23-1,5
RACINE
n1 AGNrIST I C
FEEOBACK
SYSTEM
THIS IS THE RIJN TITLF ENTEDEO BY Ti,F Usvg
PAGE
2
DATE. ob/15/7?
NAmF-SILL JOINSON
Num4FK-100002
PRIMiRY PUPIL
C0q17.:NTs ON
pirEsc;IpTrmis FUR INCOpUiECT RESPONSES
SET-GREEN ROOM
NCCR-?EcT RFsRWISEG
IT cu
ANSwERs
TFST PART
NU'llER
YOURS
RICHT
PRESC,4IPTIONS
TTST PART,
11
F4
Epf.;T 1 /TEST 1
10
e04<T 2 /TEST 1
,F
AALL CHOICES THAT ARE SAP GET THIS MESSAGE.
glIFT ;?./TEST
11
8E
olir,T 2 /TEST
14
9C
TFST 'e-Patfl* 2
1C
AALL CHIOCES WITHOUT THEIR OWN MESSAGES.
TTST ?frPART ?
4K
C
r
RTSS26 -04
PUPIL SET
UNKNOWN
RACINE
DIAGNOSTIC
FEEDBAG.%
SYSTEM
OTIS- LENNON MENTAL ABILITY TEST INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
STUDENT SCORES
NUMBER
NAME
TEST
AN
IMO
NIM
INLI
MI
AM
ION
WIM
MM
O11
4111
0111
M IN
.WM
IOM
MM
=M
O,M
MO
08757
AUDE DAWN
7TH
09244
CARROLL VICTOR
7TH
09174
CARTER DENNICE
7TH
09206
CARTER EDDIE
7TH
04727
DURHAM DONALD
7TH
08800
GARDNER LURRETTA
7TH
08769
GARDNER RODERICK
7TH
10109
GEk8t< DAVID
7TH
09214
GOLDEN CHRISTINE
7TH
09188
MILLER JOHN
7TH
09221
MOAT MARYANN
7TH
08813
PIRKL CORY
7TH
04667
ST AMANO MARY JO
7TH
04758
URICK JOHN P.
7TH
08168
WAINWRIGHT MICHAEL
7TH
UTIS- LENNON I.Q.
OTIS...LENNON I.Q.
OTISLENNON I.Q.
OTIS- LENNON I.Q.
OTIS- LENNON I.Q.
OTIS-LENNON I.Q.
OTIS- LENNON I.Q.
UTIS - LENNON I.Q.
UTISLENNON
OTISLENNON I.Q.
OTISLENNON I.Q.
OTIS- LENNON I.Q.
OTIS- LENNON I.Q.
OTIS- LENNON I.Q.
OTIS- LENNON I.Q.
I.Q.
DISTRICT
PUPIL SET
RAW
PCILE
STA9
MEAN
HIGH
LOW
PUPIL/MEAN
26
22.0
3
13
4.0
2
16
7.0
2
22
13.0
3
30
26.0
4
21
12.0
3
14
7.0
2
34
9.0
2
15
6.0
2
26
22.0
3
22
18.0
3
12
2.0
1
26
26.0
4
29
Z3.0
4
81.0
1
=01
01M
AIM
E./
=11
11.
DATE 1006/72
NATIONAL
IQ
PCILE
STA9.
91
30.0
4
78
9.0
2
82
13.0
86
20.0
3
93
34.0
85
18.0
3
82
13.0
3
83
15.0
3
81
12.0
3
91
30.0
89
25.0
4
74
5.0
2
93
34.0
92
32.0
4
71
4.0
2
RTSS2604
R A C I N E
DIAGNOSTIC
FEEDBACK
SYSTEM
DIAGNOSTIC LANGUAGE ARTS GRADES
STUDENT SCORES
PUPIL SET
MISS FRANZKE
NUMBER
NAME
70
TEST
DISTRICT
=11
11RAW
PCILE
STA9
MIN
IM a
smIM
MIN
omm
nel
OM
NIM
MI=
MN
SM
SIM
IMM
OD
.11.
4.10
MO
OM
MM
=11
m
1504
3
12973
13003
13004
15042
29792
ANCHONDO ALMA
ANDERSON PAM
BAY KATHY
BELL SENA
BINGHAM LEE
BROWN JOSEPHINE
13006 .CARPENTER RUSSELL
29788
CONTRERAS DOLORIS
12975
CRAMER JO ANN
12976
29746
EDWARDS C;IARMAN
13010
FLOCK JEFFREY
29790
GARZA EDDIE
13011
GILBRIDE THOMAS
13013
JANES HENRY
13014
JENSEN JUNE
12483
JOHNSON BRIAN
29791
KEPPIN RANDY
29747
KITT SANDRA
29793
LACHET DICK
12719
LUDEMAN SARAH
29787
MILLER RANDY
12991
WELL ROSIE
DIEM KELLY
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG. ARTS 5
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
LANG.
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
ARTS 5
PUPIL 'SE T.
MEAN
HIGH
LOW
PUPIL/MEAN
111
24
35.0
428
39
15
32
69.0
62b
39
15
27
46.0
528
39
15
36
84.0
728
39
15
33
72.0
628
39
15
16
12.0
328
39
15
31
65.0
628
39
15
3.,
76.0
628
39
15
26
42.0
528
39
15
31
65.0
628
39
15
31
65.0
628
39
15
15
10.0
228
39
15
29
56.0
S28
39
15
38
89.0
828
39
15
25
39.0
528
39
15
25
39.0
528
39
15
16
12.0
32R
39
15
22
29.0
428
39
15
31
65.0
628
39
15
30
60.0
628,
39
15
39
92.0
828-
39
15
28
51.0
528
39
15
30
60.0
628
39
15
84.2
112.2
94.7
124.3
115.7
56.1
101.7
119.2
91.2
108.7
108.7
52.6
101.7
133.3
87.7
87.7
56.1
77.1
108.7
105.2
136.8
98.2
105.2
PAGE 136
DATE
N A T 1 OIN A L
SCALE
PCiLE
STA9
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES.
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
RAW SCORES
ONLY
IJNLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
RTSS2604
R A
'PUPIL tit
FORTUNA
NUMBER. NAME
CINE
DIAGNOSTIC
FEEDBACK
SYSTEM
STANFORD ADVANCED ARITHMETIC - GRADE 8
STUDENT SCORS
4el
02901
HILKER JULIA A
O 2152
DRAPER LEE JEROME
O 11164
WITHERIL RICKARD L
01032
SORENSEN ANITA m
01804
KNuOTSOM CRAIG ALAN
02466
PETERSON RICKY
03039
LOwREY BENNIE L
PAGE -43i
DATE 1112702
1
vi
DISTRICT
PUPIL SET
STAN D AR)).
..8.
TEST
RAW
PCILE
STASO
............
MEAN
HIGH
LOW
4111
11IL
IIIM
IM
OIN
E-
-AMIN. APPLICATIONS
12
31
463
121
0ARITH. COMPUTATION
20
52
566
104
0ARITH. CONCEPTS
54
270
127
40
ARITH. APPLICATIONS
10
20
363
121
0
ARITH. COMPUTATION
11
14
366
104
0ARITH. CONCEPTS
00
170
127
40
ARITH. APPLICATIONS
14
44
563
121
0
ARITH. COMPUTATION
00
166
104
0ARITH. CoNCEPts
00
170
127
40
ARITH. APPLICATIONS
25
98
963
121
0
ARITH. COMPUTATION
22
62
666
104
0ARITtI. CONCEPTS
31
95
970
127
40
ARITH. APPLICATIONS
68
263
121
0
ARITH. COMPUTATION
13
20
366
104
0ARITH. CONCEPTS
13
16
370
127
40
AM IN. APPLICATIONS
11
26
463
121
0ARITH. COMPUTATION
10
11
346
104
0ARITH. CONCEPTS
,11
la
370
127
40
ARITH. APPLICATIONS
00
163
121
0
ARUN. COMPUTATION
00
166
104
0
ARITH. CONCEPTS
22
60
670
127
40
PUPIL/MEAN
GRADE
PCILE
Apif
....6....
72
14
4IS -
42
5Iii...
40
1 1
1
:::7
63
Ali
33
56
IO
200.0
0; 0
0
119.1
76
49
5O
00
00.0
00.0
0i 0
0
139.6
121
B.,'
9123.4
42
12
51614
120
15
41
76.8
49
90.5
1 6
290.3
60
A6
364
It
3
105.0
67-
24
481.3
34
II
284.8
60
414
3,
00.0
010
000.0
01 0
012L6
86
40
4
R7SSL9 10
R AGIME
DIAGNOST4C
FEEDBACK
SYSTEM
PAGE
89
DIAGNOSTIC LANGUAGE ARTS GRADES
DATE
PERCENTILES -RAW SCORES- PRIMARY PUPIL SETS
PRIMARY PUPIL SET-
MISS FRANZKE
70
RESULTS FOR TEST
LANG. ARTS 5
HIGH- 39 LOW- 15 MEAN..
NUMBER OF PUPILS...
28
SCORE
FREQ
PCILE
28.5
STA9
SCORE
FREQ
PC -!LE
STA9
MO
OM
IIM=
IMM
O/W
MM
OM
IMI=
O11
1.M
AM
MO
N
15
13.6
216
210.7
322
114.3
324
117.9
325
225.0
424
128.6
427
339.3
528
142.9
529
146.4
5
30
357.1
5
31
575.0
632
178.6
733
285.7
734
189.3
836
192.9
838
196.4
939
1100.0
9
ACINE
DIAGNOSTIC. FEEDBACK
SYSTEM
DIAGNOSTIC LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE5
PERCENTILESRAW SCOREGROUP PUPIL SETS
GROUP. PUPIL SET
ALL PUPILS
RESULTS FOR TEST
LANG. ARTS 5
HIGH 48 LOW 0 MEAN 25.3
NUMBER OF PUPILS2217
SCORE
FREQ
PCILE
STA9
SCORE
FREQ
PCILE
STA9
05
0.2
143
19
98.5
9
42
0.3
144
998.9
9
51
0.4
145
15
99.5
9
62
0.5
146
899.9
9
76
0.7
147
1100.0
9
812
1.3
148
1100.0
9
913
1.8
1
10
16
2.6
1
11
25
3.7
2
12
31
5.1
-
213
39
6.9
2
14
37
8.5
2
15
29
9.8
2
16
55
12.3
3
17
51
14.6
3
18
60
17.3
3
19
20
52
54
19.7
22.1
3 321
62
24.9
422
84
28.7
4
23
83
32.4
4
24
63
35.3
425
T7
38.7
5
26
73
42,0
5
27
91
45.1
5
28
105
50.9
5
29
104
55.6
5
30
92
59.7
631
117
65.0
6
32
89
69.0
6
33
77
72.5
6
34
86
76.4
635
99
80.8
7
36
65
83.8
737
58
86.4
738
63
89
89.2.
8
39
58
91.8
8
40
50
94.1
8
41
. 41
95.9
9.
42
37
97.6
9
PAGE
DATE
schools, etc. The report shown describes raw scores. When standardized norm
data is provided for the test, this report may be requested for standardized
scores also.
0 The percent of pupils selecting each response for each item is given in the
report illustrated in Figure 4. This report-can be an aid in determining the
areas in which pupils needs additional work. As with the Percentile report,
this report is prepared for each room, for each school in the district, for
the entire district and for any other specified room groupings. The report
shown in the Figure shows items grouped by scoring set. The report is also
available with items grouped by item set.
()The Item Set Response Analysis RepotI, illustrated in Figure 5 is another
aid in identifying instructional areas where pupils in a room need additional
work. This report is prepared for each room with items grouped by item set.
An accompanying sheet (shown at the bottom of the Figure) identifies the names
of the item sets and test parts.
0 The Item Set Fail/Marginal report shown in Figure .6 is particularly
useful in larger districts where curriculum consultants are utilized-to
develop instructional materials and assist in overall curriculum planning.
This report, which is prepared for each room, identifies for each item set
the pupils who either failed or performed marginally on the, item set.
("Failing" an item set is not answering correctly at least a speicifed
percent of items comprising the item set. A "marginal" performance is not
answering correctly a higher specified percent of the items in the set.)
Remedial prescriptions are provided for use by the teacher to help improve
the skills of the pupils who failed or performed marginally.
10
.RTSS141009
RACINE- OIAGNO.ST
FEEDBACK
S Y S T
DIAGNOSTIC LANGUAGE ARTS GRADES
RESPONSES FOR SCORING SETS BY GROUP PUPIL SETS
1.4
-GROUPPUPIL tET
"TEST PARt4SENTENCE SENSE
'PUPILS ANSWERING ...2091
PAGE
1
DATE 01/22/73."'
ITEM
1
PERCENT
2
SELECTING
3 aa
RESPONSE;
aOMIT
a 20
78*
00'
12
32
19
279*
00
03
10
82*.
80
00
483*
39
00
05
'70*
18
30
00
610
387*
00
07.
78*
615
00
0
TEST PART-.PUNC.,CAP.,AND USAGE
PUPILS-ANSWERING ...2091
ITEM
PERCENT
a2
SELECTING
3M
INIM
4
RESPONSE
OMIT
114
a 11
a 04=
1011
1111
11 18
480*
96
75*
13
01
10
68*
10
14
03
Li
,60*
57
27
02
12
45
'63*
20
02
13
55
'78*
10
01
14
.
53
-7
80*
0:
315
'
75
64*
23
0:
1
16
671*
5'
15
0:
217
'
65
978*
0'
218
50*
621
'21
02
19
64
.52*
37
01
20
21*
413
58
04
21
865*
: 9
-
15
02
22
54
779*
:0
423
7.
736*
48
02
24
561*
822
03
. 25
56
43*
41
04
'26
.6
65*
816
04
27
-
65
29
58*
02
28
76
43*
39
04
29
37*
523
33
02
30
42*
841
03
,
RACINE
01-41GNOSTIC
.FEEDBACK
SYS'T EM
PAGE
88
DIAGNOSTIC LANGUAGE ARTS TEST GRAOE4
RESPONSES FOR ITEN SETSBY GROUP PUPIL SETS
GROUP PUPIL SET ....WINSLOW
ITEM SET ..PUNCTUATION
GATE 02/19/73
PUPILS ANSWERING
SS
PERCENT
SELECTING
RESPONSE
TEST PART
ITEM
12
34
. -,
OMIT
.....la
......
4....m.
PUNC.CAP,ANO.USAGE
233*
916
36
05
69
09
78*
o4
822*
22
13
31.
013
10
25*
11
13
45
05
11
36*
13
14
31,
04
16
25*
236
31
05
22
29*
715
45
04
24
36*
22
929.
04
25
53*
7.
925
05
26
31*
922
35
04
28
16
913
55*
07
30
36*
LS
18
27
'
04
34
18*
15
11
51
0s
ITEM SET ..CAPITALIZATION
PUPILS ANSWERING
55
PERCENT
SELECTING
RESPONSE
TEST PART
ITEM
12
34
MO
M=
OMIT
0/..P
1M11
1101
1111
1.11
PUNC.CAPIAND,USAGE
0011
111=
1111 3
255
024*
IS"
45
738*
.22
29
04
911
99
62*
09
14
15
49*
18
13
'
0S
20
4i
67*
720
012
27
15
-35*
11
31
0.
: 5
32
.7
18.
18
49*
07
ITEM SET ..VERB USAGE
PUPILS ANSWERING
55
PERCENT
SELECTING
RESPONSE
TEST PART
ITEM
23
4OMIT
PUNCIIICAP,AND,USAGE
12
584*
70
27
525
44*
22
4
-RAC INE
0 1AGNOI$TiC
FEEDBACK
S Y S T-E M
'DIAGNOSTIC LANGUAGE ARTS GRADES
ITEM SET RESPONSE ANALYSES
PAGE Xifv
DATE
MISS FRANZKE
70
TEST PART
ITEM NUMBER
SET
1111
0:61
3SIZ
IMM
I-00
111/
1111111111
0011112233
1604782401
SET
2,
SET
3SET
4SET
SET
6SET
7SET
8SET
9M
1490
14W
.0
111111
002223'
470362
.1.M
O.
111111
111222
356157
.MIM
MS
OM
MM
.11.
0
111111111
000011122
235912989
OO
OO
22
2222
22
33
4334
34
48
0391
62
22
3357
12719
LUDEMAN SARAH
...At 3.4.4
44
4...
33
22
12973
ANDERSON PAM
4.24.
31
....4..
..43.444
.3
....
5.
31
12975
CRAMER JO ANN
4. .44..4
0.3:
4.4.44
.0. 1.144
..
..55
52
3.
12976
DIEM KELLY
....4 *****
.440.1
104.*
04 .130444
5.
1...
33
le
12983
JOHNSON BRIAN
4242.42.42
.1
1.4441
11.13.441
.2
.25
11
23
12991
ODELL ROSIE
4...3...4.
4.11.44
....3.4.4
..
1...
33
31
12997.
VINE THERESA
..4.44..4.
.4
4...44.
....3..44
0.
1...
.3
.2
12999
YNOCENCIO ALMA
0000
3 *
00 *
*.4..44.
..44.
0.43.14.
2.
5..
.2
10
13003
BAY KATHY
2...4... -..
.4.1.1
...44
3.3.4.
4.
5.2
-.23
44
13004
BELL SENA
...
1.0.4
0.4..
0.3. .0444
22
14
0.
13006
CARPENTER RUSSELL
.4..4...4.4.4
441.4
.2
1we2
33
14
13010
FLOCK JEFFREY
444.423322
.4...3
44.14.
24.2..441
55
3.12
..
13
13011
GILBRIDE THOMAS
.44..4
..444
we.
..
.13013
JANES HENRY
..2.4.1. 1
.414.
'...4.
..*3.1:
34
3..
15
33
13014
JENSEN JUNE
4...4....3
.4.343
...4..
.0.03. 4
.2
415.
35
14
13028
WAHLEN PAMELA
..4.44'.4.
4..4
4...41.44.
22
5....
.5
21
15042
BINGHAM LEE
444.3...4.
.444.4
..4...
44..
0.
e.0.
25
..
1.5043
ANCHONDO ALMA
.44.44..4.
.3...3
..444.
44.4.4.44
.1
..a
11
33
29146
EDWARDS CHARMAN
4..44....
.4....
4..444
...4
444
..
1..4
33
3.
29747
KITT SANDRA
....3 OOOOO
.44..4.
...4.4
..444444
.2
5...
33
.2
29785
SWIFT GAIL
.4.3
.41..4
.4.13.44.
..
...
3.
.2
29786
VINE REGINA
4.4.4...4.
.444.3
...4344.4
45
1to.
53
.2
29787
MILLER RANDY
.. .3...41
.3...3
p.313414.
.3
40..
3..
14
29788
CONTRERAS DOLORIS
....3.2...
14..43
..IA.
..*43..4.
'04
4...
.0
.2
29790
GARZA EDDIE
..4.4...4.
43.03
.0.4.4
....3.4..
54
.5.
15
24
29791
KEPPIN RANDY
..3.4.1.32
.4...1
41
.43..2.24
24
3.2.
le
.40
29792
BROWN JOSEPHINE
424.44..42
43.413
40.4.1
2.321.42.
32
3...
.2
22
29793
LACHET DICK
.4....1
0..4)44
....3..4.
25
.2
342
RTSS17-07
RAc__INE
DIAGNOSTIC
FE'EDBACK
SYSTEM
V*** GRACE 4 RATHEMATICS DIAGNOSTIC TEST * * **
FAILIMARGINAL_REPqRT
PKIMARY PUPIL SET -
MR. HYLLSERG
ITEM SET
1- ADDITION
PAGE
.4
DATE 10/16/72
FAIL LIMIT
C PC. MARGINAL LIMIT 65 PC.
BOCHER SUSAN
MARGINAL
53
LAY DEANETTE
MARGINAL
46
____
FP
T.T
$OMR__
FAIL
_0
MARGINAL PRESCRIPTION
4,5-TO 40 40 NO R P20,26295
6-20 COL NO R P213.295
7,15,17,32 -TO 3D COL W/R-443,55,296/217.299
8-40R0 PROS- P44-45
14-30 30 W/R-P43.296
16-20 4D CARRY TO 99-P111.297
111.33..-MONEV-4'46,49.294
9-NO.
AP
El PRESCRIPTION
ITEM SET
2-SUOT' A TION
FAIL
LIMIT
46
5060
EQUATION.REOUIRES ADDITION P47,293.
0 PC. MARGINAL LIMIT 70 PC.
RUGG JESSE
MARGINAL
BAILEY KEVIN
BERG RENEE
MARGINAL
MARGINAL
BOCHEK SUSAN
MARGINAL
30
COOK JOHN
MARGINAL
70
FOREMAN LORI
MARGINAL
70
MAO HENRY_
MARGINAL
30
KOKE JOANNE
MARGINAL-
60
LAY, pEANEITE
MARGINAL
50.
L__
LINEN
DAVID
LUTLI LAURIE
MARGINAL
20
MEISNER JOHN
60
POTTS DONNA
_MARGINAL.
FAIL
RINEHART MATTHEW
MARGINAL
It'
RUGG JESSE
MARGINAL
20
SCHRAUFNAGECJAMEt
MARGINAL
to
MARGINAL PRESCRIPTION
1O- SUBTRACTION EQUATIONAEOUGRES ADDITION TO SOLVE P47i293
_
11,12-TO 40-3D NO R112102,95 AL3-WORD PROBLEM P44-45
19,20,21 -TO 30t.30 NfR P.414444294,291
22.34.35-TO 40--4D RENAMING ACROSS ZEROS 'P297.
0 The Fail/Marginal summary report which is shown in Figure 7 assists the
curriculum consultants or other personnel at the school or district level.
This rIport indicates the number of pupils taking each item set in each room
and the number and percent of pupils in each room who failed or performed
marginally on the item set.
A number of additional reports are also prepared that assist the test
analyst to insure that the input to the system has been prepared and
processed correctly. Examples of these are included in the "Input" section
below.
Labels
Adhesive labels for inclusion in the pupils permanent records are also
produced by the system. These labels show both district and nationally
standardized test performance. Sample labels are shown in Figure 8.
Input to the System
As mentioned above, pupil responses are entered in the system either
through mark sense answer sheets or on keypunched "IBM" cards. Other required
input is the description of the test battery needed to produce the reports
requested. This information is first entered on input coding sheets as
illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. These sheets are then keypunched and used as
input to, the system. Substantial editing is performed on this. input to
insure its accuracy. Various reports are also produced to assist the test
analyst in determining that the input data has been prepared correctly. Two
of these "input validation" reports are shown in Figures 11 and 12.
-15-
_R15510=14
RACINE
DIAGNOSTIC
FEEDBACK
SYSTEM
*********GRADE 7 DIAGNOSTIC SPELLING TEST*********
FAIL MARGINAL SUMMARY (BY ITEM SET)
PAGE
1
DAff09/i072
1ITEM SET - SOUNDS
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
HOUSEMAN
PER.17-18
HOUSEMAN
PER. 19 -20
LINOHARD
PER.15-16
LINDHARD
PER.19 -20
LINOHARD
PER.23-24
PAYSON
PER.13 -14
PAYSON
PER-17-18
ROPE
PER.13-14
RUPE
.PER.15-16
RUPE
PER.I7-18
RUPE
PER.21-22
RUPE
PER.23-24
GEDEMER
PER.1
GEDEMER
PER.2
GEDEMER
PER.4
GEDEMER
PER.5
GEDEMER
PER.6
KRONBERG
PER.1
KRONBERG
PER.2
KRONBERG
PER.4
KRONBERG
PER.5
KRONBERG
PER.6
STEINKE
PER.I
STEINKE
PER.2
STEINKE
PER.4
STEINKE
PFR.5
STEINKE
PER.6
CHRISTENSENPER.4
MAYER
PER.2
SAWISKEY
PER.1
TOTERO
PER.I
TOTERO
PER.2
TUTERO
PER.3
TOTERC
PER.5
TOTERC
PER.6
BARRETT
PER.1
BARRETT
PER.3
BARRETT
PFR.5
BELA4
PER.)
FAIL
NPC
27.7
150.0
28.3
312.0
310.0
14.0
14. 8
310.3
.2
7.7
26.3
25.9
13.8
27.7
00.0
00.0
00.0
27.1
12.9
13.4
412.5
5Pf 1
00.0
00.0
38.8
13.3
00.0
514.7
13.0
26.1
;0
0.0
13.2
411.1
26.9
13.2
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
I3.6
00 .0
13.6
MARGINAL
NPC
311.5
00.0
P___9.9___
14.0
13.3
14.0
14.8
13.4
27.7
TOTAL
26 224
25
3025
2129
26
3234
2626
2131
26.3
38.8
13.8
134.114
29.5
13.2
1-s;i----
517.9.
25.7
1314
13.1
00.0_
00.0
12.9
12.9
00.0
26.3
12.9
13.0
00.0
13.3
412.9
38.3
00.0
_..
0g0.(71)
26.3
26.5
312.5
310.7
516.1
00.0
3128
_35 29
3237
c
26
35
3.4
303234
-.11.
33
3330
31
36
29
31 34
32
31 24
7831
28
Figure 8
SAMPLE LABELS
HAAKENSON MICHAEL 14930
FALL 1972 TESTINGLOCAL
R.S PC STm.....MATL
G.E PC STLANG. ARTS 01 27 / 4 LOCAL ONLYMATH SKILL 10 83 / 7 508 01 / 1
READING 01 14 / 3 LOCAL ONLYSTEP SOCIA 21 90 / 8 427 13 / 3
KAPLAN DANIEL OTTO 37632
FALL 1972 TESTINGLOCAL
R.S PC ST......NATLG.E PC ST
LANG ARTS 02 67 / 6 LOCAL ONLYMATH SKILL 08 66 / 6 505 01 /READING 03 69 / 6 LOCAL ONLYSTEP SOCIA 25 98 / 9 433 25 / 4
LUDWIG RAYMOND JUDE 45816
FALL 1972 TESTINGLOCAL
R.S PC ST G.E PC STLANG ARTS 00 00 / 1 LOCAL ONLYMATH SKILL 05 25 / 4 504 01 / tREADING 01 14 / 3 LOCAL ONLYSTEP SOCIA 08 05 / 2\ 405 01 / 1
ECO:
RECORD
IDENTIFIER
SET
AI
LEALD IA IT IA
II
r4T
-0-1
02 q3 04 05 C5 07 OS 09 10
11 12
TEST PART
AUREVIATION
CT
14 15
ITEM NUMGER
(WITHIN TEST PART)
17 18 19
20
FEED RACK
DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM
DEFINIT:04 OF TEST ITEM
ANSWER
22 23
WEIGHT
25 26
LOCATION AND NAMES OF POSSIBLE RESPONSES ON
TEST FORM
RESPONSE:
12
3
1
170
MARK LOCATION
rfI
I,
.,-;(
)15 40 41 42..
44 45 15 47
49 50 51 52
IDENTIFICATION
rgn
14;1
71
MEMBER OF ITEM SETS
Isis
4r1=7
54 55 56 57
0-1
%4
II
I
I---
PAGE
i0F______
DATE H 1
Di
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
117i011-73
1-1
_221_1
59 60 61 62
76 7
7
itECORD
IDENTIFIER
RECORD
SET
FPIA R
eFr;;]
ut 02 03 04 05 05 07 08 09 10
11 12
Im TEST PART
ABBREVIATION
QY
FT 1
LL
1
TEST PART NAME
FEEDBACK Ann OIAMOSTIC SYSTEM
DEFINITION OF TEST PART.
PM
EE
R s
in=
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27.2829 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
/10I
N L
i I1
1
11,
1-1T
17-1
FIL
I
ABBREVIATION OF TEST.
THIS PART IS IN
538 39
Iv1I
S
PAGE
OF
DATE
RTSSO4 -
R A C I N E
DIAGNOSTIC
F..:138ACK
SYSTEM
PAGE
141.***
GRADE 3 LANGUAGE ARTS DIAGNOSTIC TEST
*At*
DATE 09/18/72
TEST DEFINITION RrPORT
TEST
CONSISTS OF TEST PARTS
ITEMS AND NORMS
aaaa
a..
GRADE 3 LANG OF 9 -72
SENTENCE SENSE
PUNCCAPITALUSAGE
12
14
56
78
910
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FOR AGES 10 YFARS
4 10 MONTHS...
RAW SCORE
GRADE SCORE
PERCENTILE
STANINE
MP
1114
= M
IMA
INO
019
50
J
122
90
224
13
03
76
17
0 !
428
22
05
32
25
06
36
28
07
42
31
0
846
35
09
51
42
010
53
46
011
57
53
012
59
62
-1
13
61
71
1
14
65
82
-
1
15
68
93
1
FOR AGES 10 YEARS
5
RAW SCORE
GRADE SCORE7 MONTHS...
PERCENTILE
STANINE
015
50
122
90
224
13
03
26
17
0
/4
28
2?
05
32
25
06
36
28
07
42
'32
08
46
35
09
51
42
010
53
46
011
57
53
012
59
62
1
13
61
71
1
14
65
82
1
15
68
93
1
RTSS04..t.
TEST PART
RACINE
DIAGNOSTIC
FL.OBACK
***
GRADE 3 LANGUAGE ARTS DIAGNOSTIC
ITEM DEFINITION REPORT
ITEM ANS., WEI..
RESP..
NO
WER
GHT
IN ITEM SETS
ONSE
.11
1..1
441.
1.
SYSTEM
PAGE
TEST
***
CATE 09/18/72
.
MARK
LOC PRESCRIPTION
.....
mw
smm
amm
w. .
......
SENTENCE SENSE
12
1.0
ASKING SENTENCES
11 -10
SENTENCE SENSE
21-10 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
31 -10
SENTENCE SENSE
2I
1.0
TELLING SENTENCES
11-11 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS ITEM
SENTENCE SENSE
21-11
31-11
SENTENCE SENSE
33
1.0
NOT A SENTENCE
11-12
.SENTENCE SENSE
21 -12
31 -12 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
SENTENCE SENSE
43
1.0
NOT A SENTENCE
11 -13
SENTENCE SENSE
21 -13
31-13 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
SENTENCE SENSE
52
1.0
ASKING SENTENCES
11..14
SENTENCE. SENSE
21-14 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
N, F
31-14
SENTENCE SENSE
.6
31.0
NOT A SENTENCE,
11-15
SENTENCE SENSE
21-15
1-15 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
SENTENCE SENSE
71
1.0
TELLING SENTENCES
11-.16 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
SENTENCE SENSE
21 -16
31-16
PUNC-.CAPITAL-USAGE
83
1.0
OTHER USAGE
,PUNC - CAPITAL- USAGE.
1 21-1T
1.17
31-17 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
41-17
PUNC - CAPITAL -USAGE
94
1.0
VERB USAGE
11-18
PUNC- CAPITAL - USAGE
21 -18
31 -18
41-.18 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM ,
PUNC.CAPITALUSAGE
10
31.0
VERB USAGE
11-.19
PUNCCAPITAL.rUSAGE
21..-I9
31 -19 THIS IS CORRECT RESPONSE FOR THIS
ITEM
41-49
Much of the input data needed to be coded and keypunched only once for a
district (and then just updated when personnel changes, etc. are made). The
same input cards may then be used for a number of different tests.
Implementation of the System
As mentioned above, the entire system .is written in ANS COBOL to expedite
implementation. Interfaces with existing district files and systems are
required only for preprinting mark sense answer sheets and for looking up
pupil identification data (i.e., name and birthdate) when the completed
answer sheet (or keypunched cards) are being scored. If the school district
is not currently me staining these files in a computerized form they can
easily be developed for use by this system.
Because of the "self-contained" nature of the system it may be
implemented on a "computer utility" or some other computer not managed by
the school district.
Implementation of the system may be accomplished through use-of its-own-
instructional development and data processing personnel. Implementation
assistance for both the computer system and for the development of meaningful
instructional feedback is available, however. For further information
concerning any aspect of the system please contact
-22-