Kellymuzzey.weebly.com



The Effects of Interactive Student Information Systems on Student Achievement in Grades Seven through Twelve.

By:

Cathleen A. Freeman

Kelly E. Muzzey

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Doctorate in Education

Maryville University

Saint Louis, Missouri

February 28, 2011

CAPSTONE INSTRUCTOR SIGNATURE PAGE

This Capstone Project Submitted By:

_______________________________

Cathleen A. Freeman

_______________________________

Kelly E. Muzzey

Has been accepted by the faculty of the school of Education, Maryville University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Education

______________________________

Capstone Instructor’s Signature

DEDICATION

Thank you to our families for their support and understanding. Our parents paved the way for us to set our sights high while our husbands have truly been our inspiration. Without them, we never would have entered into a doctoral program. Thank you to our children who not only restrained themselves from complaining too much while we were away, but also enjoyed watching their moms put so much time into homework. Thank you to our friends who didn’t forget us even though we have been less than attentive over the past two years. Thank you so very, very much for the unwavering patience and willingness to assist in the collection of data shown by Cathy Ringo and Kristy Wingenbach and also to Trent and Aimee Platoff and Jessica Dipaolo who saw us through mountains of numbers leading to the meaningful charts and graphs found in chapter four. Thank you to all of our instructors for their encouragement and guidance throughout the entire capstone process and to Dr. Kinder for keeping us in line and on track. Lastly, but most importantly, we thank God for his everlasting presence in our lives.

ABSTRACT

This research study was conducted to determine if accessibility to student information through internet portals has a positive impact on student achievement. This study was conducted from February 2011 through December 2012. During this study data was collected from Infinite Campus Student Information Systems at Northwest Valley Middle School and Hillsboro High School. Specifically, this action research project focuses on whether or not parent and students who access student data through electronic portals show an increase in student achievement. The number of visits or “hits” that parents and/or students make to the portal will be compared with grades, cumulative grade point averages, and scores from standardized tests.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAPSTONE SIGNATURE PAGE…………………………………………..ii

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………….iii

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………...v

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES………………………………………….viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Presentation of the Problem……………………………………….1

History of the Problem………………………………………………2

Current Status of the Problem……………………………………..3

Research Question………………………………………………….7

Definitions……………………………………………………………7

Summary……………………………………………………………..7

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction…………………………………………………………..9

History of Student Information Systems………………………….10

Key Features of Student Information Systems…………………..13

Parents and Students: Are They Ready For Student Information

Systems?.....................................................................................14

Exploring the Downside……………………………………………18

Conclusion……………………………………………………………24

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Design of Research………………………………………………....31

Demographics……………………………………………………32-37

Description of the Program………………………………………….37

Time Line……………………………………………………………..38

Collection of the Data………………………………………………..39

Description of the Assessment Tool……………………………39-40

Plan for Analyzing the Data…………………………………...……40

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Results………………………………………..………………………43

Statistical Calculations of Results………………..…………….42-61

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the Results of the Study……………………………….62

Discussion of Study in Comparison to the Literature…….………63

Limitations of the Study……………………………………………..66

Future Recommendations for Action…………………………...…67

LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES

Table 3.1 Map of Jefferson County School Districts…………………..32

Table 3.2 Northwest District and Middle School Enrollment……...32-33

Table 3.3 Northwest District and Middle School Free and Reduced...33

Table 3.4 Northwest District and Middle School Attendance………....33

Table 3.5 Hillsboro District and High School Enrollment……………...34

Table 3.6 Hillsboro District and High School Free and Reduced…34-35

Table 3.7 Hillsboro District and High School Attendance……………..35

Table 3.8 Timeline…………………………………………………………38

Table 4.1 HHS Summary Data (Total Population)……………………..44

Table 4.2 HHS Student Sample………………………………………….45

Table 4.3 HHS Student Sample………………………………………….46

Bar Graph 4.1 HHS Frequency of Infinite Campus Hits 2007-2008…47

Bar Graph 4.2 HHS Frequency of Infinite Campus Hits 2008-2009…48

Bar Graph 4.3 HHS Frequency of Infinite Campus Logins……….…..48

Pie Chart 4.1 HHS Achievement Scores for Top 50% of Infinite

Campus Logins and GPAs 2006-2007…………………………….……49

Pie Chart 4.2 HHS Achievement Scores for Top 50% of Infinite

Campus Logins and GPAs 2008-2009……………………………….….49

Pie Chart 4.3 HHS Achievement Scores for Bottom 50% of Infinite Campus Logins and GPAs 2006-2007……………………………….….50

Pie Chart 4.4 HHS Achievement Scores for Bottom 50% of Infinite Campus Logins and GPAs for 2008-2009………………………....……50

Scatter Plot 4.1 HHS GPAs Compared to Hits 2007-2008………..…51

Scatter Plot 4.2 HHS GPAs Compared to Hits 2008-2009……….….52

Table 4.4 NVMS Summary Data(Total Population)……………….…53

Table 4.5 NVMS Student Sample…………………………………..….54

Table 4.6 NVMS Student Sample………………………………………55

Bar Graph 4.4 NVMS Frequency of Infinite Campus Hits 2010-2011…………………………………………………………………56

Bar Graph 4.5 NVMS Frequency of Infinite Campus Hits 2011-2012…………………………………………………………………56

Bar Graph 4.6 NVMS Frequency of Infinite Campus Logins……….. 57

Pie Chart 4.5 NVMS Achievement Scores for Top 50% of Infinite Campus Logins and GPAs for 2009-2010……………………………..58

Pie Chart 4.6 NVMS Achievement Scores for Top 50% of Infinite Campus Logins and GPAs 2011-2012…………………………………58

Pie Chart 4.7 NVMS Achievement Scores for Bottom 50% of Infinite Campus Logins and GPAs for 2009-2010…………………….59

Pie Chart 4.8 NVMS Achievement Scores for Bottom 50% of Infinite Campus Logins and GPAs for 2011-2012…………………….59

Scatter Plot 4.3 NVMS GPAs Compared to Hits 2010-2011….……..60

Scatter Plot 4.4 NVMS GPAs Compared to Hits 2011-2012…………6

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The passing of Public Law PL-107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, catapulted school district accountability for student achievement. During the past decade, the use of electronic student information systems (SIS) in education has dramatically increased, in accordance with mandates for reporting various criteria for Annual Yearly Progress scores, and school district report cards. As of 2006-2007, nearly all school districts maintained at least some student data electronically (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2000) reports that “The maintenance of extensive, accurate, historical, and current data about individual students is essential to the functioning of school and school districts, and can promote effective education practices at all levels of the education system” (NCES, 2000). Though the original purpose of the electronic student information system was for data collection and reporting purposes linked to state or federal mandates, today’s versions are often web based, and allow parents and students real-time information through the use of interactive portals.

PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM

For decades, educators have understood the correlation that student achievement increases when students and parents stay actively involved in the student’s educational endeavors. Across the nation, school districts have struggled to find ways to encourage greater parental involvement while emphasizing the importance of personal ownership in one’s educational process. The increased use of SIS’s seems to be a likely answer to both of these issues, as they provide current information any time parents and student choose to access it.

Students may have differing views of the usefulness of SIS systems. Some may utilize the technology to their own benefit, maximizing on keeping tabs of pertinent information such as grade point average, missing assignments, or attendance. However, others may find that providing parents the ability to see in real time what academic or behavior progress, or lack thereof, may be occurring could be detrimental.

There are limited studies on the topic of Student Information Systems that feature web-based access for parents and students through portals. As school districts invest large amounts of money in a currently struggling economy, there is a need to provide findings on whether or not electronic accessibility does have a positive effect on student achievement levels.

HISTORY OF PROBLEM

Until fairly recently, student records were not readily accessible to students and parents, aside from report cards and progress reports. Parents who wanted updates on student information traditionally had to contact the school or set up a conference. Additionally, a student rarely had access to information such as grades, missing assignments, and attendance, even though the data pertained to directly to him or herself. At times, a student may have been asked to keep work in a portfolio, but even then it has been difficult to share accumulated assignments with parents while providing a concise overview of how the student is progressing.

Web based systems such as PowerSchool, Infinite Campus, ISparta, have helped educational administrators and teachers manage the wealth of data that schools collect for records and school improvement plans for several years. Many schools had not, however, taken advantage of the many other ways that these systems can efficiently streamline processes and improve communication functions with stakeholders.

CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROBLEM

With the pressure on districts to continually improve community relations, increase parent involvement, and promote student learning, student data systems are now being sought as an all-encompassing answer to many complex 21st century issues that schools face. Technology is paving the way for educators and families to have up to the minute student information at their fingertips any time of the day. With technological advances, comes the issue of how to stay current in a time when school districts are facing very real economic hardships. To justify the cost of expensive school information systems, there is a need to find the answers to how often frequently and to what extent parents and students use the portals, how accurate and up to date are teachers keeping their records, how, and to what extent have information systems impacted student achievement?

Accessibility of information warrants that the SIS data being analyzed for this study will focus primarily on Infinite Campus. Like many other products available for educational organizations, Infinite Campus provides districts with integrated tools utilized to streamline student administration, enable stakeholder collaboration and individualize instruction. The system as a whole, is web-based, allowing educators, parents and students to have access to information from anywhere at any time. The system also serves as a district-wide data warehouse allowing student data to be entered once and subsequently used across the entire district supporting data-driven decision making. Currently, The Infinite Campus company website claims that its technology can support the following tasks:

Administration

• Attendance

• Behavior

• Census

• Employee Self Service

• Enrollment

• Free and Reduced Application Management

• Health

• Medicaid Log

• National Records Exchange

Curriculum

• Course Catalog

• Course Registration

• Graduation Planning

• Mapped Curriculum Support

• Scheduling

• Standards Management

• Transcripts

Instruction

• Assessment

• Assignments

• Daily Planner

• Grade Book

• Standards-based and Conventional Grading

• Student Groups

• Individual Learning Plans

• Seating Charts with Student Photos

• Section Roster

• Special Education

• Standards-based Report Card

School Services

• Document Management

• Fee Management

• Food Service

• Locker Management

• Online Payments

• Transportation

Communications

• Email, Voice and Text Messenger

• Emergency Notification

• Form Letter Wizards

• Mobile Device Support

• Parent/Student Portal

• Parent/Student/Staff Survey

• User Notices

Reporting

• Ad Hoc Reporting

• Integrated State Reporting

• MS SQL Reporting Services

• Standard Reports

Analysis

• Data Analysis

• Data Visualization

• Data Warehouse Export

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the access of student information through internet portals act as an intervention to increase student achievement?

DEFINITIONS

Interventions: Research-based strategies, methods, and practices employed to assist students identified as at risk for school failure to succeed.

Parent Portal: A secure, password protected online resource for parents to find current data about their student(s).

Student Information Systems: Software applications for educational establishments to manage student data such as grades, attendance, and discipline that are often made available online to parents, students, teachers and administrators.

SUMMARY

The implementation of this research will indicate whether or not Student Information Systems have a direct impact on improving student achievement. Bernhardt (2006) argues that school districts that do not currently have an SIS, will have no choice but to invest in one. “It is simply no longer an option not to have one” (p.358). Yet it is one thing for a district to adopt such technology, it is another to ensure that these systems are effective and efficient in improving student achievement. Student information systems should allow all users access to data that aids in making informed educational decisions.

CHAPTER TWO

INTRODUCTION

Public educational entities across the nation have realized the need for electronic access of student data. The move from hard copy, paper files to electronic student data management systems happened seemingly overnight in many school districts; most of which were in response to state reporting mandates. An additional benefit to web-based electronic management systems is the parent and student access portal, which allows for the monitoring of grades, attendance, and other educational information in real time, from the convenience of anywhere the World Wide Web can be accessed, thus increasing communication between school and home.

Years of research have shown that there is a significant positive correlation between parental involvement and improved student outcomes in achievement. Maynard and Howley (1997) stated that when parents get involved in education, children try harder and accomplish more. Research also suggests that effective relationships among the family, school, and community foster success (Pebely & Sastry, 2003) and best meet a child’s educational needs (Hoover-Dempsey et al). Levine (2002) identifies one of the reasons to encourage parental involvement as the need to keep parents informed of their child’s performance.

Keeping up with the ever-changing face of information technology is a daunting endeavor, yet consumers seem up to the task. As of June 2010, (2010) published that 77% of homes in the United States had some type of internet access through a computer. (This number did not include representation of people who own Smart Phones with data plans.) This is a 17% increase from 2004, when the United States Department of Commerce reported that 60% of homes had computers linked to the Internet. School district statistics indicate that 99% of public schools in the United States have Internet, with 86% of those schools making information available to parents and students through email or a web site (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).

It seems as though the necessary infrastructure for web-based educational data management systems are in place. The purpose of this action research study is to determine whether or not web-based access to student information increases parent and student involvement and has a positive effect on student achievement.

HISTORY OF STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Information systems used to manage student data have been referred to by various names: Student Information Systems (SIS), Student Management Information Systems (SMIS), Student Data Systems (SDS), Student Data Warehouse (SDW), Student Academic Information Systems (SAIS), or Student Information Management Systems (SIMS).

Student information systems have played a vital role in education since the 1990’s, yet schools traditionally had not been obvious markets for cutting edge electronic data management systems. Barrett (1999) observed that “Although the use of information systems to immediately access accurate and comprehensive information is critical for a successful business, schools often lagged behind in the implementation of information technology ” . Since the passing of Public Law PL-107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, school districts have had little choice but to enter the information age, responding to the accountability mandates that have drawn attention to the practical use of student data for school improvement, specifically in the area of significantly increasing the gathering, aggregation, and upward reporting of this data. “In the past, the usual way typical school district personnel dealt with data was to analyze the dickens out of their annual state assessment results, develop a plan to increase the lowest scores, and then wait for the next year’s results to come out to know if their plan made a difference. Many found they could improve their assessment results in that area, only to discover that other subject-area scores declined” (Bernhardt, 2006, p.62). Additionally, NCLB affected technology by paving the way for the National Education Technology Plan of 2003. Several of the major points of the program outlined a plan to:

Strengthen Leadership with recommendations for states, districts, and individual schools that include: a.) invest in leadership development programs to increase the number of tech-savvy leaders at every level and b.) re-tool administrator education programs to provide training in technology decision making, data analysis and organizational change.

Improve Teacher Training which would allow teachers to have more resources available through technology than ever before. The NTEP 2003 encouraged sufficient training in the effective use of technology to enhance learning for those who have not received it. “Teachers need access to research, examples, and innovations as well as staff development to learn best practices” (National Education Technology Plan, 2003). Several best practices include the incorporation of data use and analysis to personalize and drive daily instruction.

Integrate Data Systems is the last point that the plan identifies and is most pertinent to this action research. This area of the plan encourages schools to use interoperable data systems to increase management efficiency and provide online and technology based assessments of student performance to empower educators while providing personalized instruction and better communication with parents. The recommendation related to this portion of the plan included the establishment of a plan to integrate data systems for administrators and teachers to have information to improve student learning, using data to understand relationships between decisions and student achievement, consider School Interoperability Framework (SIF) Compliance Certification when making purchasing decisions, and to use assessment results to inform and create differentiated instruction for each student.

The goals of the NCLB Act and NETB 2003 impacted the home-school contact, teacher professional development, parent involvement and district accessibility to the Internet.

KEY FEATURES OF SIS

Today’s students have a vastly different and more complex life experience that the youth of the 1930’s, 1940’s, or 1950’s for whom the prevailing educational system was designed. The industrial education model focused on process and consistency: students were viewed as raw materials, which were to be processed into a finite set of finished goods, or graduates. The information age model treats people as individuals; each student may follow his/her own path to a set of unique outcomes. This new model stresses individual growth over group averages. As educators prepare to teach differently and establish new standards for individualized learning, there is the need to be able to manage information effectively. Manufacturers of Student Information Systems technology purport to be the answer by breaking down large groups of students and focusing on the progress of individuals, whether it is in managing grades, attendance, discipline, or communications. Successful educational institutions are now driven by accurate data collection, reporting requirements, assessments, and real time communications that transform the tasks of teachers and learners into supportive, individualized learning environments.

Most student information systems offer the following as part of a comprehensive data management program: A unique state student identification code, student enrollment, demographic, transportation, and program participation information, transcripts, attendance, current and past histories of courses and grades and test scores. Additionally, comprehensive programs are capable of tracking data and producing reports regarding graduation and drop out rate, untested students, special services and gifted identifiers, student level college readiness scores, percentages of minorities, and percentages of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. Teacher demographic information is also entered into these programs, along with teacher identification code for state reporting purposes, contact logs, online grade books and attendance records, course rosters, master scheduling options, and the availability of numerous ad hoc reports.

Accomplishing all of these tasks in a packaged software product does not come cheap. Student information systems are costly, and require significant upkeep and management. As districts nationwide invest large amounts of money and resources in these systems, evidence of increased student achievement must prove to be a key derivative of the product.

PARENT AND STUDENTS: ARE THEY READY FOR SIS?

Sara Lawrence Lightfoot, U.S. Professor of Education (2006) stated on the Pearson Education Systems Website, “Productive collaborations between family and school will demand that parents and teachers recognize the critical importance of each other’s participation in the life of the child.” Students and teachers have traditionally been a daily part of the education process, and now through web access, parents are able to become more active participants. When parents become more involved, students then take more interest in their own progress. Zappe and Sonak, (2001) reported that students direct their own motivation to prepare and complete assignments in relationship to the involvement of their parents. The more parents feel that they are privy to student progress and activities of the classroom, the more they provide support for the success of their child’s learning experience. Web-based academic data encourages this support by virtue of real time data accessed without time constraints. Research studies over the past 20 years have focused on the importance of parent-school communication to increase student success. Many parents have regular access to the Internet, allowing them to check information on a consistent basis. Julie Evans (2010), the CEO of Project Tomorrow, stated that “As parents are starting to use these emerging technologies themselves they are gaining a greater appreciation for the potential they have to help increase their child’s productivity as well as learning opportunities.”

Research by Henderson and Mapp (2002) in “A New Wave of Evidence, The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement” supports the influence of parental involvement with frequent access to student grades. Henderson followed three sets of age groups: early childhood, elementary, and middle school. The early childhood program included parent training in which the parents were taught how to follow through with homework and lessons at home. This was part of the increased communication between home and school that increased student success. The elementary and middle school parents were presented with online interactive homework assignments which were found to increase the parental awareness of the lessons of the day to support the learning goals, thus allowing re-teaching, reinforcement, or extension of the goals to occur at home. Of course, as Jesdanun, (2005) points out, “There are parents who will not take advantage of the ability to gather more information regarding their child’s academic status; however, those parents who do choose to take advantage of the system have a better understanding of the expectations of the school.”

“Education has to change. We can’t pull kids into learning in school if they are engaged in a different world outside school” Scherer (2011). Karen Cator, (2011) Director of the Office of Education Technology at the U. S. Department of Education, envisions the day when broadband is a pervasive as electricity and when all students will come to school with digital devices in hand, much as they came with their pencil boxes in the past. From Smart phones, to laptops, to gaming systems that access the web, today’s students live in a world that is driven by technology, and is in a constant state of change and evolution. Through texting and social sites, students are constantly in touch with the world, communicating with others, and becoming skilled at multi-tasking with regard to managing ever-expanding streams of data with apparent ease.

According to a recent survey by Project Tomorrow (2010), a national nonprofit educational group based in California, a majority of students stated that they would like to use mobile devices as a means to communicate, collaborate, create and share documents, and receive information. Of the 320,000 student surveyed, over 25% of them considered themselves to be “advanced tech users.” Effectively teaching the digital generation seems to involve two basics: embracing the tools that kids are immersed in and using these tools to engage students in the core curriculum topics. Parents seem to be embracing this new techno-savvy generation and are willing to spend the money to meet needs of their students. The Project Tomorrow(2010) website reports that 67 % of parents said that they would purchase a mobile device for their child to use for educational purposes if their school would allow it.

As NCLB made it necessary to allow parents to have access in a timely manner to their child’s assignments, grades, and attendance, it is imperative that school districts provide opportunities for parents and students who do not have Internet access at home avenues in which to check progress. The office of Educational Technology released a set of eight main goals in 2010, which included:

Using technology to help raise the percentage of young people with two or four year college degrees from 39% to 60% by 2020.

Provide broadband “everywhere” to serve learners inside and outside the school.

Put a computing device in the hands of every student.

Make connectedness the hallmark of effective teaching.

Create online learning registry of content developed by federal government agencies.

Fund the research about how online communities of practice can improve teaching and learning.

Create a national initiative that define productivity in education and establishes metrics for measuring it.

With these goals in mind, districts utilizing SIS systems will need to partner with community organizations to help provide web access to families without.

EXPLORING THE DOWNSIDE

The most important characteristic of our present society may well the incredible speed with which it changes. Whether things evolve in a positive or in a negative way, change itself constitutes a problem. Scientific, technological, cultural and social innovation are taking place at such a breath-taking pace that no one can really keep up with them. Yesterday's revolutionary new product has become common-place today, and will be outdated tomorrow. People constantly need to revise their skills in order to adapt to the changing circumstances. The problems of unemployment and growing disparity between richer and poorer are largely due to the fact that not everybody can cope as well with this need for constant re-education.

The acceleration of change is accompanied by an increase in the information needed to keep up with all these developments. This too leads to psychological, physical and social problems. A world-wide survey (Waddington, 1996) found that two thirds of managers suffer from increased tension and one third from ill-health because of information overload. The psychologist David Lewis, who analyzed the findings of this survey, proposed the term "Information Fatigue Syndrome" to describe the resulting symptoms. Other effects of too much information include anxiety, poor decision-making, difficulties in memorizing and remembering, and reduced attention span (Waddington, 1996; Shenk, 1997). These effects merely add to the stress caused by the need to constantly adapt to a changing situation.

Part of the problem is caused by the fact that technological advances have made the retrieval, production and distribution of information so much easier than in earlier periods. This has reduced the natural selection processes which would otherwise have kept all but the most important information from being published. The result is an explosion in often irrelevant, unclear and inaccurate data fragments, making it ever more difficult to see the forest through the trees. This overabundance of low quality information, which Shenk (1997) has called "data smog", is comparable in its emergence and effects to the pollution of rivers and seas caused by an excess of fertilizers, or to the health problems caused by a diet too rich in calories. The underlying mechanism may be called "overshooting": because progress has inertia, the movement in a given direction tends to continue even after the need has been satisfied. Whereas information used to be scarce, and having more of it was considered a good thing, it seems that we now many of us are reaching the point of saturation. It will be difficult, yet crucial to avoid information overload, because in the end, if students and parents do not know what to do with the information, or choose to ignore it, no amount of accessibility will improve student performance.

Families whose students are more likely to need extra support—often face obstacles to engagement. Parents and other caregivers who are juggling many

responsibilities—such as working multiple jobs, caring for other children, or attending school themselves—may have difficulty becoming more involved in their child’s education in traditional ways, such as attending Parent Teacher Association meetings and parent-teacher conferences or volunteering in the classroom. Computers and high-speed Internet are tools that hold great promise for overcoming distance, time, language, and access barriers to educational resources—especially those that tend to disproportionately affect underserved families. But, today, many low-income families do not have a home computer and high-speed Internet access. Despite years of increased market demand that should drive down prices, the initial cost of computers and the ongoing cost of broadband service continue to be barriers for low-income families. And, very often, it is the same parents who do not have computers and broadband at home whose children struggle academically.

Another potential problem that is associated with online student information systems is the security of confidential data. Some of the information contained in a grade book system is likely to be protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, a federal law that outlines what student information schools must keep private. So a technical glitch in the system that opens such information to the public could mean big trouble for schools. Brad Baird, (as quoted by Davis, 2009) says his company uses encryption techniques similar to those used by banks or hospitals. “You have to make sure you’re using the latest technology and security practices, and constantly changing them,” he says.

In the Washington County, Utah, district, says Roberts, (as quoted by Davis 2009) parents get a new user ID and password at the start of each school year. The system is being revamped to allow parents with more than one child to log in and have a choice of which child’s grades they would like to access instead of having to log in separately for each child. Roberts says the district continually does security audits to make sure the information is protected, but he says that student hackers always pose a risk. Beyond potential hacking human carelessness can also pose problems, such as when teachers tape system login and password information onto their computers. Roberts (Davis 2009) says teachers also must be careful not to leave such systems on when they walk away from their desks, because mischievous students could take advantage of their absence.

While student information systems provide a wide variety of services, they come with a variety of price tags, often depending on the number of users for a system. The Pinnacle product costs the Miami-Dade County, Fla., district $1 per student per year. Think Wave’s product, which is aimed at individual teachers or small schools, has a one-time software cost of $59.95 per teacher, and an online service charge of $35 per teacher per year. Class Action, also aimed at individual teachers or small schools, is $39 per teacher per year, with an annual $18 fee per teacher for the Web-posting service. With a site license, which allows schools to have unlimited or broad use of the product, schools can pay $5 per teacher per year. Blackboard’s grade book product has a wide variety of prices, depending on the options a school chooses. The basic, entry-level product starts at $10,000 for up to 2,000 users, and the grade book is just one feature of the overall product.

In educational organizations, administrators and teachers agree that the key to using a successful SIS is training, which costs money, too. According to Davis (2009) Roberts reported that he learned that the hard way. The district had been using the Power School product from Pearson when, a few years ago, the state of Utah developed a student-information system. The state offered the system to the district for free, which looked like a good deal to Roberts. But he didn’t do enough teacher training early on, and never got buy-in from teachers, who clamored for their familiar Power School, he says. The state program was “adequate for our needs, but it was a huge change from what the teachers had been using, and they hadn’t made a big change before,” Roberts says. ”We got slapped around real hard.” Roberts estimates that Power School costs the district $130,000 a year for the product, plus additional costs for maintenance of the 14 servers that handle the database and applications. He has two employees who do nothing but maintain the Power School system. “If we had been able to push out enough training [with the state system] to start with,” he says, “we would not have switched back to Power School.” Even though many schools readily support the integration of technology, a small number actually provide the necessary on-going professional development. According to Lacina (2006), the U. S. Department of Education recommends that districts allocate 30% of their technology budgets for professional development. Very few districts actually come close to meeting this recommendation.

The quickest issue that can stymie the effectiveness of any student information system is when teachers do not input grades in a timely manner, resulting in parents and students not getting the information they need. The ability to look at grades and assignments in real time does not mean that teachers will get assignments graded and entered at a faster rate; it simply means that there is an audience who is aware of the lag, or the perceived lag. "For the most part, I think it's really good if parents use it as a communication tool with their students," said Katie Carrasco (as quoted by Taboada 2010), who teaches at McCallum High School in Austin. "But we've never felt so obligated to have grades updated because parents want it so immediately," said Carrasco, who has been teaching for seven years. "We go home and have lives on the weekends too, so that's been harder. I have a newborn at home and am grading slower than ever, and that time frame is now exposed.” The programs don't require teachers to record grades more often. However, officials from various school districts said teachers have been quickening their pace because they feel pressured to do so. Some teachers update grades almost daily; others do it only three or four times during a six- or nine-week grading period. If parents have questions, some electronic programs provide direct links to the teacher's e-mail. In the Round Rock school district, Superintendent Jesús Chávez put a letter on the district's Web site asking parents to give teachers adequate time to record grades, especially for essays and long-term projects. The district started providing parents an electronic grade book system in 2003. Carrasco said she fielded more e-mails from parents during the fall semester than at any other time in her teaching career (Toboada, 2010).

The purpose of the action research conducted in this study is to support the hypothesis that when parents and students are actively involved in student progress through use of the electronic student portals, there will be an increase in achievement. The review of literature is overwhelmingly compelling that increased parental involvement directly relates to increased student achievement. Though the research regarding the increased use of technology with regard to the field of education provides examples of both positive and negative effects, we believe that the data collected in this action research project will support our hypothesis that students and parents using student information portals to monitor achievement data, an increase in overall achievement will be attained.

CONCLUSION

Today's children have grown up immersed in a world of computers and other information technologies. They play video games; they listen to music on mp3 players; they help their families program the computerized controls of their televisions. With all of the exciting innovations in computer technology, children have the opportunity to gain a wealth of knowledge without ever leaving home. Schools by comparison can seem dull.

Education reformers, along with information technology specialists have been developing new approaches for improving the way in which children learn and interact in the classroom. They now must consider the "technology gap" that exists between the technologically rich experiences children have outside the classroom and the comparatively low-tech, in-school environment. The aim is not just to outfit more classrooms with computers. Schools are going to need to evolve if they hope to encompass and guide out-of-school activities and communications that already embrace a technology lead society.

This action research project will study whether or not parents and students who access student data through electronic portals show an increase in student achievement. For this study, researchers will use data collected from the Northwest R-I and Hillsboro R-III school districts in Missouri. The student Information system utilized in both districts is Infinite Campus. The researchers will gather data from grades seven and eight in the Northwest district, and grades nine through twelve from Hillsboro.

Data will be analyzed in two ways:

Researchers will gather student achievement data from students chosen from those identified as belonging to the group “families that frequently use the portal.” Achievement data will be collected from the year the family signed up to access Infinite Campus in the corresponding district, as well as the first year after. Additionally, researchers will choose students who are identified as “families that infrequently use the portal.” The achievement data from these students will be collected from the year they signed up to access Infinite Campus, as well as the year after.

Chapter three will outline and identify how groups were chosen and defined, plans for conducting the research and implementation, as well as present evidence that will answer the question: Does the access of student information through internet portals act as an intervention to increase student achievement?

CHAPTER THREE

DESIGN OF RESEARCH

This is a co-relational research study to determine if the use of web-based, accessible, Student Information Systems in a secondary school setting serves as an intervention for increasing student achievement. Two schools in separate districts will be studied. Both Valley Middle School in the Northwest R-I District, and Hillsboro High School in the Hillsboro R-III District have purchased Infinite Campus, featuring Campus Portal access, which allows families and/or individual students the opportunity to monitor student work, achievement data and attendance.

TARGET SAMPLE

Data will be collected from Valley Middle School (grades 7-8) and Hillsboro High School (grades 9-12), and will identify the accessibility and number of visits to Campus Portal made by individual families and the scores their students acquire on state standardized tests (MAP and EOC) and grade point averages.

This study will look to compare students/families with greater number of site visits, “hits,” with students/families that have fewer visits or no accessibility to the Campus Portal, and their achievement data. Students in the categories of free and reduced lunch, IEP, and white non-Hispanic are all included in the study.

DEMOGRAPHICS

[pic]

Table 3.1

Enrollment -2010

|NORTHWEST R-I SCHOOL DISTRICT |2010 |

|Total |6,658 |

|Asian |0.9% |

|Black |0.7% |

|Hispanic |1.0% |

|Indian |0.1% |

|White |97.3% |

|NORTHWEST VALLEY SCHOOL |2010 |

|Total |964 |

|Asian |0.9% |

|Black |0.5% |

|Hispanic |0.5% |

|Indian |0.2% |

|White |97.8% |

Table 3.2

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

|NORTHWEST R-I SCHOOL DISTRICT |2010 |

|Percent |40.6% |

|Number |2,672 |

|NORTHWEST VALLEY SCHOOL |2010 |

|Percent |39.9% |

|Number |387 |

Table 3.3

Attendance-2010

| NORTHWEST R-I DISTRICT | |94.4 |

|NORTHWEST VALLEY SCHOOL | |93.2 |

Table 3.4

Enrollment -2010

|HILLSBORO R-III DISTRICT |2010 |

|Total |3,639 |

|Asian |0.3% |

|Black |0.7% |

|Hispanic |1.0% |

|Indian |0.6% |

|White |97.4% |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|HILLSBORO HIGH SCHOOL | |

|Total |1172 |

|Asian |0.3% |

|Black |0.4% |

|Hispanic |1.2% |

|Indian |0.5% |

|White |97.6% |

Table 3.5

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

|HILLSBORO R-III DISTRICT |2010 |

|Percent |32.5% |

|Number |1,178 |

|HILLSBORO HIGH SCHOOL |2010 |

|Percent |24.8% |

|Number |284 |

Table 3.6

Attendance-2010

| DISTRICT | |94.40 |

|HILLSBORO HIGH SCHOOL | |93.00 |

Table 3.7

The Northwest R-I School District is located in Jefferson County, Missouri and has roughly 6,500 students. The school district is considered to be housed within a rural community. The school district extends approximately 23.6 miles down the corridor of Highway 30. The school districts that surround Northwest are Fox, Lindberg, Rockwood, Grandview, Festus, Windsor, DeSoto and Hillsboro.

Northwest R-I School District encompasses many communities, such as Fenton, High Ridge, House Springs, Cedar Hill, Byrnes Mill, Grubville, Eureka and Dittmer. The financial earnings of the community range from very low incomes to those ranging in the millions. Several of the communities have trailer courts, while others have large farms, homes of modest accommodation to high end, multi-million dollar homes.

Approximately thirty –three percent of the families in Northwest qualify for free or reduced food services. Northwest has parents that are considered low income and qualify for assistance, as well as parents making seven figure incomes.

The Hillsboro-III School District is centrally located in Jefferson County. It includes the town of Hillsboro and extends out into the surrounding area, covering over one hundred square miles. The district spans from Main Street in the town of De Soto virtually to the high school parking lot in the Northwest R-1 School District. Highway 21 is the main thoroughfare running north to south through the center of the district. In addition to De Soto and Northwest, Hillsboro shares borders with Festus, Grandview, Fox, Dunklin, and Jefferson R-VII.

The economic status of families living in the Hillsboro R-3 School District is very similar to that of the Northwest R-1 School District. The districts are similar in many ways with the main difference being the size. The student population of Northwest is almost double the size of Hillsboro. Hillsboro’s housing varies in range from mobile home parks and low income housing as well as residences valuing in millions of dollars.

Like Northwest, Hillsboro also has families who receive government assistance, as well as those who have incomes in the millions. Approximately thirty-three percent of students in the Hillsboro school district are assisted by the free and reduced food service program.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Schools are required to efficiently and effectively manage enormous amounts of data to demonstrate student achievement, while reporting this information to a variety of audiences. The impact that data management has had on schools over the past decade has also been a critical component in ensuring that states and the federal government receive the correct information in order to allocate funding appropriately. Additionally, accurate data supports data driven decision making; an essential element in planning for school improvement.

In the years 2007 and 2008, the Hillsboro R-III and Northwest R-I School Districts adopted Infinite Campus as their student information system (respectfully). Infinite Campus replaced Win School in Hillsboro, and SASI at Northwest. With this technological advancement, both districts purchased a whole new electronically-based data collection system, giving parents and students access to attendance and achievement data 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Through the Infinite Campus portal, students and parents are able to look at individual class grades, missing assignments and progress toward mastery of learning targets. Additionally, they can check hourly attendance records in real time, and for those schools that choose to do so, discipline records may also be accessed. Another benefit of accessibility is that users are able to see student schedules in calendar formats, enabling the parent to see which classes are taken on what days and times. By clicking on the envelope icon, parents are instantly linked to specific teacher’s email accounts as well, increasing the ease of back and forth communication.

Both districts learned during the Request for Proposal process, that web based systems such as PowerSchool, Infinite Campus, ISparta, have helped educational administrators and teachers manage the wealth of data that schools collect for records and school improvement plans for several years. Most student information systems offer the following as part of a comprehensive data management program: A unique state student identification code, student enrollment, demographic, transportation, and program participation information, transcripts, and attendance, current and past histories of courses and grades and test scores. Additionally, comprehensive programs are capable of tracking data and producing reports regarding graduation and dropout rate, untested students, special services and gifted identifiers, student level college readiness scores, percentages of minorities, and percentages of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. Teacher demographic information is also entered into these programs, along with teacher identification code for state reporting purposes, contact logs, online grade books and attendance records, course rosters, master scheduling options, and the availability of numerous ad hoc reports.

TIME LINE

|DATE |ACTIVITY |

|Fall 2007 |Infinite Campus Implementation Hillsboro R-3 School District |

|Fall 2008 |Infinite Campus Implementation Northwest R-1 School District |

|Spring/Summer 2011 |Research and design study |

|Fall 2011-Spring 2012 |Collection of data through Infinite Campus |

| |(EOCs, MAP scores, GPAs and site hits) |

|Spring 2012 |Analyze results from data collection |

|Fall 2012-Spring 2013 |Collection of data through Infinite Campus |

| |(EOCs, MAP scores, GPAs and site hits) |

|Spring 2013 |Analyze results from data collection |

|Spring 2013 |Future Recommendations |

Table 3.8

COLLECTION OF DATA

Data will be collected through the cooperation of both districts’ technology personnel, who have agreed to run standard and ad hoc reports for the researchers. Information regarding Infinite Campus portal activity and grade point averages will be gathered directly from district data. Current and historical assessment data will be collected from data recorded in the Infinite Campus system. During the collection of data for this writing and throughout the entire research process, confidentiality will be maintained.

DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test-The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) is one of several educational reforms mandated by the Outstanding Schools Act of 1993. As a result of this act, the State Board of Education directed the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to identify the knowledge, skills and competencies that Missouri students should acquire by the time they complete high school and to evaluate student progress toward those academic standards. The Department engaged teachers, school administrators, parents, and business professionals from throughout the state to develop the Show-Me Standards/GLE Strands and the assessment system that evaluates students’ proficiencies as represented by the Show-Me Standards/GLE Strands.

End Of Course Exams-The Missouri Assessment Program assesses students’ progress toward mastery of the Show-Me Standards. The Missouri Assessment Program requires End-Of Course assessment in the areas of Algebra I, Biology, English II and Government. These exams are taken when a student has received instruction on the course-level expectations for an assessment, regardless the grade level. The End-Of-Course exams provide a valid and reliable method for assessing students’ knowledge of Missouri’s Course Level Expectations (CLEs). EOCs also allow for student statewide testing results to be incorporated into the students’ course grades.

PLAN FOR ANALYZING DATA

In this study, Campus Portal usage data from families of 7th and 8th grade students who attend Northwest Valley Middle School and families of 9th through 12th grade students who attend Hillsboro High School will be studied and compared. Under examination will be the number of visits, or “hits” made by families signed up to use the Infinite Campus Portal, which provides attendance, grade book, and assessment data in real time, compared to the students’ achievement data, including grade point average and state standardized test scores. The researchers will look for trends indicating whether or not the students who score proficient or advanced on Missouri Assessments have a greater number of visits to their own data. Additionally, the researchers will study whether or not more student/parent hits on the Campus Portal correlates to higher grade point averages.

CHAPTER FOUR

Does the access of student information through internet portals act as an intervention to increase student achievement? This is the research question that the researchers investigated through this action research project. The research began in February of 2011, continuing through December of 2012. Indicators of success include: the number of visits or “hits” made by families/individual students signed up to use the Infinite Campus Portal, compared to the students’ achievement data, including grade point average and state standardized test scores. The researchers also looked for trends indicating whether or not the students who scored “Proficient” or “Advanced” on Missouri Assessments had a greater number of visits to their own data. Lastly, the researchers looked for trends indicating whether or not a relationship could be found between an increase of student/parent “hits” on the Infinite Campus Portal and higher grade point averages.

Hillsboro High School Summary Data (Total Population)

|2007-2008 | |2008-2009 | |

|Cumulative GPA Rank |Average Log Ins Per | |Cumulative GPA Rank |Average Log Ins Per | |

| |Student | | |Student | |

|  |  | |  |  | |

|Top Half (252) |12.12 | |Top Half (374) |39.72 | |

|Bottom Half (252) |10.08 | |Bottom Half (374) |33.80 | |

|  |  | |  |  | |

|Top Third (168) |11.79 | |Top Third (249) |39.32 | |

|Middle Third (168) |12.11 | |Middle Third (250) |39.57 | |

|Bottom Third 168) |9.39 | |Bottom Third (249) |31.38 | |

|  |  | |  |  | |

|Top Fourth (126) |12.60 | |Top Fourth (187) |41.97 | |

|Next Fourth (126) |11.63 | |Next Fourth (187) |37.47 | |

|Next Fourth (126) |10.27 | |Next Fourth (187) |39.73 | |

|Bottom Fourth (126) |9.90 | |Bottom Fourth (187) |27.87 | |

|  |  | |  |  | |

|Top Fifth (101) |13.28 | |Top Fifth (149) |45.12 | |

|Next Fifth (101) |10.29 | |Next Fifth (150) |32.51 | |

|Next Fifth (100) |12.30 | |Next Fifth (150) |42.38 | |

|Next Fifth (101) |9.26 | |Next Fifth (150) |38.35 | |

|Bottom Fifth (101) |10.39 | |Bottom Fifth (149) |25.43 | |

|  |  | |  |  | |

|Top Tenth (50) |13.46 | |Top Tenth (74) |46.91 | |

|Next Tenth (50) |13.16 | |Next Tenth (75) |43.33 | |

|Next Tenth (50) |10.26 | |Next Tenth (75) |27.47 | |

|Next Tenth (51) |10.49 | |Next Tenth (75) |37.55 | |

|Next Tenth (51) |13.23 | |Next Tenth (75) |43.44 | |

|Next Tenth (51) |11.16 | |Next Tenth (75) |41.32 | |

|Next Tenth (51) |10.20 | |Next Tenth (75) |34.24 | |

|Next Tenth (50) |8.74 | |Next Tenth (75) |42.47 | |

|Next Tenth (50) |12.38 | |Next Tenth (75) |32.20 | |

|Bottom Tenth (50) |7.92 | |Bottom Tenth (74) |18.55 | |

|Table 4.1 | | | | | |

The table in figure 4.1 represents individuals in the overall student body of Hillsboro High School who, from 2007 through 2009, accessed the Infinite Campus Portal, as broken down by cumulative grade point averages.

Hillsboro High School: Student Sample

|Student |06-07 |08-09 Assessment level |

| |Assess| |

| |ment | |

| |Level | |

|GPA Rank |Average Log Ins Per | |GPA Rank |Average Log Ins Per |

| |Student | | |Student |

|  |  | |  |  |

|Top Half (299) |12.84 | |Top Half (299) |12.44 |

|Bottom Half (299) |9.57 | |Bottom Half (299) |8.94 |

|  |  | |  |  |

|Top Third (199) |13.51 | |Top Third (199) |13.21 |

|Middle Third (200) |13.93 | |Middle Third (200) |11.41 |

|Bottom Third 199) |6.15 | |Bottom Third 199) |7.45 |

|  |  | |  |  |

|Top Fourth (149) |15.14 | |Top Fourth (149) |14.30 |

|Next Fourth (150) |10.55 | |Next Fourth (150) |10.59 |

|Next Fourth (150) |13.54 | |Next Fourth (150) |9.21 |

|Bottom Fourth (149) |5.56 | |Bottom Fourth (149) |8.66 |

|  |  | |  |  |

|Top Fifth (119) |13.99 | |Top Fifth (119) |14.24 |

|Next Fifth (120) |13.72 | |Next Fifth (120) |13.13 |

|Next Fifth (120) |9.11 | |Next Fifth (120) |8.73 |

|Next Fifth (120) |13.76 | |Next Fifth (120) |9.13 |

|Bottom Fifth (119) |5.40 | |Bottom Fifth (119) |8.21 |

|  |  | |  |  |

|Top Tenth (59) |23.51 | |Top Tenth (59) |23.81 |

|Next Tenth (60) |4.63 | |Next Tenth (60) |4.83 |

|Next Tenth (60) |15.05 | |Next Tenth (60) |12.52 |

|Next Tenth (60) |12.38 | |Next Tenth (60) |13.75 |

|Next Tenth (60) |8.78 | |Next Tenth (60) |7.47 |

|Next Tenth (60) |9.43 | |Next Tenth (60) |10.00 |

|Next Tenth (60) |18.02 | |Next Tenth (60) |12.52 |

|Next Tenth (60) |9.50 | |Next Tenth (60) |5.73 |

|Next Tenth (60) |5.80 | |Next Tenth (60) |9.30 |

|Bottom Tenth (59) |5.00 | |Bottom Tenth (59) |7.10 |

Table 4.4

The table in figure 4.4 represents individuals in the overall student body of Northwest Valley Middle School who, from 2010 through 2012, accessed the Infinite Campus Portal, as broken down by cumulative grade point averages.

Northwest Valley Middle School: Student Sample

Student |09-10 Assessment Level |11-12 Assessment level |Infinite Campus Logins

10-11 |GPA

10-11 |Infinite Campus Logins 11-12 |GPA 11-12 | |Student 1 |Basic |Proficient |109 |4.000 |53 |4.000 | |Student 2 |Advanced |Advanced |89 |4.000 |48 |4.000 | |Student 3 |Proficient |Proficient |78 |4.000 |7 |3.928 | |Student 4 |Basic |Proficient |64 |4.000 |22 |3.750 | |Student 5 |Proficient |Proficient |61 |4.000 |46 |3.966 | |Student 6 |Advanced |Proficient |60 |4.000 |26 |3.928 | |Student 7 |Proficient |Advanced |60 |4.000 |40 |3.928 | |Student 8 |Proficient |Proficient |55 |4.000 |62 |4.000 | |Student 9 |Advanced |Proficient |4 |4.000 |0 |4.000 | |Student 10 |Advanced |Advanced |4 |4.000 |6 |4.000 | |Student 11 |Advanced |Advanced |3 |4.000 |3 |4.000 | |Student 12 |Advanced |Proficient |3 |4.000 |61 |4.000 | |Student 13 |Proficient |Proficient |57 |3.875 |67 |3.785 | |Student 14 |Proficient |Proficient |4 |3.875 |14 |3.500 | |Student 15 |Proficient |Proficient |55 |3.833 |28 |3.866 | |Student 16 |Proficient |Basic |118 |3.750 |33 |3.727 | |Student 17 |Advanced |Advanced |53 |3.750 |32 |3.600 | |Student 18 |Advanced |Advanced |50 |3.750 |20 |3.643 | |Student 19 |Proficient |Basic |4 |3.750 |0 |3.000 | |Student 20 |Proficient |Advanced |72 |3.727 |14 |3.500 | |Student 21 |Basic |Basic |3 |3.720 |50 |3.677 | |Student 22 |Proficient |Proficient |3 |3.625 |2 |3.357 | |Student 23 |Basic |Proficient |3 |3.625 |27 |3.429 | |Student 24 |Basic |Basic |3 |3.625 |1 |3.785 | |Student 25 |Basic |Proficient |4 |3.545 |19 |3.400 | |Table 4.5

Northwest Valley Middle School: Student Sample

Student |09-10 Assessment Level |11-12 Assessment level |Infinite Campus Logins

10-11 |GPA 10-11 |Infinite Campus Logins 11-12 |GPA 11-12 | |Student 26 |Advanced |Proficient |4 |3.545 |0 |3.400 | |Student 27 |Basic |Basic |3 |3.500 |1 |3.000 | |Student 28 |Proficient |Proficient |3 |3.500 |3 |3.393 | |Student 29 |Basic |Basic |51 |3.458 |7 |3.399 | |Student 30 |Advanced |Advanced |3 |3.455 |3 |3.500 | |Student 31 |Proficient |Advanced |3 |3.440 |2 |3.419 | |Student 32 |Basic |Proficient |67 |3.400 |35 |3.167 | |Student 33 |Proficient |Proficient |3 |3.400 |1 |3.313 | |Student 34 |Proficient |Basic |66 |3.375 |19 |3.230 | |Student 35 |Basic |Basic |3 |3.375 |7 |3.072 | |Student 36 |Basic |Basic |172 |3.364 |80 |3.321 | |Student 37 |Basic |Basic |75 |3.250 |38 |3.280 | |Student 38 |Proficient |Basic |3 |3.250 |4 |3.357 | |Student 39 |Basic |Basic |3 |3.250 |45 |3.143 | |Student 40 |Proficient |Proficient |3 |3.167 |20 |3.278 | |Student 41 |Basic |Basic |53 |3.125 |22 |2.933 | |Student 42 |Proficient |Basic |53 |3.125 |19 |3.133 | |Student 43 |Proficient |Basic |53 |3.091 |52 |3.500 | |Student 44 |Basic |Basic |3 |3.000 |19 |3.000 | |Student 45 |Proficient |Basic |54 |2.917 |28 |2.823 | |Student 46 |Basic |Basic |58 |2.875 |61 |2.571 | |Student 47 |Basic |Basic |50 |2.875 |98 |2.571 | |Student 48 |Basic |Basic |4 |2.875 |0 |3.070 | |Student 49 |Proficient |Proficient |3 |2.750 |2 |3.143 | |Student 50 |Basic |Proficient |4 |1.875 |2 |3.286 | |Table 4.6

Tables 4.5 and 4.6 each present twenty five of the fifty students chosen for the study sample. Included are the assessment levels of one year prior and after implementation of Infinite Campus. Additionally included are grade point averages and number of logins, (hits) for each year. For reporting purposes, students were separated into two tables according to grade point average.

Northwest Valley Middle School

[pic]

Bar Graph 4.4

[pic]

Bar Graph 4.5

Bar graphs 4.4 and 4.5 illustrate the frequency with which students or family members of students accessed the Infinite Campus Portal the year of and after implementation.

Northwest Valley Middle School

[pic]

Bar Graph 4.6

Bar Graph 4.6 combines the data from 4.4 and 4.5 in effort to provide a visual representation of the two years studied.

Northwest Valley Middle School

[pic]

Pie Chart 4.5

[pic]

Pie Chart 4.6

Charts 4.5 and 4.6 show Missouri Assessment Program achievement scores of sampled students for one year prior to and after implementation of Infinite Campus . Students were categorized into two groups according to number of logins (hits) and grade point averages.

Northwest Valley Middle School

[pic]

Pie Chart 4.7

[pic]

Pie Chart 4.8

Charts 4.7 and 4.8 show Missouri Assessment Program achievement scores of sampled students for one year prior to and after implementation of Infinite Campus . Students were categorized into two groups according to number of logins (hits) and grade point averages.

Northwest Valley Middle School

[pic]

Scatter Plot 4.3

Northwest Valley Middle School

[pic]

Scatter Plot 4.4

Scatter Plots 4.3 and 4.4 were used to investigate a possible relationship between the number of times Infinite Campus was accessed and the grade point average of sampled students for the year indicated.

CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Does the access of student information through internet portals act as an intervention to increase student achievement? Researchers found it was evident that there is a definite relationship between grade point average and achievement scores on Missouri assessments, and this body of research provides information that is consistent with theories suggesting that self and parental progress monitoring does indeed promote and enhance the learning process. However, the discovery of an irrefutable body of evidence to link frequency of accessing the Infinite Campus Portal with gains in student achievement was inconclusive.

Upon collecting information related to the first two years of Infinite Campus users at both Hillsboro High School and Northwest Valley Middle School, researchers determined that outliers needed to be eliminated to avoid a skew of data. It was determined that for any single year, a student with zero or one total hits as well as those with over 360 would not be included as part of the study. Additional exclusions were students who transferred in or out of district during any of the three years studied. For both schools, ad hoc scripts were written allowing the compilations of the total number of students/families who had signed up to access the portal from the year of adoption through the following year and their number of logins, or “hits,” respectively. From that total, twenty-five students from first year of implementation who were identified as having a “high” (over 25) number of hits, as well as twenty-five who were identified as having a “low” (under 25) number of hits were pulled for the sample groups. For these students, assessment scores, when available, as well as grade point averages were collected and reported.

DISCUSSION OF THE LITERATURE IN COMPARISON TO THE STUDY

As previously stated in the Discussion of Literature found in chapter two, keeping up with the ever-changing face of information technology is a daunting endeavor, yet consumers seem up to the task. When gathering data for this study, it was discovered that many parents and students in both districts signed up to use the portal early in the implementation stage, lending credence to previous research cited in chapter two which confirms that positive outcomes stem from increased student and parent participation and ownership in the academic process. Sara Lawrence Lightfoot, U.S. Professor of Education (2006) stated on the Pearson Education Systems Website, “Productive collaborations between family and school will demand that parents and teachers recognize the critical importance of each other’s participation in the life of the child.” Students and teachers have traditionally been a daily part of the education process, and now through web access, parents are able to become more active participants. When parents become more involved, students then take more interest in their own progress. Zappe and Sonak, (2001) reported that students direct their own motivation to prepare and complete assignments in relationship to the involvement of their parents. The more parents feel that they are privy to student progress and activities of the classroom, the more they provide support for the success of their child’s learning experience.

Throughout this study, students confirmed that from Smart Phones, to laptops and tablets, to gaming systems that access the web, today’s students live in a world that is driven by technology, is largely portable, and is in a constant state of change and evolution. Through texting and social media websites, students are constantly in touch with the world, communicating with others, and becoming skilled at multi-tasking with regard to managing ever-expanding streams of data with apparent ease.

According to a recent survey by Project Tomorrow (2010), a national nonprofit educational group based in California, a majority of students stated that they would like to use mobile devices as a means to communicate, collaborate, create and share documents, and receive information. Parents seem to be embracing this new techno-savvy generation and are willing to spend the money to meet needs of their students. The Project Tomorrow (2010) website reports that 67 % of parents said that they would purchase a mobile device for their child to use for educational purposes if their school would allow it. In both school districts, it was estimated by the researchers that over 90% of the student body owned a mobile device.

Chapter two also highlighted the risk of what Shenk (1997) has called "data smog", which is comparable in its emergence and effects to the pollution of rivers and seas caused by an excess of fertilizers, or to the health problems caused by a diet too rich in calories. While the researchers found that technological advances have made the retrieval, production and distribution of information much easier than in any other period in history, the natural selection processes which would otherwise have kept all but the most important information from being published has been greatly reduced. The result is an explosion in often irrelevant, unclear and inaccurate data fragments, making it ever more difficult to see the forest through the trees. Whereas information used to be scarce, and having more of it was considered a good thing, it seems that we now many of us are reaching the point of saturation. It has become difficult, yet crucial to avoid information overload, because in the end, if students and parents do not know what to do with the information or choose to ignore it, no amount of accessibility will improve student performance.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

While working with both districts’ technology personnel, who agreed to run standard and ad hoc reports for the researchers, two important pieces of information were soon discovered: The first, which was identified early on, was that Infinite Campus does not separate family access by user, therefore making it impossible to tell who the individual was logging into the program. The second, was that although the number of logins could be reported, why the logins were taking place could not be discerned. The Infinite Campus Portal provides student and parent access to many features: attendance, lesson plans, daily announcements and schedules, as well as grades. Since the Infinite Campus system does not allow for the disaggregation of these uses, researchers cannot report accurately how many of the “hits” were attributed to grade checks. Also, since this study focused on the use of the portal during its advent, it is possible that there were heightened waves of popularity during the first year which may have died off during the second. Researchers also found that at the high school level, access seemed to pick up considerably during the senior year. At the junior high, where parent involvement is traditionally still large, parents may have been logging in more often than students. Another factor that may have provided information that blurred the study was the inclusion of all students receiving special services. The researchers did not provide for an avenue to determine whether or not the findings were based on the adopted or a modified curriculum.

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

The researchers propose that Infinite Campus Inc. report student and parent logins individually, permitting school districts the benefit of tracking who, among its stakeholders, is accessing information. Another improvement would be for Infinite Campus to re-design the log-on process so that features are accessed one at a time. District and building administration as well as the company could then gain an accurate picture of the purposes for the logins. Both enhancements would improve the product as they would provide marketing information to the company that aims to meet state and federal reporting mandates, with more specifically targeted user data for districts signing contractual agreements with student information system providers at a hefty cost.

The final recommendation is for the study to be continued in an effort to look longitudinally at whether or not student achievement might be impacted by interactive student information systems in a positive way. The information age will continue with technology continuing to break new ground. Students, parents, teachers and administrators will be presented with more tools than ever to monitor and intervene in academic progress. With such costly, sophisticated and revolutionary systems becoming the norm, it would stand to reason that fewer and fewer students should be left behind.

REFERENCES

Andrew, T. (2008, October). Pros and cons of electronic grade books. Retrieved from

Barrett, S.(1999). Informations systems: an exploration of factors influencing effective use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 4-16. ISTE

Bernhardt, V.L. (2006). Using data to improve student learning in school districts. Eye on Education, Inc. Larchmont, NY.

Bird, K. (2006). Student information systems: How do you spell parental involvement? s-i-s. T.H.E. Journal, 0192592X, 20060201, Vol. 33, Issue 7. Retrieved April 11, 2011 from ERIC Database.

Cator, K. (2011). Karen cator to answer questions. Office of educational technology. United States Department of Education. Retrieved April 11, 2011 from

Davis, M.R. (2009, June 17). Grade books take virtual approach. Education Week, Retrieved April 11, 2011 from

Evans, J. (2011). 2011 Congressional briefing national release of speak up 2010 k-12 students and parent data. Retrieved April 11, 2011 from

Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis, 2002. Retrieved April 22, 2011, From ERIC database.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T., Sandler, H.M., & Whetsel, D., Green, C.L., Wilkins, A.S. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130,188.

Internetworldstats Website. (2010, June). Internet usage and populations in north america. (2010, June). Retrieved April 10, 2011 from

Jesdanun, A. (2005, February 2). Grade books go online to increase parental involvement. USA Today.

Lacina, J. (2006, summer). Virtual record keeping: should teachers keep online grade books. Retrieved February 27, 2011 from

Levine, L.A.(2002). Teacher’s perceptions of parental involvement: How it effects our children’s development in literacy. (Retrieved from ERIC database No.ED465438)

Lightfoot, L., (2006). Pearson Education Systems. PowerSchool software .Retrieved February 27, 2011 from

Maynard, S., & Howley, A. (1997). Parent and community involvement in rural schools. ERIC clearinghouse on rural education and small schools. No. ED408143.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Core Data Report. Retrieved February 27, 2011 from

National Technology Plan. (2003). Retrieved April 2, 2011 from

No Child Left Behind. (2004). Education Week. Retrieved February 27, 2011 from .

Pebley, Anne R., & Sastry, N., (2003). Concentrated poverty versus concentrated affluence: effects of neighborhood social environments and children’s outcomes. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from

Project Tomorrow. (2010). Learning in the 21st century.

Schenk, D. (1997). Data smog: Surviving the information glut. New York: HarperCollin

Scherer, M. (2011, February). Screenagers: making the connections. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 7.

Taboada, M.B., (January 2, 2010). Electronic grade books are now the norm. Retrieved from

United States Department of Commerce. (2004). Fact sheets: digital literacy. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from

United States Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics.(2003). Digest of Education Statistics 2003. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from

United States Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics.(2008). Digest of Education Statistics 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from

Waddington, P. (1996). Reuters. Dying for information? An investigation into effects of information overload in the uk and worldwide. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from

Zappe, S.M. & Sonak, B.C. (2001). The effects of a web-based, academic record and feedback system on academic achievement and performance of junior high school students. Symposium conducted at the AERA Annual Meeting, Pennsylvania.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download