1 / 21

AGRISCIENCE CURRICULUM REVIEW

AGRISCIENCE CURRICULUM REVIEW. Ginnie Bushong A ED 615 Investigations and Studies in Applied Research. CHAPTER I. Introduction. House Bill 2700 – JTED CTE Standards – Cluster System Agriscience Standards – Cluster / Science AATA Curriculum Committee Phase 1 – Standards 10.0 through 25.0

judith
Télécharger la présentation

AGRISCIENCE CURRICULUM REVIEW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AGRISCIENCE CURRICULUM REVIEW Ginnie Bushong A ED 615 Investigations and Studies in Applied Research

  2. CHAPTER I

  3. Introduction • House Bill 2700 – JTED • CTE Standards – Cluster System • Agriscience Standards – Cluster / Science • AATA Curriculum Committee • Phase 1 – Standards 10.0 through 25.0 • Phase 2 – Options B, C, and F

  4. Need JTEDs require CTE Programs to prepare students for careers using the new cluster standards and validated assessments by July of 2007. The Arizona Agriscience Curriculum has provided agricultural teachers with the necessary resources to implement the new cluster standards into their curriculum. Nonetheless, no reliable assessment exists to measure student achievement of the standards.

  5. Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability of the Arizona Agricultural Teachers’ Association Agriscience Curriculum Assessments. Reliability is defined as the instruments ability to produce similar results when administered to a number of different high school students. The reliability or internal consistency of the assessment will be represented as an alpha coefficient. The dependant variable is the alpha coefficient while the independent variables include type of question, clarity of question, and the questions relation to the Agriscience Curriculum. The dependant variable’s relationship to the independent variables will be examined using statistical software.

  6. Objectives • Divide each assessment in constructs, by related measurement criteria. • Determine the alpha value for each question. • Recommend necessary assessment changes to the AATA Curriculum Committee.

  7. Limitations • Only standards 10.0 through 25.0 are represented. Additional research will have to be formulated to address assessment of standards 1.0-9.0 and 26.0 and above. • As in most studies, standard error of measurement is an expected limitation. Standard error of measurement is the difference between observed and true score.

  8. Assumptions • Agricultural Teachers used the Arizona Agriscience Curriculum to teach the standards. • The assessments are a true measurement of the curriculum and standards. • The students will read each question on the assessment entirely. • The variety of the testing environment and assessment administrator has not affect on the student answers.

  9. Definitions of Terms • Agricultural Education • Arizona Agricultural Teacher’s Association (AATA) • Arizona Agriscience Standards • Arizona Agriscience Framework • Arizona Agriscience Curriculum • Career and Technical Education (CTE) • Chronbach Alpha • House Bill 2700 • Joint Technical Education District

  10. CHAPTER II

  11. CTE Education • Legislation • No Child Left Behind • Perkins Act • House Bill 2700 • Public • Parents • Industry CTEStandards Arizona Agriscience Standards AATA Agriscience Curriculum AATA Agriscience Assessments Conceptual Framework CTE Education

  12. Literature Review • Academic Standards & Accountability • 48% States set higher standards • 34% Developed high stakes testing • Over 24% Standardized test for graduation • (Lynch, 2000)

  13. Literature Review • CTE Response • Over 50% used basic/advanced academic standards • Almost 75% Work/skill attainment and placement • Types of measurement techniques • State developed • Local selected/developed • Nationally recognized • Other • (Belcher, McCaslin, & Headley, 2006)

  14. Significance This study will benefit the Agricultural Education Profession by providing a reliable assessment to measure student achievement of the Arizona Agriscience Standards. Future research will follow the developed methodology in order to determine reliability of standards 26.0 and above. In addition, it will benefit Career and Technical Education nationwide because they will be able to follow the direction of the Arizona Agricultural Teachers’ Association in developing curriculum and assessments based on the state competencies.

  15. CHAPTER III

  16. Selection of Topic Selection of Committee Review of Literature Creation of Research Objectives Obtain Program Review List Recruitment Letters Reminder Email Obtain Assessments Prepare & Mail Assessment Packets Collect Data Analyze Data Report Findings Operational Framework

  17. Subject • Target • Agriscience Program Review Participants • Requirements • Teaching a Standard between 10.0 and 25.0 during the 2006-2007 School Year • Procedure • Recruitment Letter • Post Card • Reminder Email

  18. Instrument • Assessment Documents • Validity – Writing & Review Team • Reliability – Chronbach Alpha • Conditions • Various High School Agricultural Classrooms • Instructions • Assessment Packet Cover Letter

  19. Questions / Comments

  20. References • Arizona Department of Education. (2005). Arizona Career and Technical Education Framework. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education. • Arizona House Bill 2700. (2006). • Belcher, G., McCaslin, N. L., & Headley, W. S. (2006). Implications of performance measures and standards for evaluation and assessment in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(4), 1-7. • Bush, G. W. (2001). No child left behind. • Chronbach, L J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.

  21. References • Frankel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education, sixth edition. Boston: McGraw Hill. • George, D. & Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for Windows step by step. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. • Gray, K. (2004). Is high school career and technical education obsolete? Phi Delta Kappan, 86(2), 128-134. • Lynch, R. L. (2000). High school career and technical education for the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Vocational Education Research 25(2). • Pekow, C. (2006). Congress approves Perkins Act. Community College Week, 18(26), 9. • Talbert, B. A., Vaughn, R. & Croom, D. B. (2005). Foundations of Agricultural Education. Catlin, Illinois: Professional educators Publications, Inc.

More Related