- My Technology Lesson Plan
- lesson plan day 1
- NiaLynn Sumas-Johnson
- unit plan lesson 2
- lesson plan pdf
- weebly lesson 2 429
- reflessonplan2pcefin
- feap 3
- day 1 unit lesson plan
- student assessment formal lesson plan
- lesson 1
- visual and viewing lesson
- tws 4-assessment---weebly ready
- assessment plan lesson 1
- intro concept unit lesson plan
- twstemplatefinal 1
- Lesson Review 2
- observation8
- mddii - iii design for instruction
- lesson plan 1 8
- 471 extended lesson to be completed on 11 2f17 2f17 1
- assessment overview
- lesson plan 2 fix
- eced461 tws4 rhodes
- assessment plan
- tech lesson plan 1
- double final lp1-moon
- impact on student learning project
- nastasha green tws 8 done
- psii goal 4 evidence
- tws 7
- tws 8
- tws 10
- tws 9
- tws 6
- tws 5
- tws 10
- tws 9
- tws 4
- tws 1
- tws 3
- tws 2
- tws 6
- science mini unit edit
- tws 8
- friction lp
- tws 4
- multiplying fractions
- tws contextual factors
- adding and subtracting like fractions 1
- tws 8
- contextual factors
- lp 4
- science lesson plan 2
- interest survey data
- science lesson plan 1
- piechart
- assessment plan
- dissolving lesson plan

Whole class: The table below shows the scores that the students received during the preassessment and during the post assessment. The pre-assessment and the postassessment were the same questions. The pre- assessment and post-assessment were out of eight total points. The during assessment was out of 2 points. Students received a 2 if they fully understood the concepts and how to do the problems, a 1 if they partially understood the concepts and how to do the problems, and a 0 if they did not understand the concepts or how to do the problems. Student Number Pre-Assessment Score During Assessment Score 2 Post-Assessment Score

1 (Average 5 8 performer) 2 6 2 7 3 7 1 6 4 6 2 N/A 5 7 2 8 6 4 0 6 7 8 2 8 8 6 1 7 9 (Low performer) 4 0 6 10 7 2 7 11 4 0 8 12 6 2 6 13 (High 8 2 8 performer) 14 4 1 5 15 8 2 6 16 4 2 7 17 8 1 6 18 5 1 8 19 8 N/A 8 20 6 2 8 21 8 2 8 22 7 2 8 *The numbers listed in this table are not affiliated with the numbers that the students are given in the classroom. The numbers in this table were assigned to the assessments at random.*

1

Heather Schryver 2

Overall, I was impressed with the assessment data that I obtained. The students scored higher on the pre-assessment than I was expecting them to. I did not expect them to score so high because they had not yet been taught the concept of multiplying fractions. They, however, have been told throughout the past several weeks that multiplying fractions was one of the easiest things that they would learn with fractions. None of my students scored less than a 4 on the pre-assessment. A score of 4 indicates that the student answered half of the given questions correctly. 22.73% of my students scored a 4 on the pre-assessment. Only 9% of the students scored a 5 on the pre-assessment. 22.73% of the students scored 6 out of 8. 18.18% of my students scored a 7. And, astonishingly, 27.27% of my students made a perfect score of 8 on the pre-assessment. Based on the results of the pre-assessment, I was less impressed by the results of the during assessment. A few of the students could not seem to grasp the concept of multiplying fractions. When I realized that they were struggling, I would go to them and help them one-on-one as much as possible. However, I also made note of it by placing their popsicle sticks on the other side of the cup. I, then, wrote the names of these students down so that I could pull a small group at a later time. Overall, 59% (13 of 22) of my students scored a 2 on the during assessment. 22.72% (5 students) of the students scored a 1. And 13.64% (only three students) of the students scored a 0. I was even happier with the results of the post-assessment. After being taught the lesson, the students’ scores should have risen. However, 13.63% of my student’s scores dropped. These scores are highlighted above. Fortunately, out of the three students that scored less on the post-assessment than the pre-assessment, they missed different problems. This assures me that the student’s more than likely just rushed through the post-assessment, rather than taking the time to read each problem carefully. 27.27% of the students did not fluctuate scores between the postassessment and the pre-assessment. Again, the majority of these students missed different problems on the two assessments. Several of these students scored 8 out of 8 on both the pre-assessment and the post-assessment. 22.72% of the students’ scores went up one point between the pre -assessment and the post-assessment. 13.64% of the student’s scores went up two points between the pre -assessment and the post-assessment. 18.18% of the students’ scores went up three points between the pre-assessment and the post-assessment. 4.5% of the students’ scores went up four points between the pre -assessment and the post-assessment. 13.63% of the students’ scores dropped at least one point between the pre assessment and the post-assessment. 27.27% of the students’ scores stayed the same between the pre-assessment and the post-assessment.

2

Heather Schryver 3

Individuals: I chose three separate students to analyse student learning. I chose a lowperforming student (student number 9), an average-performing student (student number 1), and a high-performing student (student number 13). Student number 9 scored a 4 on the pre-assessment. The student did know that he/she was to multiply straight across. However, he/she did not simplify the fraction (which is a must in the classroom. On another question, the student did not multiply correctly. On the first word problem he/she multiplied 2 by 1/3. However, he/she multiplied the 1 and the 3 by 2, rather than making 2 a fraction by putting it over 1. For the during assessment, this student received a score of 0. He/she did not understand the concept or how to solve the problems. I worked with this student and helped this student several times during this lesson. She was pulled for a small group, at a later time. Student number 9 scored a 6 on the post-assessment. The student missed the first word problem again and was pulled aside in a strategy group to fix the problem. Student number 1 scored a 5 on the pre-assessment. Rather than multiplying the denominators, this student just carried the denominator over. This student also missed the second word problem. He/she did not multiply correctly. He/she received a score of 2 on the during assessment. This student understood the concept being taught and how to solve the problems. This student received a score of 8 on the post-assessment. Student number 13 scored an 8 on both the pre-assessment and the postassessment. He/she also scored a 2 on the during assessment.

3

- My Technology Lesson PlanUploaded bymissbets
- lesson plan day 1Uploaded byapi-299952808
- NiaLynn Sumas-JohnsonUploaded bysumas626
- unit plan lesson 2Uploaded byapi-338231293
- lesson plan pdfUploaded byapi-240969595
- weebly lesson 2 429Uploaded byapi-242288854
- reflessonplan2pcefinUploaded byapi-276776518
- feap 3Uploaded byapi-272067310
- day 1 unit lesson planUploaded byapi-270334633
- student assessment formal lesson planUploaded byapi-301740921
- lesson 1Uploaded byapi-300753982
- visual and viewing lessonUploaded byapi-331845173
- tws 4-assessment---weebly readyUploaded byapi-203262811
- assessment plan lesson 1Uploaded byapi-177378486
- intro concept unit lesson planUploaded byapi-299184532
- twstemplatefinal 1Uploaded byapi-239635580
- Lesson Review 2Uploaded bygggregorie
- observation8Uploaded byapi-320724671
- mddii - iii design for instructionUploaded byapi-257825409
- lesson plan 1 8Uploaded byapi-406714715
- 471 extended lesson to be completed on 11 2f17 2f17 1Uploaded byapi-386010785
- assessment overviewUploaded byapi-334861434
- lesson plan 2 fixUploaded byapi-331845173
- eced461 tws4 rhodesUploaded byapi-200991021
- assessment planUploaded byapi-177378486
- tech lesson plan 1Uploaded byapi-346855151
- double final lp1-moonUploaded byapi-382117266
- impact on student learning projectUploaded byapi-329766575
- nastasha green tws 8 doneUploaded byapi-235236877
- psii goal 4 evidenceUploaded byapi-296997716

- tws 7Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 8Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 10Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 9Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 6Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 5Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 10Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 9Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 4Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 1Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 3Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 2Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 6Uploaded byapi-251798124
- science mini unit editUploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 8Uploaded byapi-251798124
- friction lpUploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 4Uploaded byapi-251798124
- multiplying fractionsUploaded byapi-251798124
- tws contextual factorsUploaded byapi-251798124
- adding and subtracting like fractions 1Uploaded byapi-251798124
- tws 8Uploaded byapi-251798124
- contextual factorsUploaded byapi-251798124
- lp 4Uploaded byapi-251798124
- science lesson plan 2Uploaded byapi-251798124
- interest survey dataUploaded byapi-251798124
- science lesson plan 1Uploaded byapi-251798124
- piechartUploaded byapi-251798124
- assessment planUploaded byapi-251798124
- dissolving lesson planUploaded byapi-251798124