Table 6 and Figure 2 present comparisons of FCT mean scores of SWD in high-support EAI mathematics classrooms, SWD in low-support EAI inclusive mathematics classrooms, and SWOD in all the inclusive mathematics classrooms.
In fact, the posttest scores showed no significant difference between the high-support SWD and the SWOD overall.
fractions strips) to help more SWD and SWOD attain greater mastery of fractions.
Had access to items been universally increased, the end result would have been more internally consistent assessments for SWDEs, as well as differential boosts in performance decreasing the gap between SWD-Es and SWODs or SWD-NEs.
These enhancements were endorsed by students and likely made the testing experience for SWD-Es more similar to the experience that SWODs typically have on a general assessment, as quantified by items that can be answered correctly and passages that can be read in less time.
TABLE 1 Participant Proficiency Rates on the Most Recent State Assessment Reading Mathematics Science Group % % % SWODs 67 67 72 SWD-NEs 65 62 38 SWD-Es 26 22 18 Note.
The sample comprised three groups: SWOD (n = 246 in reading; 255 in mathematics), SWD-NE (n = 220 in reading; 219 in mathematics), and SWD-E (n = 228 in reading; 235 in mathematics).
TABLE 2 Frequencies of Participants by Group and Test Form Test Test Participants Form A Form B Total SWOD 2 1 3 SWD-NE 1 2 3 SWD-E 1 2 3 Note.
Conversely, SWODs indicated the pictures made no difference in understanding the reading questions or passages.
The sample included 755 eighth-grade students from four states, balanced across the three groups: SWODs (n = 269), SWD-NEs (n = 236), and SWD-Es (n = 250).
SWODs, SWD-NEs, and SWD-Es) on the three types of test conditions (original, modified, and modified with reading support).
The percentile ranks were determined based on the distribution of scores for SWODs in the original condition.