EDD EVALUATION REPORT TEMPLATE (NEW) October 2019

The new one-document capstone document for an evaluation study integrates elements of the current EdD Capstone Template (i.e., the Final Capstone Report) with the existing evaluation report outlines. The purpose of the change is to minimize repetitive content and enable you to focus on one comprehensive document. This annotated template will help guide the development of your final Evaluation Report, which will constitute the sole document required for committee and school review (Milestones 4 and 5).The one-document Evaluation Report template is comprised of the components listed below. Guidelines with explanatory details for each of the components are included. As always, exact headings, content, and/or sequencing of the report may vary depending on the type of evaluation conducted and your evaluation model. If adjustments are necessary, please contact your mentor. (Mentors, please contact your faculty chair with questions.) Regardless how the narrative is organized, all content represented below must be included in the report.Refer to Capella University’s Doctoral Publications: Formatting Guidelines and the APA Publications Manual, 6th edition, throughout the writing process.

Important: Before submitting the report, ensure your site and participants are de-identified and delete all instructions, including this page.

NOTE: Performance Improvement Leadership (PIL) learners should consult with their mentors and the EdD Capstone Deliverable Guide suggested evaluation report elements that may not be included this template. PIL learners conducting an ROI Impact Study as their capstone should also consult their mentors and the ROI Impact Study guidance in the EdD Capstone Deliverable Guide to meet the requirements of both the capstone report and the ROI Institute.

***********

Title PageFor information on how to develop an appropriate title for the report, refer to the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition guidelines (section 2.01). Foremost among these is the need for the title to serve as a standalone, informative statement of the main focus of the study, and to include a maximum of 12 words. Consult the APA Manual for helpful do’s and don’ts.

I-READY PROGRAM EVALUATION

DOUBLE-SPACED; TOP LINE ABOUT 3 INCHES FROM TOP OF PAGE

by

CK

MENTOR NAME ALL CAPS, Degree, Faculty Mentor and Chair

FACULTY NAME ALL CAPS, Degree, Committee Member

FACULTY NAME ALL CAPS, Degree, Committee Member

PhD, Dean, School of Education

A Doctoral Capstone Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

University

Month Year [of final school approval]

© Learner Name, Year

Abstract

Schools are committed to enhancing each student’s learning experience while helping them reach

their targeted achievement level. To achieve this, schools invest in online instructional support

programs to enhance student experiences and ultimately improve institutional retention rates. i-

Ready is an online instructional program that creates group settings for teachers and provides

individualized lessons based on students’ needs. This study evaluated the impact of i-Ready

Reading instruction in an elementary school, specifically its effectiveness in enhancing the

academic experience of students.(How many grades involved?) The analysis was based on the

Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model and the participants were 40 administrators

and teachers who volunteered to provide feedback on the program’s effectiveness. Additionally,

student assessment and online program usage data from 975 students were analyzed. ((what are

the results/findings? The 400-word limit for the abstract))

Dedication

I would like to express my gratitude to my family: my son, mother, father, sisters,

grandmother, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, close friends, and my FSU cohort 21

classmates. Thank you for your support. I am who I am because of your love and prayers.

iv

Acknowledgments

First, giving honor to God, who is the light of my life, I'd like to say I'm glad to be in the

house of the Lord one mo' time. Cause he brought me from a mighty long way. I could have been

dead, sleeping in my grave, but God is good all the time, and all the time, God is good. He's a

bridge over troubled waters. He's a mother to the motherless, and a father to the fatherless, a

doctor in a sickroom, and a lawyer in the courtroom! He's the lily of the valley, a bright

and morning star!

He got up early one Sunday morning, with all power in his hands.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT [Hit Tab to position page numbers]

Program or Process Description (Use either program or process)

Organizational Context

Rationale for the Evaluation

Review of the Literature

SECTION 2. EVALUATION METHODS

Evaluation Plan-

Stakeholders, Participants, and Target Audience

Evaluation Questions

Data Collection and Procedures-

Data Analysis Methods

Limitations

Ethical Considerations

SECTION 3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Data Analysis

Findings

Recommendations

Conclusion

vi

REFERENCES

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Add the title [single-spaced if longer than one line] and page number [xx]

Table 2. Title [xx]

Leave one full space between entries.

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Add the title [single-spaced if longer than one line] and page number [xx]

Figure 2. Title [xx]

Leave one full space between entries. Do not remove the section break that follows this

paragraph.

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NOTE: For Section Headings, use ALL CAPS BOLDFACE as described in the Doctoral

Publications: Formatting Guidelines. All other headings follow APA levels of headings: Level 1

(centered, bolded, uppercase and lowercase); Level 2 (flush left, bolded, uppercase and

lowercase); Level 3, 4, or 5 headings, follow APA Manual section 3.03. Paragraph text below

each heading is double-spaced with an indented first line.

1. Arrange the summary in the same order as the evaluation report, with the same major

headings. Include sub-headings if the information under the sub-heading will provide

necessary summary information for the reader. Generally, you can summarize an entire

section without including sub-headings.

2. Summarize each section with up to five sentences, including the same details and

conclusions as in the report.

3. Do not include technical language or jargon. The language in the summary should be

generic enough for any reader, and at a level appropriate for ease of understanding

without further research.

4. A typical executive summary is 10% of the length of the report. The executive summary

should be written so that it can be read independently of the report. It must not refer by

number to figures, tables, or references contained elsewhere in the report.

5. If the evaluation report includes recommendations for improvement or resolution of a

problem, choose at least one and include reasons for choosing that recommendation. If

appropriate, mention one or two other recommendations/resolutions and explain why

they would be good second choices.

1

Background and Context In 2010, Maryland implemented College and Career Readiness

(CCRS) a set of standards aligned to the curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and

instructional practices to promote students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The

curriculum prepares students for success in literacy and mathematics. ACT (2011) defines being

college and career ready as the level of preparation a student needs to be ready to enroll and

succeed in without remediation the first year in a credit-bearing course at a two or four-year

institution or in a trade or technical school.

Program or Process The objective of this project was to evaluate the impact of teacher

collaboration and College and Career Readiness in the Small Town School District was

evaluated. Data were collected through a questionnaire powered by Qualtrics Research Services,

and, the questionnaire was written using a forced-choice format. The results indicated a need for

a structured teacher collaboration model for the school and the district.

2

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Technology has transformed education, learning, and classroom interactions in ways that

few could have anticipated. Digital technologies, mobile devices, digital recording devices, data

logging equipment, interactive whiteboards, and web 2.0 technologies are some of the

technologies responsible for this transformation. Most education institutions and policymakers

contend that these technologies support learning, help students develop 21st-century skills, and

prepare them to become life-long learners and responsible digital citizens. The transformation

has also seen learning become more grounded in best practice, trying to engage students in many

ways to improve knowledge of concepts and teach specific skills in a culturally responsive

context.

Online instructional support programs have, over the years, been extensively used, and

most of these programs enhance student experiences. Such programs allow teachers to interact

with students through individualized learning that is guided by the needs of the students.

Additionally, according to Crawley and Fetzner (2013), such programs have a significant impact

on academic performance. This is because several instructional services, including tutoring,

assessment, and counseling can be delivered through such programs to enhance the student’s

academic outcomes. This is more useful, especially for institutions with large numbers of

students requiring individualized attention (Shikulo et al., 2019).

Based on the utility of these services, this section introduces the i-Ready web-based

instructional program, which provides individualized lessons that are specifically established on

the needs of the students. This section includes a brief introduction to the participating

elementary school, which utilizes the i-Ready Diagnostic and Instructional Program K-5 to

reinforce and enrich students in Reading and Math. According to Lewis (2018), i-Ready is

3

effective at supplementing and customizing instruction to meet individual student needs.

However, evidence on its effectiveness for reading instruction and assessment is scarce and it

would be useful to complete an evaluation of the program’s performance in reading. Lastly, the

section presents an overview of the literature on online instructional support programs that have

been used in various contexts over the years and those that are in existence today.

Program Description

The evaluated program is the i-Ready web-based instructional program. The program provides

various learning tools designed to enhance learners’ experience in reading and mathematics by

using customized assessment and instructional materials. It has an instructional suite in which

instructors/teachers can address multiple instructional goals. i-Ready noted in its promotional

literature that it would save teachers time, minimize learning and instructional complexities, and

enable educators to provide differentiated instructions. Some of the original claims of the

program include enhancing one-on-one, teacher-student interactions, providing personalized

educational instructions, and allow students more contact time with the academic materials. i-

Ready instruction is intended to be used in conjunction with i-Ready Diagnostic which monitors

student progress and identifies student performance. This diagnostic information helps target

student-specific intervention, which can be provided through i-Ready Instruction. (How this

program was implemented in the research site???) This study will utilize a summative

evaluation, which focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of the program. The basis of the

evaluation focused on various elements of the program, including goals and structure, to identify

whether it improved the learning outcomes.

Organizational Context

4

The participating elementary school is located in Harnett County, North Carolina and is

among the oldest schools in the county. It includes kindergarten through fifth-grade students.

The school has 965 students, nearly double from 2004, and has great diversity among its

students and staff. It has been included in the top 100 elementary schools in the state due to its

high performance in classroom tests. In 2016-2017, the district recorded 53.7% of first graders

who demonstrated grade-level reading comprehension while 54.5% of second graders

demonstrated grade-level reading comprehension (Harnett County Schools, 2018). Also, in

2018-2019, the district reported 70.1% of first graders who demonstrated reading comprehension

at grade level and 76.7% of second graders who demonstrated reading comprehension at grade

level. Grade level performance for grades 3-8 for the District in reading was an average of 51%

in 2017-2018 and 51% in 2018-2019.

In a school letter addressed to parents, the school announced it would continue to focus

on its math and reading score outcomes, using Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark

Assessments in K-5 and mClass Assessments in K-3 to find students’ level and provide

guided literacy instruction. Additionally, the school indicated it would include a Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy into its curricula to challenge students to be critical thinkers. While

these measures are laudible, the school decision-makers ultimately decided i-Ready

would be implemented in order to drive instructional changes in the classroom based on

the data, i ncrease in the practice and support of NC State Standards and use the data

from the lessons to support supplemental and intensive intervention groups.

5

The Rationale for the Evaluation

The i-Ready program provides various capabilities including access to educational

content for mathematics and reading; capacity for continuous student-teacher interactions even

outside school hours; and enhanced teacher awareness of the student individual strengths,

abilities, and weaknesses due to the program’s 1-1 interaction models (Curriculum Associates,

2019). These benefits make the program a good addition to the resources of the participating

school since the program improves the overall experiences of students and subsequently result in

better academic performance. Although evidence from its use in other schools in the district also

supports the mentioned benefits, there has not been a formal evaluation of this program in any of

the schools in the district.

The i-Ready program has been evaluated by various authors, particularly on its

effectiveness for instruction and assessment in mathematics. In a study by Lewis (2018), it was

determined that i-Ready could be effective at supplementing and customizing instruction to meet

individual student needs. Through the program, teachers could build capacity and develop

professionally to support improvement in student performance. Aguilar (2019) also confirmed

the effectiveness of the program for mathematics. Despite the evidence of the effectiveness of i-

Ready in Mathematics instruction and assessment, evidence on its effectiveness for reading

instruction and assessment is scarce. It would thus be useful to complete an evaluation of the

program’s performance in reading.

The school is committed to enhancing each student’s learning experience while helping

them reach their targeted achievement level. A goal of the school is to have all students on grade

level or above grade level in reading at the end of each school year and for students to score a

level 3 or higher on the End of Grade, for students in grades 3-5. An overview of the data from

6

2017 to 2018, 2018 -2019, and 2019 to 2020 does show improvement in terms of students who

have been below grade level. However, the growth pattern is not consistent from grade level to

grade level. One intent of conducting this program evaluation was to determine if the district

should continue to invest in the program school-wide or if we should invest in another learning-

based program. i-Ready is only paid for by the county for grades 4 and 5. The principal of the

school pays for the digital platform of i-Ready for grades K-3 from other school funds.

In this study, i-Ready was evaluated based on its potential impact on students using the

Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model described by Spaulding (2013). The CIPP

evaluation model is a program evaluation model developed by Daniel Stufflebeam in the early

1960s. The model was used to evaluate the effectiveness of i-Ready. The model encompasses

four evaluation approaches— context, input, process, and product—that allow teachers and

administrators to respond to various informational and decision-making needs. The context

approach laid the foundation for the entire evaluation of i-Ready. The input evaluation approach

of i-Ready provided information for determining the resources used to meet the goals of the

program. The process evaluation of i-Ready was used to assess the program plan as prescribed in

the input evaluation. Lastly, the product evaluation of i-Ready was used to assess the outcomes

of the program in accordance with the program’s objectives. Therefore, a complete evaluation of

i-Ready allowed for a review of the program and to make important decisions if the use of the i-

Ready program is beneficial to the students.

Review of the Literature

Online instructional support programs have been used in various contexts over the years,

and many such programs exist today. According to Britto and Rush (2013), many of these

programs have been used to enhance student experiences and ultimately improve institutional

7

retention rates. The programs allow teachers to interact more closely with students, offering them

continuous aid in areas that they find challenging. i-Ready, for example, creates group settings

for teachers and provides individualized lessons based on students’ needs. Similarly, Crawley

and Fetzner (2013) also point out the impact of such interactive programs on students’ academic

performance. The range of instructional services that can be delivered through such platforms

includes tutoring, assessment, academic advisory, disabled learning support, and academic

counseling, among others (Shikulo et al., 2019). Each of these services enhances the student

experiences and can help in realizing positive academic outcomes. Shikulo et al. (2019)

recommend the implementation of such programs for institutions that have large numbers of

students who require continuous individual support. The participating school fits these criteria, as

it has a student population of over 900 students for whom the program is accessible.

Instructional and assessment programs are evaluated based on their potential impacts on

students. Eady and Lockyer (2013) explore some of the technologies that have been used in

recent times to create interactive online classrooms. A tool such as Webquests provides an

instructional module for students that orients students to the class, introduces the learning

outcomes, and provides a summary of what has been covered within the class (Eady & Lockey,

2013). This indicates what should be considered during program evaluation for i-Ready.

Neumann et al. (2019) explore the phenomenon of online assessment and specify the different

elements that comprise an effective assessment system. These elements include consideration of

developmental appropriateness, psychometric considerations, and administration modes.

Technology provides avenues for solving the challenges entailed in the intricate process of

assessment in a traditional setting (Nu-man & Porter, 2017).

i-Ready Evaluation

8

CIPP Model

Quality education has become a major concern globally. Thus, to improve the quality of

the education systems, an evaluation must be performed; without such measures, errors and

mistakes may remain in systems, leading to a decline in the quality of education. The Context,

Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model, is a popular program evaluation model developed by

Daniel Stufflebeam in the early 1960s. The model provides a systematic way of looking at an

educational program and its development and application process. The model was initially

developed for evaluating the curriculum development process; however, it has been effectively

used in evaluating school programs (Stufflebeam, 2000). In the case of a program evaluation, the

knowledge, skills, habits, attitudes acquired by the students throughout the educative process are

regarded as the actual products. Therefore, in this study, CIPP was used to evaluate the i-Ready

program. The model itself encompasses four evaluation approaches that allow teachers and

administrators to respond to a large diversity of informational and decision-making needs

(Stufflebeam, 2000). To use this model, one does not have to use each of the four approaches,

but all four are useful when researching the improvement of a program. The four approaches of

the CIPP model are context, input, process, and product.

Figure 1

The CIPP Model for Evaluation (Stufflebeam, 2000).

9

Context

This entails examining and describing the program context that is being evaluated, which

in this case, is the i-Ready program. The program objectives, mission, and goals are also

determined at this point. The philosophy with which the program was started and the current

status of the program concerning its ideology is evaluated. Thus, the CIPP model evaluates the

effectiveness of a program within a given context (Stufflebeam, 2000). The context evaluation

approach of the CIPP model evaluates the need, problem, asset, and opportunity within a

situation (Stufflebeam, 2000). Context evaluation lays the foundation for the entire evaluation,

which is crucial in understanding the issue from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders as well

as their needs (Stufflebeam, 2000). This phase helps in identifying key personnel and resources

that are already in place.

Input

Concerning a program evaluation, activities under input include, a detailed description of

all the inputs and resources required to evaluate the program (Stufflebeam, 2000). There are

10

numerous resources when conducting an evaluation, including classrooms. Video aids,

workshops, and library are all essential facilities. Human resources, including teachers,

administrative staff, non-teaching staff are also important for the evaluation. The program is

focused on specific developmental aspects of the students, hence, various inputs that are of

different kinds and geared towards social, emotional, and physical development are also

important (Stufflebeam, 2000). Therefore, the input evaluation approach of the CIPP model is

used to evaluate the decision-making of how facilities, human resources, and budget are

determined and constituted to achieve the goal of the program (Stufflebeam, 2000). Input

evaluation allows researchers to examine the correlation between resources, staff, equipment,

and related educational activities. The importance of the input stage is to fix the problem and to

provide information for determining the resources, including time, resources, human resources,

materials needed for curriculum and content, and evaluating the quality of the program and how

to meet the goals of the program (Khawaja, 2001).

Process

The process included how the program is being implemented in the school, which is a

very crucial phase, and the inputs previously described are utilized appropriately to support the

achievement of the desired product (Stufflebeam, 2000). The evaluator of the program gains

information on exactly what happens during the implementation of the program, in this phase,

implementation decisions are also undertaken. The evaluation process must be systematic.

Therefore, the process evaluation approach of the CIPP model is used as a formative, ongoing

assessment of the program plan as prescribed in the input evaluation and documentation

(Stufflebeam, 2000). Process evaluation entails the collection of quantitative and qualitative data

11

for continuous monitoring of program implementation (Spaulding, 2013). In the study, questions

such as whether the participating school is using i-Ready as directed are discussed.

Product

The final part of the model is the product evaluation approach, which entails examining

the outcome of the program (Stufflebeam, 2000). The most critical outcome is the impact of the

programs on student performance. However, the students’ scores are not necessarily the

outcome, but rather the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that are gained by the students

are the product. Therefore, the product evaluation approach of the CIPP model is used to collect

and interpret information and judge the worth or merit of a program relative to information

gathered during the context, input, and process evaluations (Stufflebeam, 2000). Product

evaluation focuses on the summative outcomes of the program in accordance with the program’s

objectives. This allows stakeholders to determine whether the program is a good investment. i-

Ready has been beneficial to the school over the past few years. This program allows

stakeholders to review data and make important decisions for students. A complete evaluation

using the CIPP model will allow the collection and analysis of data to make effective decisions

regarding whether the use of the i-Ready program is beneficial.

Theoretical Framework

An evaluation of the program’s impacts on students will determine if the theoretical

framework supports the achievement of the program’s objectives. For one, the diagnostic and

personalized approach used to integrate assessment with instructions is a suitable starting point

for the i-Ready program. The program is supported by Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia

Learning, which proposes that learning is "an active process of filtering, selecting, organizing,

and integrating information based upon prior knowledge” (Mayer, 2020, page number unknown).

12

In addition to Mayer’s theory, the constructivism learning theory, suggesting that learners could

excel in the i-Ready program by using prior experience to construct knowledge, also provides a

framework for the development and implementation of the i-ready program. Experience and

connections are important in the learning process, and both can be assessed in the program.

The i-Ready program integrates assessment with instruction using a diagnostic and

personalized instruction approach. The principle behind Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of

Multimedia Learning is that rather than from words alone, people can learn more deeply through

words and pictures. However, a simple addition of words to pictures does not necessarily support

effective multimedia learning. The theory is based on three main assumptions when applied in

multimedia learning: 1) auditory and visual channels are two separate channels involved in

information processing (also referred to as a dual-coding theory); 2) each of the two channels has

a finite capacity, and 3) learning entails an active process associated with the selection, filtering,

organizing, and integrating relevant information that is linked to previous knowledge (Mayer,

2019).

The theory is based on how humans are only able to process a limited amount of

information in each of the channels at a given time (Mayer, 2019). As the information comes in,

humans can make sense of it and create mental representations from the information. Sensory,

working, and long-term are the three memory stores (Mayer, 2019). This is further used to

describe how the brain’s interpretation of multimedia presentation of pictures, words, and

auditory information does not occur in a mutually exclusive manner. Rather, this information is

selected and organized in a highly dynamic manner leading to mental constructs that are logical

(Mayer, 2019). The importance of learning, upon the integration of new information based on

previous knowledge, is elaborated. The successful implementation of the i-Ready program

13

depends on the students’ ability to build mental representations from the words and pictures

provided by the program (Silva, 2016). Through the i-Ready program, the students can then learn

more deeply compared with traditional modes of learning comprising of words only.

Ernst von Glasersfeld (1974) greatly contributed to research in science education, through

his great contributions to radical constructivism. Von Glasersfeld’s subversive ideas immensely

influenced transformations in the education sector, including teaching and learning, research

methods, and curriculum (von Glasersfeld, 2013). To further understand this theory, an

understanding of the flow of information is important. The term radical constructivism defines

information as not being transferred from one person to the other but rather transferred from the

teacher to the student.???? Further, the learning experience through the proposed program

trickles down to the student based on their knowledge and subjective interpretation of their

experience (Von Glasersfeld,1989). The students can construct knowledge, understanding, and

are in a position to associate with their personal experiences and ideas. Further, students

assimilate by using new experiences to knowledge and experiences that are already in existence

(von Glasersfeld, 2013). This means that the current programs will form yesterday’s experiences

to build on. Radical constructivism can therefore be considered to help the students create

meaning and develop an understanding through active learning (Von Glasersfeld, 2013).

Students' personal experience and interpretation of a program define the theory. The i-

Ready program is supported by the constructivism learning theory since it is focused on the idea

that learners construct knowledge for themselves based on their experiences (Fernando &

Marikar, 2017). i-Ready program diagnostics assess the learners' prior knowledge which is also

influenced by the learner's experience—both cognitive and constructivist—then personalizes

instruction based on their learning needs. This theory also supports logical and conceptual

14

growth among the students and it is based on the underlying principle of the role which

connections and experiences play in a student’s learning process (Jumaat et al., 2017). The

theory further describes how students produce knowledge and form meanings related to their

past experiences. However, students require accommodation and assimilation in the construction

of new knowledge which in this case is the use of the new i-Ready program (Pardjono, 2016).

Through assimilation, a student can incorporate new experiences into their old experiences,

which may alter their initial perceptions of the i-Ready program. For accommodation, the student

reframes the new experiences into an already existing mental capacity and this further supports

their use of the i-Ready program.

Evaluation Model/Type of Evaluation

Applying a goal-oriented evaluation model ensures the focus is maintained on the

assessment of the program's feasibility. Establishing the program's effectiveness based on its

level of improvements on coordination and instructions’ access is an appropriate approach to

diagnosing possible future trends and changes in the dynamics of online programs.

The use of the CIPP evaluation model enables teachers to judge the value of a program

(Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017). The model is used to evaluate a program’s Context, Input,

Process, and Product. The context evaluation is useful in making decisions related to planning

lessons and allows the evaluator to identify the needs and resources of learners to provide a

beneficial program. The input evaluation involves the collection of information regarding the

plan of the program, the program’s strategy, and responsiveness to learners' needs. Process

evaluation assesses the program’s quality of implementation. The program's activities are

monitored and evaluated to provide feedback on how activities are carried out, the extent to

which the activities meet learners' needs, and how to improve the program. Product evaluation

15

assesses the effects (positive and negative) of the program on its target users. It evaluates both

the intended and unintended outcomes. The CIPP model is used to guide the evaluation of a

program by assessing various elements.

Distributed Leadership Theory

Indeed, the distributed leadership theory is a vital element that helps stakeholders

understand leaders’ roles in the program’s success. An inherent willingness to implement and see

through the program must come from school principals, who are also tasked with developing

leadership strategies observed by individual teachers. As a result, seeing leadership from a

distributed perspective certainly guarantees the successful implementation of the i-Ready

program.

The applicable theory for the specialization is the Distributed Leadership Theory. This

theory emerged in the early 2000s from a combination of different existing theories that

included, anthropological, sociological, and cognitive theories (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016).

According to Spillane et al. (2001), this theory emerged mostly from the Distributed Cognition

and Activity Theory and further influences by the theory of communities of practice. The theory

was conceived as a theoretical framework for use in the study of school leadership and states that

principals are responsible for building leadership strategies for the entire organization (Hermann,

2016). Therefore, this theory facilitates understanding of how leadership functions in the

implementation of the i-Ready program in a school. It focuses on how people, especially

teachers, are engaged in tasks distributed across the school. The theory helps teachers to see

leadership from a distributed perspective and its role in providing effective leadership for the

implementation of the i-Ready program. Leadership based on the distributed Leadership Theory

means considering leadership activity as a situated and social process.

16

System Change and Theory

The system and change theory’s perspective illustrate how leaders (teachers and

principals) must first be knowledgeable about the school system before implementing the i-

Ready program and solving school problems. One of the aspects of this theory that applied to the

project was the need for leaders (in this case teachers) to possess certain skills such as

adaptability and self-organization to design an i-Ready program and confidently change the

learning process. Without these skills, teachers would struggle to adjust to the learning

environment and convince their students about the need for a change.

The systems and change theory (citation) address social and organizational problems, their

causes, and how to deal with them systematically (Fullan, 2016). This theory is defined by six

principles that include understanding the needs and assets, engaging multiple actors, mapping the

system, doing it together, distributing leadership, and fostering a learning culture. The approach

to solving corporate problems depends on the level of persistence, therefore, implementation of

the program requires managerial knowledge to provide solutions effectively. The theory refers to

leaders as the key players in effecting change in an organization, and knowledge of the system is

essential (Thelen, 2005). The systematic application of the theory involves following some

necessary steps, such as understanding the context, critical thinking, and learning and adapting to

change.

Systems are influenced by the environment and the purposes of a project concerning the

leadership effects. Developing one part of the system may affect the entire system, and the

changes could be unpredictable, therefore it is critical to learn the system before effecting the

changes (Thelen, 2005). Systems developed with learning and adaptation can be used to prevent

non-performance in an organization. Some systems support each other while some are

17

independent depending on the operational dynamics and purpose. The systems used for

evaluation in an organization are critical as they determine the level of the project’s

effectiveness. The theory is about developing applicable principles to maintain active systems in

an organization.

Leaders are required to study certain skills such as self-organization, adaptability, and

complexity for better systems management (Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009). Then the current

project in this study relies on systems functionality and requires monitoring and assessment at

the various stages of change implementation. This theory supports the i-Ready program as an

intentional process that has been designed to alter existing components and structures in the

learning process (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007). This is important because it helps to deal with

specific problems in the learning process and the i-Ready program will create the change that

many want to see. The Systems and Change Theory illustrates the need to collaborate during the

implementation of the i-Ready program and involve all the beneficiaries, in this case, both the

students and teachers and avoid relying on top-down leadership.

In conclusion, an evaluation of the program’s theoretical framework, evaluation model,

and the two theories show that the best possible approach was used to implement the i-Ready

program. The evaluation also revealed alternative theories whose guidelines support the online

instruction program. As a result, the web-based online instruction program provided exceptional

instructive skills based on the assessment conducted on students. With the instruction path

characterized by fun and excitement, supporting and developing creative learning processes is

attainable through adjusting the curriculum and models used to pass information to the learner.

18

SECTION 2: EVALUATION METHODS

This study evaluated the i-Ready program for its effectiveness in enhancing the academic

experience of students. Specifically, for the program evaluation to be performed successfully,

previous diagnostic data from i-Ready, the current year’s i-Ready data showing the number of

students who were below grade level, and a teacher survey was used as the evaluation methods.

This section, therefore, presents the evaluation plan, which describes how the evaluation of the

implementation of i-Ready was performed, including the timelines, the participants, and the data

collection process. The data sources, which included two i-Ready diagnostic tests administered

in 2020-2021, previous years’ diagnostic scores, average time spent on i-Ready per grade level,

and teacher input on the use of the program, were are also described in detail. The data collection

process based on the data sources, as well as the data analysis plan, which determines whether

the i-ready claims and school goals are met through the current implementation of the i-ready

program are discussed in detail. The section further describes the role of the i-Ready program

stakeholders, the study participants, and the target audience for the current study. Lastly, the

section describes the evaluation questions guiding the current study and further illustrates why

the questions were chosen.

Evaluation Plan

The purpose of the evaluation plan is to guide the process determining the effectiveness

of i-Ready, a web-based instructional program as it is currently being implemented. Data was

collected through the diagnostic tests 1 and 2 that measures different student abilities in English

language with their skills in phonological awareness, phonics, high-frequency words,

vocabulary, and comprehension evaluated using the i-Ready program. The i-Ready program

enabled the collection of quantitative data on the different diagnostic scores of various students.

19

Teacher surveys enabled the collection of qualitative because they facilitated the extraction of

themes and attitudes of the teachers, as implementers of the program towards i-Ready, and its

effectiveness in student assessment and student development in learning abilities. Open ended

surveys enable teachers to provide and develop their insights about the i-Ready program that will

hence facilitate the extraction of prevalent themes leveraging the program’s application and

effectiveness in student assessment. Therefore, quantitative data collection through extracting

data from the diagnostic tests and the qualitative data acquired through teacher surveys are the

essential components encompassed in the evaluation plan that will assess the factors

underscoring i-Ready program’s effectiveness.

The program i-Ready was evaluated using previous diagnostic data (quantitative) from i-

Ready, the current year’s i-Ready data showing the number of students who were below grade

level, and a teacher survey (Qualitative). The i-Ready diagnostic test identifies the student’s

ability level, shows the specific skills students need to learn to accelerate their growth and charts

a personalized learning path for the student. Therefore, the effectiveness of the implementation

process of i-Ready was defined by whether the i-Ready claims were met, having more students

move from the “below grade level” in reading on the second diagnostic test administered, and

whether the implementation of the program supported the accomplishment of the school’s goals.

A score for each student in five reading skills, including phonological awareness, phonics, high-

frequency words, vocabulary, and comprehension was determined to evaluate the program. Also,

the program was evaluated by calculating data from student’s time spent on i-Ready. Finally, a

teacher survey will evaluate the program by determining how the program enhances learning

from the teachers’ perspective. The total evaluation process lasted approximately 18 weeks to

conduct and finalize this research.

20

Table 1

Evaluation Timeline

Steps Duration

(weeks/months)

Gather quantitative data of the scores from diagnostic tests 1 & 2 for

years 2019-2020 and test 1 for 2020-2021 conducted on a number of

students.

Weeks 1-2

Week 18

Organize and tabulate the scores from 2019-2020 diagnostic tests 1

and 2 and for 2020-2021 diagnostic test one on a spreadsheet carefully

aligning each student’s scores for every year.

Week 1 and Week 18

Hold a meeting for staff to explain the significance of the research,

underpin their role in the process, and request them to complete a

survey about the use of i-Ready in the school.

Week 12

Surveys in form of Google forms will be sent out to staff through

email for them to complete and resend them online.

Week 12 or Week 13

The curriculum director will collect the completed surveys from the

staff and record the qualitative responses and quantitative data ensuing

from the staff responses about the i-ready program.

Week 15

Collected survey data will be analyzed and any themes that emerge

from the analysis will be pinpointed for further investigation.

Week 15-16

Compile, organize and analyze all the diagnostic data from the current

year (2020-2021) including test 1 and test 2 and the previous year

(2019-2020) of student test scores. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation

Week 16-18

21

of the tabled results and invite the curriculum team to review it and

provide necessary feedback about the i-ready program’s effectiveness.

A report will be developed from the analyzed data and the PowerPoint

presentation provided alongside the report.

Week 18

Stakeholders, Participants, and Target Audience

Every research is guided by the interests of the stakeholders, participants, and the desires

of the target audience, requiring the researcher to develop a detailed framework that will

encompass their interests, needs, and expected outcomes. Stakeholders are organizations or

people interested in a researcher’s project or those who impact or are leveraged by its outcomes

including those supportive, reluctant, and critical to the research work (Boaz et al., 2018).

Participants are research subjects from whom valuable quantitative and qualitative data is

extracted through various data collection methods based on their consent and positive receptivity

towards the issue or theme under investigation. The researcher reserves the right to recruit and

admit a participant in their research based on their willingness and eligibility to provide the

required data required by the researcher unbiased (Wittmayer& Schäpke, 2014). Target audience

in a research work encompass a group of people with common demographics, interests, and

behavior that the research outcome mainly impacts or those who will be interested in utilizing

research findings in their operations. The stakeholders, participants, and target audience have

helped me benefit from their experiences, interests, and perceptions towards i-Ready program.

Stakeholders

22

According to the Glossary of Educator Reform (2014), a stakeholder is anyone who

invests in the welfare and success of a school and its students, including administrators, teachers,

staff members, students, parents, families, community members, local business leaders, and

elected officials such as school board members, city councilors, and state representatives.

Stakeholder identification and analysis are essential steps in a project and implementation;

therefore, it is vital to identify these stakeholders’ individual needs and roles (Todd & Magleby,

2005) as it helps to improve the quality of the project by making stakeholders collaborators

rather than obstacles. For the stakeholder analysis of the i-Ready implementation program, a

role-based approach is more suitable as the project team requires specific stakeholder roles. The

students, their parents, the school administration, IT technicians, and the i-Ready developers are

all stakeholders in this project as they are directly responsible for the successful implementation

of the i-Ready learning program across all grades. The other main stakeholders in this project are

parents, who are concerned about their children’s performance and who will also benefit

indirectly from the study; the school administration, as student success translates into school

success; and teachers, who will use the technology to improve their interactions with students

and thus enhance the effectiveness of their lessons. Curriculum developers are also stakeholders

in this project, though they will only change the curriculum under the direction of the state’s

laws. Since IT technicians must also coordinate with the school to help eliminate hurdles that

might disrupt the use of the devices, they are also stakeholders in the project.

Participants

A participant is someone willing or in this specific study, unknowingly willing, to

provide specific information. Participants in this study consist of teachers and previously

acquired student data.

23

Teachers

Teachers play a critical role as participants in the study through the assessment of their attitudes

and inclination towards the i-Ready program. The teachers are involved in program evaluation

by completing a survey focused on answering questions revealing their classroom use of i-Ready

and their opinions regarding the effectiveness of the current implementation of the i-Ready

program. Participating in the surveys is meaningful to teachers’ professional development as it

provides the platform to reflect on their instructional patterns and behaviors as related to i-Ready

program and its objectives, and thus stimulate them to improve their instructional practices for

efficient implementation of the essential program. All teachers in grades Kindergarten through

5th grade use the i-Ready program at this school. Consent forms from the school administrators

and district officials has been granted authorizing the orchestration of the research, incorporating

teachers as indispensable participants in the program’s evaluation. Essential data that the

teachers will provide during the study is on their views on i-Ready’s effectiveness, challenges

impeding its efficiency, their ability to manage its requirements, and their concern on the

program impacting students’ performance and behavior. I-Ready provides a dashboard with

reports that give teachers a foundational understanding of students’ strengths and areas of need

and thus it will yield effective to assess teacher’s alignment towards the program and its

effectiveness in student evaluation. The program also supports teachers in whole group and

small group lessons.

Students

Approximately 975 students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade will be considered

indirect participants, not direct participants, in this evaluation, because the students’ data will be

24

used. The students themselves will not be identified nor asked any questions. All students in

grades Kindergarten through 5th grade use the i-Ready program at this school. The program

provides engaging learning games and addresses learning gaps the student may have, and thus

essential in the indirect extraction of student data on their English skills such as phonological

awareness, phonics, high-frequency words, vocabulary, and comprehension abilities. Through

participating in the i-Ready program activities like the language learning games, students

indirectly participated in the research because the recorded diagnostics in the dashboard are

harnessed in the evaluation. Therefore, students are indirect participants in this study with their

data as recorded in the i-Ready program’s dashboard utilized in the analysis.

Target Audience

The target audience for the evaluation report includes school administrators, instructional

leaders, and lead district members, all of whom serve to oversee education. These officials

include but are not limited to principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches and teachers,

and board members. School officials will acquire critical information about the effectiveness

and relevance of the i-Ready program.

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation delved on the effectiveness of the i-Ready program in enhancing student’s

English skills and learning development. The following questions were developed to evaluate

whether the program conforms to objectives.

1. Are there supports and systems underscoring 1:1 teachers and students’ interactions to

enhance student learning and language mastery?

25

2. Does the school provide necessary supports and responsive strategies that give learners

new enhanced learning experiences that ultimately improve their academic diagnostic

scores at the beginning of the subsequent academic year?

3. Did the academic diagnostic scores for the students using the program improve at the

beginning of the subsequent year based on the time students spent on i-Ready lessons in

the previous year?

4. Are there suitable backings underpinning the personalization of educational instruction

for better outcomes?

5. Do instructional teams harness student learning data gained from the i-Ready dashboard

to identify and underscore student’s needs and provide necessary instructional support or

enhancement?

6. Did the contact time between academic content and users increase?

7. Did the school provide enough interaction time between learners and teachers through

assessing each student at least three times each year to determine progress towards

standard-based objectives?

The following evaluation questions guided this study. These questions will be available

to teachers in an online format (Google Forms). The study questions developed for this study

included questions intended to rate the teachers’ attitude towards the i-Ready program, and these

were closed-ended questions rated on a Likert scale. Open-ended questions were also used to

guide the interviews with the teachers and were geared towards finding out their thoughts on the

effectiveness of the current implementation of the i-Ready program. These questions were

developed by the researcher with the sole purpose of including questions that could accurately

measure the participant's opinions and experiences. The researcher reviewed numerous related

26

studies while developing the questions, to build a strong foundation and avoid ambiguous or

biased questions. To develop the questions, the researcher considered the study topic which is to

evaluate the effectiveness i-Ready program in enhancing the academic experience of students.

Both open-ended questions which provided the teachers with the choice to respond in their own

words, and closed-ended questions, where the researcher provided a list of answer choices were

included.

The exact choice of questions included in this study was developed after reading

numerous previous studies related to the current study topic and numerous discussions with

mentors. These discussions aided in ensuring that the choice of words and phrases expressed the

meaning of the questions to the participants and that they interpreted the questions accordingly.

After ensuring that the listed questions were adequate and in line with the study topic, particular

attention was paid to the order of the questions, for both open and closed-ended questions. This

was achieved by paying attention to the intended effects of the early questions onto subsequent

questions. This was more so for the open-ended questions, which needed to be systematic. The

final list of questions cutting across all the intended areas of the study was shared with an expert

panel who evaluated the questions. All substantial changes made to the questionnaire by the

panel of experts were implemented in the final questionnaire (See Appendix A).

Data Sources and Collection Procedures

Data Sources

The sources of data and evidence that will be used for the evaluation are the two

diagnostic tests administered to the students through i-Ready for the academic year 2020-2021,

previous years’ diagnostic scores, average time spent on i-Ready per grade level, and teacher

input on the use of the program via a survey. The i-Ready program determines a score for each

27

student in the following English skills: phonological awareness, phonics, high-frequency words,

vocabulary, and comprehension (Curriculum Associates, 2019). Since i-Ready focuses on the

five reading skills, all the five skills were included in the data used to evaluate the program. ,

students’ data on time spent on i-Ready was calculated.

Below are the sources of data aligned with each of the program claims/school goals:

Source 1

Each student’s time spent on i-Ready lessons weekly was recorded in the program’s

dashboard. Students work on weekly lessons that will deliver rigorous instruction and

comprehensive support from teachers that help students achieve greatest educational gains. The

ample time spent in i-Ready lessons enhance the 1:1 interaction between students and teachers

that develop learning experiences that consequently improves their diagnostic scores that are

taken at the beginning of each year to evaluate diverse student abilities. The diagnostic tests are

taken throughout the year through the program’s dashboard, enabling the tracking of student

development efficiently. Therefore, the time that students spend on weekly i-Ready lessons is

recorded in the dashboard to evaluate the 1:1 teacher-student interactions, while diagnostic tests

facilitated by the program are utilized to track student learning development through the

recorded scores taken throughout the year.

Source 2

The teacher survey enabled the extraction of data on how the teachers are utilizing the i-

Ready program to personalize educational instruction. The student data gained from i-Ready

dashboard and classroom observation of students enables instructional teams to identify diverse

students’ needs and devise responsive strategies that support and enhance knowledge gain.

Students work on weekly lessons and the i-Ready program iteratively personalizes their

28

instruction according to their areas of study, degree of understanding, and knowledge retention

capacity. The students who continue to need assistance on a particular topic can get assistance

from their teacher followed by lessons in the i-Ready program. Therefore, i-Ready program can

efficiently track student learning development based on the diagnostic scores, enabling teachers

to personalize instructional strategies to align with the needs of different student groups as noted

in the teacher surveys.

Source 3

Evaluating the school’s commitment on increasing the contact time between academic

content and users required the school to assess each student at least three times each year to

weigh their progress towards standard-based objectives. Diagnostic tests 1 and 2 data were

collected at the beginning of the year and the middle year from i-Ready data that provided the

average time spent on the program per grade level weekly. Data collection from the two

diagnostic tests enabled the comparison of student development between the two timelines. The

teacher surveys enabled the assessment of teachers’ attitudes and drive towards the utilization of

the program and its effectiveness in student evaluation. Therefore, the two i-Ready diagnostic

tests data and teacher surveys enabled the tracking of whether the school was facilitating an

increase in contact time between learners and academic content and also facilitated the tracing of

student development across different periods of the academic year.

Data Collection Procedures

Permission to conduct the study will be obtained from the superintendent and/or his office.

Once permission is granted, the site administrator will interact with other stakeholders who will

in one way or another support this study. The program's productivity will be successfully

implemented through support by the participating school, including encouraging students to do

29

their best, having students work on i-Ready at school, and encourage its use while at home, etc.

The school will support the implementation of the i-Ready program. Successful implementation

will also depend on the support received from different stakeholders in the district. Multiple

people who will support the project will include the instructional Coach, technology facilitator,

teachers, and assistant principal. The school administrators will first identify the specific grades

to be involved in the study, in this case, grade K-5. The teachers will support the project by

participating in the teacher’s survey to provide the needed background information on the use of

the i-Ready program. The instructional coach and the assistant principal support data collection

since they have access to the school’s previous performance records, gather questions to be

included in the teacher survey, and answer questions regarding the use of the i-Ready program.

The school’s performance records will be used to determine the program's effectiveness by

comparing the post-program results against the pre-program results.

The outcome of the evaluation will be significant to school stakeholders and the district at

large. Per Metz (2007) noted that program evaluation is essential in determining the program's

effectiveness towards achieving the school’s specific student learning objectives. In this case,

the program evaluation will be completed to improve learning outcomes for the students. As

such, an evaluation of the program will reveal i-Ready’s strengths and highlight areas that need

to be improved or changed. The evaluation will provide information on who is likely to need

more support by using the program and if there are any resources needed. The evaluation data

will also be useful in providing recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the program.

The evaluation data will be used to compare progress in different schools involved in the i-Ready

program and determine common factors affecting learning within the district. If the assessment

shows that the supplemental reading curriculum is successful, then the i-Ready program can be

30

extended to all other grades in the schools and the entire district. This study will experience no

organizational barriers and will receive a lot of support. This evaluation will be useful beyond

the school and district. Globally, the study will promote the benefits and impact the i-Ready

program can have on an entire school district.

Program evaluation is a useful tool for those who want to enhance the quality of their

programs (Metz, 2007), improve outcomes for the children, answer questions about its

usefulness, and evaluate data that can then be used to improve the program. The outcome of the

evaluation will be significant to the principal, the administrators, the teachers, the participants,

and the community. These individuals need to understand whether the program is beneficial to

learning for the students participating in the project. Once the evaluation is concluded and the

results are presented, stakeholders, district leaders/superintendents, and others will have an

opportunity to discuss and decide whether to keep the program and implement it the following

year, revise it, expand it, or eliminate it. If the assessment shows that the supplemental reading

curriculum is successful, this program can be extended to all other grades in the school district.

The i-Ready program is designed to identify students’ learning needs and customize their

learning processes while monitoring students’ progress. Some of the obstacles likely to impede

successful implementation of the i-Ready program include lack of adequate professional

development among the stakeholders who are required to help in integrating the i-Ready

program into learning. In this case, the majority of the lower grade teachers are likely to lack the

required technical knowledge for using the i-Ready program, and this may be their first time

using the program. Our Instructional Coach will be the teacher’s “go-to” and the representative

from i-Ready assigned to the school. For the most part, there are no major obstacles that will

impede the conduct of the study. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, interruptions to the

31

regular classroom learning have occurred but this will not affect the use of the i-Ready program

since the students can use it online.

Table 3

Data Source Types

Data Source/Type Data Analysis Procedures

Teachers survey data Likert scale scores to rate teachers’ attitude towards the i-Ready

program

Teachers survey data Open-ended question: responses coded and analyzed for emerging

themes

Students assessment

scores

2019-2020 and 2020-2021 Student score from diagnostic test one and

two: compare four sets of scores,

Scores should show a decrease in test 2 of students who were “below

grade level” on test 1.

My goal for this program evaluation was to evaluate i-Ready for its effectiveness in

enhancing the academic experience of students. The program claims to enhance the 1-1

interaction between students and teachers, personalize educational instruction for better

outcomes, and increase the contact time between academic content and the users.

Data Analysis Methods

The sources of data and evidence that will be used for the evaluation are the two

diagnostic tests administered to the students through i-Ready for the academic year 2020-2021,

previous years’ diagnostic scores, average time spent on i-Ready per grade level, and teacher

input on the use of the program via a survey. The i-Ready program determines a score for each

32

student in the following English skills: phonological awareness, phonics, high-frequency words,

vocabulary, and comprehension (Curriculum Associates, 2019). Each student’s score on the

initial diagnostic test were paralleled with their performance on the recent growth checks

conducted via completing a t-test that was devised to evaluate statistical significance of the

variation. Since i-Ready focuses on the five reading skills, all the five skills were included in the

data used to evaluate the program. Students’ data on time spent on i-Ready was calculated.

Teachers’ attitudes towards the program were weighed using a 5 point Likert scales, with their

survey responses coded and analyzed to identify emerging themes. Teachers’ classroom

observatimons about student’s learning development in the i-Ready program and English skills

were recorded in observational sheets containing open-ended comments and checkboxes

sections, facilitating the identification of dominant trends from compiled data and conversational

notes. Therefore, the research data were analyzed through comparison, t-tests, thematic coding,

and the 5-point Likert scale to assess the viability of the i-Ready program, its effectiveness, and

the teacher attitudes towards its utilization in student performance evaluation and efficiency in

facilitating learning development among learners.

Limitations

This program evaluation study has limitations. Firstly, the study faced weakness due to

the uncertainty of how schools operated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of the

students participated in home-learning programs, and most students reported experiencing

difficulties with online learning due to a lack of adequate experience. Similar challenges were

experienced when administering the two diagnostic tests administered through i-Ready. Some

students experienced sudden disruptions while attending to the diagnostic tests such as power

33

outages or network failures thus affecting the continuity of the tests. Since the students worked

from home and were not being closely monitored by the teachers, there were possibilities of

unauthorized access to the exam systems, manipulation of the data, and test results, which

greatly compromised the test standards.

Secondly, the lack of an effective authentication system was another major limitation.

The students using the i-Ready program at home may have received help from family or other

outside sources in taking the diagnostic test since they were not in a structured environment.

There was also the possibility of exploiting certain weaknesses within the I-Ready program to

allow for impersonation. This may pose a potential threat to the internal validity of the study due

to the scores not reflecting the student’s true ability. 

Ethical Issues

As one of the Assistant Principals at the participating school, I was likely to influence the

teachers administering the program, thus leading to potential bias. The participants were

informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any

given time and that no potential harm was expected during their participation. They were

informed that there would not be any financial gain for teachers who consent or decline to

participate.

Privacy and confidentiality of personal information will be guaranteed to the study

participants. Before the start of the study, the participants received written informed consent and

detailed study purpose. An email was sent to all the teachers at the school requesting a meeting

to explain the purpose of the study in evaluating the effectiveness of the i-Ready program and to

also seek their consent to participate in the study. The participants were guaranteed

confidentiality of the collected data, which was not to be shared with any other third party.

34

Pseudonyms were used to refer to the study participants. Students' data also remained

anonymous and only the researcher had access to both the student’s data and the survey

responses. The files containing the data collected were password-protected, and data was kept in

a lockable cabinet for up-to five years after the completion of the study, after which all the data

will be destroyed by shredding.

35

SECTION 3: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This part consist of analysis, findings, recommendations and conclusion. The analysis applied is

descriptive. Key have variables have been analyzed on the basis of frequencies and relative

frequencies. The output has been accompanied by a table, description and graph to show the

distribution.

Data Analysis

Grade you teach

Grade_Teach Frequency Percentage

1st 3 12

2nd 5 20

3rd 5 20

4th 5 20

5th 4 16

CCR/EC/SCMC/Instructional Coach 1 4

K 2 8

Table 1 above shows the distribution of grades the respondents teach. Out of 25 respondents

surveyed, 1st grade had 3 respondents (12%), 2nd grade had 5 respondents (20%), 3rd grade

had 5 respondents (20%), 4th grade had 5 respondents (20%), 5th had 4 respondents (16%),

CCR/EC/SCMC/Instructional Coach grade had 1 respondent (4%) and grade K had 2

respondents (8%). Generally, most respondents came from second, third, fourth and fifth grades.

The figure below, shows this distribution.

Distribution of grades taught by respondents

36

i-Ready claims to enhance the 1:1 interaction between students and teachers

Interaction Student Teacher

Frequenc

y Percentage

No 6 24

Yes 17 68

Table 2 shows the distribution of i-Ready claims to enhance the 1:1 interaction between students

and teachers. According to the table No respondents were 2 (24%) while Yes were 17 (68%).

Generally, from this table of i-Ready claims to enhance the 1:1 interaction between students and

teachers is valid. The bar grapgh below shows this distribution.

Distribution i-Ready claims to enhance the 1:1 interaction between students and teachers.

37

I would encourage other educators to use i-Ready

Rate Frequency Percentage

Agree 10 40

Neutral 3 12

Strongly

Agree

12 48

Table 3 shows the distribution on how the repondent would encourage other educators to use i-

Ready. Out of 25 respondents, 10 respondents agreed (40%), 3 respondents were neutral (12%)

while 12 respondents strongly agreed (48%). Therefore, it is clear that the respondents would

strongly recomment other educator to use i-Ready. The figure below shows this distribution.

Distribution of respondents encouraging other educators to use i-Ready

38

What percentage of your students do you think are enjoying their use of the i-Ready

program?

Enjoy Frequency Percentage

0%-25% 2 8

26%-75% 15 60

76%-100% 8 32

Table 4 shows the distribution of percentage of respondents’ students whom they think are

enjoying their use of the i-Ready program. Out of 25 respondents 2 (8%) of respondents felt that

0%-25% are enjoying their use of the i-Ready program, 15 (60%) of respondents felt that 26%-

75% are enjoying their use of the i-Ready program while 8 (32%) of respondents felt that 76%-

100% are enjoying their use of the i-Ready program. This is illustrated in the following figure.

Distribution of percentage of respondents’ students who are enjoying their use of the i-

Ready program?

39

i-Ready claims to increase the contact time between academic content and users

Increase

Time

Frequenc

y

Percentag

e

No 2 8

Yes 23 92

Table 5 shows the distribution of i-Ready claims to increase the contact time between academic

content and users. Out of 25 respondents 2 said No (8%) while 23 said Yes (92%). Therefore,

majority of respondents were confident that actually of i-Ready do increase the contact time

between academic content and users. The figure below shows this distribution

Distribution of i-Ready claims to increase the contact time between academic content and

users.

40

i-Ready support your ability to meet vocabulary development as learning objectives

Vocabular

y

Frequenc

y

Percentag

e

No 1 4

Yes 24 96

Table 6 shows the distribution of i-Ready support respondents’ ability to meet vocabulary

development as learning objectives. Out of 25 respondents, 1 (4%) respondents felt that i-Ready

does not support respondents’ ability to meet vocabulary development as learning objectives

while 24 (96%) felt that i-Ready do support respondents’ ability to meet vocabulary development

as learning objectives.

Distribution of i-Ready support your ability to meet vocabulary development as learning

objectives

41

i-Ready support to identify students in need of instructional support.

Instructional

Support

Frequenc

y

Percentag

e

No 2 8

Yes 23 92

Table 7 shows the distribution of i-Ready support to identify students in need of instructional

support. Out of 25 respondents, 2 (8%) said that i-ready do not support the identification of

students in need of instructional support while 23 (92%) said that i-ready do support the

identification of students in need of instructional support. This is illustrated in the following

figure.

Distribution of i-Ready support to identify students in need of instructional support.

42

i-Ready support The school assesses each student at least 3 times each year to determine

progress towards standard-based objectives.

Standard

Based

Frequenc

y

Percentag

e

No 1 4

Yes 24 96

Table 8 shows the distribution of i-Ready support The school assesses each student at least 3

times each year to determine progress towards standard-based objectives. Out of 25 respondents

1 (4%) said that i-Ready do not support the school to assesses each student at least 3 times each

year to determine progress towards standard-based objectives while 24 (96%) said that i-Ready

do support the school to assesses each student at least 3 times each year to determine progress

towards standard-based objectives.The figure below shows this distribution.

Distribution of i-Ready support The school assesses each student at least 3 times each year to

determine progress towards standard-based objectives.

43

Findings

According to the analysis, it is found that respondents gave positive feedback on i-ready

program. Top findings are as follow:

96% of respondents said that i-Ready do support the school to assesses each student at

least 3 times each year to determine progress towards standard-based objectives.

92% of respondents said that i-ready do support the identification of students in need of

instructional support.

96% of respondents felt that i-Ready do support respondents’ ability to meet vocabulary

development as learning objectives.

92% of respondents of supported i-Ready claims to increase the contact time between

academic content and users.

68% of respondents supported i-Ready claims to enhance the 1:1 interaction between

students and teachers.

Recommendations

The following recommendation should be put in place to enhance i-Ready program.

Increase familiarity of the program to potential users

Once i-Ready updates it should friendly to the users

44

I-ready would stay consistent each year and better training on how to differentiate lessons

for students’ needs.

Curriculum it provides should be a little more kid-friendly though.

Conclusion

In summary, i-Ready program is of help in institutions for instance, i-Ready do support the

school to assesses each student at least 3 times each year to determine progress towards

standard-based objectives, i-ready do support the identification of students in need of

instructional support, i-Ready do support respondents ability to meet vocabulary development as

learning objectives, i-Ready do increase the contact time between academic content and users, i-

Ready do enhance the 1:1 interaction between students and teachers.

45

References

References are formatted using a hanging indent and may be single-spaced. Leave one blank

space between entries. Consult the APA Manual 6th ed. and the Doctoral Publication

Guidelines for further details. Remove hyperlinks for URLs. Do not use URLs from the

Capella library. Check all citations and references using reciteworks.com. Include doi

numbers for journal articles. If a doi number is not available, include the journal website.

References

Anderson, V. (2017). Criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 1-9.

Bjorklund-Young, A., & Borkoski, C. (2016). Do formative assessments influence student

learning? Research on i-Ready and MAP. John Hopkins School of Education Institute for

Educational Policy.

Britto, M. & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and implementing comprehensive student support

services for online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning networks, 17(1), 29-42.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1011371.pdf

Cohen, R., & Schechter, C. (2019). Becoming an Assistant Principal: Mapping Factors That

Facilitate or Hinder Entering the Role. International Journal of Educational Leadership

Preparation, 14(1), 99-112.

Cope, D. G. (2014, January). Methods and meanings: credibility and trustworthiness of

qualitative research. In Oncology nursing forum (Vol. 41, No. 1).

46

Crawley, A., & Fetzner, M. (2013). Providing service innovations to students inside and outside

of the online classroom: Focusing on student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 17(1), 7-12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1011382.pdf

Curriculum Associates. (2020). Data. Instructions. Results. Curriculum Associates, LLC.

https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/i-ready

Eady, M. J. & Lockyer, L. (2013). Tools for learning: technology and teaching strategies.

learning to teach in the primary school. Queensland University of Technology, Australia.

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative

content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE open, 4(1), 2158244014522633.

Ersozlu, A. (2016). School Principals' Reflective Leadership Skills through the Eyes of Science

and Mathematics Teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science

Education, 11(5), 801-808.

Fernando, S. Y., & Marikar, F. M. (2017). Constructivist Teaching/Learning Theory and

Participatory Teaching Methods. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 110-122.

Foster-Fishman, P. G., Nowell, B., & Yang, H. (2007). Putting the system back into systems

change: A framework for understanding and changing organizational and community

systems. American journal of community psychology, 39(3-4), 197-215.

Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions

and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141-146.

Hermann, K. R. (2016). The Principal’s Role; Distributed Leadership. Educational Foundation

and Leadership, 1–100. https://doi.org/10.25777/a1s9-1z37

47

Ikram, H. (2017, June). Effect of Teachers' Professional Development in Media Technology on

Preschoolers Learning in Rural Settings. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 509-513).

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Investopedia (2019). Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sample.asp

i-Ready (n.d.). I-Ready Efficacy: Research on i-ready Program impact. Retrieved from:

http://www.ectacfl.net/uploads/2/2/1/6/22162720/i-ready_essa_brochure_2017.pdf

i-Ready Family Center. (n.d.). What Is i-Ready?. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from https://i-

readycentral.com/familycenter/what-is-i-ready/

Jumaat, N. F., Tasir, Z., Halim, N. D. A., & Ashari, Z. M. (2017). Project-based learning from

constructivism point of view. Advanced Science Letters, 23(8), 7904-7906.

Lewis, T. L. (2018). i-Ready Mathematics Effectiveness on StudentAchievement and Teacher

Evaluation Scores: A Quantitative Study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix).

Lichtenstein, B. B., & Plowman, D. A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems

leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels.

Lindgren, B. M., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H. (2020). Abstraction and interpretation

during the qualitative content analysis process. International Journal of Nursing Studies,

103632. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of

multimedia learning, 41, 31-48.

Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

33(2), 152-159.

Metz, A. J. (2007). Why conduct a program evaluation? Five reasons why evaluation can help an

out-of-school time program. Research-to-Results Brief. Publication 2007-31, 1, 4.

48

McCoy, D. M., Morrison, J. Q., Barnett, D. W., Kalra, H. D., & Donovan, L. K. (2017). Using

iPad tablets for self‐modeling with preschoolers: Videos versus photos. Psychology in the

Schools, 54(8), 821–836. doi:10.1002/pits.22031

Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2017). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3:

Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal Of General Practice, 24(1), 9-

18. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091

Neumann, M. M., Anthony, J. L., Erazo, N. A., & Neumann, D. L. (2019). Assessment and

technology: Mapping future directions in the early childhood classroom. Frontiers in

Education. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00116/full

Nu-man, M. R., Porter, T. M. (2017). Assessing learning using technology. In, Lombardi, P.

(Ed.). Instructional methods, strategies and technologies to meet the needs of all learners.

Creative Commons, Granite State College.

https://granite.pressbooks.pub/teachingdiverselearners/chapter/assessing-learning-using-

technology/

Pardjono, P. (2016). Active learning: The Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and constructivist theory

perspectives. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 9(3).

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage publications.

Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms,

sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics &

Management Sciences, 6(2), 1-5.

Schaffhauser, D. (2019, July 29). i-Ready Adds Diagnostics Updates, Improved Accessibility,

Student Dashboard. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from

49

https://thejournal.com/articles/2019/07/29/iready-adds-diagnostics-updates-improved-

accessibility-student-dashboard.aspx

Schrum, L., & Glassett, K. F. (2016). Technology integration in P-12 schools: Challenges to

implementation and impact of scientifically-based research. Journal of Thought, 41(1), 41-

58.

Shikulo, L., Lekhetho, M., & Chen, L. (2020). Exploring student support services of a distance

learning centre at a Namibian university. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2020.1737401

Silva, T. B. (2016). The effects of the i-Ready computer assisted instruction program on the

reading and fluency achievement of first graders (Doctoral dissertation).

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:

A distributed perspective. Educational researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for

improvement and accountability. Guilford Publications.

The Georgia Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (n.d.). What is digital learning?

Retrieved from https://gosa.georgia.gov/what-digital-learning

The glossary of education reform. (2013). One-to-one. Retrieved from

https://www.edglossary.org/one-to-one/

The Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Retrieved from

https://www.edglossary.org/stakeholder/

Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic

dialogues, 15(2), 255-283.

50

Todd, H.D. & Magleby, P. S. (2005). Elements of a successful capstone course considering the

needs of stakeholders. European Journal of Education, 30(2), 2013-214.

Todtfeld, D., & Weakley, W. (2013). The impact of instructional reading technology programs

on student reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Northwest Missouri State

University).

Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership:

A review of the literature. Review of educational research, 87(1), 134-171.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653478

Boaz, A., Hanney, S., Borst, R., O’Shea, A., & Kok, M. (2018). How to engage stakeholders in

research: design principles to support improvement. Health Research Policy and

Systems, 16(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6

Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of researchers

in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4), 483–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-

014-0258-4

51

APPENDIX A

Preliminary Questions

1. Email address

……………………………………………….

2. I give my consent to freely participate in the i-Ready study

Yes

No

3. Grade level of teaching

…………………………………………………………

Interview Questions

4. How many students do you currently have on your roster? How does that number impact

your use of the i-Ready program?

5. i-Ready claims to enhance the 1:1 interaction between students and teachers. Do you agree

with this claim?

6. If yes, to question 5, how does the use of i-ready impact one to one teacher/student

interaction in your classroom or your virtual classroom?

7. If no, to question 5, why not?

8. How do you think the use of i-Ready has impacted student reading apart from the use of the

i-Ready program?

9. Rate this sentence: I would encourage other educators to use i-Ready.

Strongly agree

52

Agree

Not sure

Strongly disagree

10. Explain your rating to question 9.

11. i-Ready claims to personalize educational instruction for better outcomes. Would you agree

with this claim? Why?

12. What percentage of your students do you think are enjoying their use of the i-Ready

program?

0% 25%

26%-75%

76%- 100%

13. i-Ready claims to increase the contact time between academic content and the users. Would

you agree that their claim is true?

14. Were the students' learning experience enhanced with the use of the i-Ready program? Can

you provide an example?

15. One of the BES School goals states "All teachers include vocabulary development as

learning objectives? Do you include vocabulary development as a learning objectives? Does

i-Ready have an impact on you doing so?

16. One of the BES School goals states "Instructional teams use student learning data to identify

students in need of instructional support. "Does the use of the i-Ready program help you do

that?

53

17. One of the BES School goals states "The school assesses each student at least 3 times each

year to determine progress towards standard-based objectives." Do you think the progress

towards the standard-based objectives is being mastered/met?

18. Overall thoughts/suggestions/comments about the use of i-Ready:

54