You are on page 1of 8

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Jankouskas

Mini-Unit Overview:
My mini-unit is a twelve lesson unit with one day for a review and an extra day set aside for reteaching anything the students did not retain mastery in. This unit of study is in mathematics; more
specifically place values. Throughout the unit students were instructed on how to order, compare, and use
basic arithmetic to solve equations. Students were assessed prior to instruction, during instruction, and
following instruction.
Standards Addressed:
Common Core Standards and Indicators
4.NBT.A.4: Generalize place value understanding for multi-digit numbers.
4.NBT.A.4.2: Read and write multi-digit whole numbers using base-ten numerals, number
names, and expanded form. Compare two multi-digit numbers based on the meanings of digits in
each place, using >, =, and < symbols to record the results of comparisons.
4.NBT.A.4.3: Use place value understanding to round multi-digit whole numbers to any place.
4.NBT.B.4: Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi-digit arithmetic.
4.NBT.B.4.4: Fluently add and subtract multi-digit whole numbers using standard arithmetic.
Unit Objective:
When given an equation or word sentence the student will be able to demonstrate their understanding of
place values to compare, order, or use basic arithmetic strategies in order to solve the problem with
100% accuracy.
Assessment Characteristics:
Pre-Assessments
After the “Am I Ready” quiz and the “Check My Progress” quiz all pre-assessments will be
teacher observation. This will be a question based review about the previous lessons thus far. Based on
students answers and possible questions decisions will be made as to what material will require additional
time to master.
During-Assessments
The during-assessments for each lesson re teacher observation based. These assessments will
include questioning, student answers, student independent work, group work conclusions, etc. These
assessments will be used to decide what needs to be included in the wrap-up of that particular lesson each
day. If something specific is included in the wrap-up then it will also be included in the following day’s
prior lesson recap.
Post-Assessments
The post-assessments for each day will consist of the review of the day’s lesson. Using both the
pre and during-assessments the instructor will be able to decide what material needs more focus and what
material has been mastered.
1

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Jankouskas

Formative Assessments
The “Am I Ready” pre-assessment quiz contains thirteen equations on the front side. The
fourteenth question is in word form. The back side is on vocabulary. This side contains a chart where
students fill vocabulary words next to their corresponding definitions using a word box. This assessment
is not recorded as a grade, but instead marked and recorded based on what students already have
mastered. The total question number is twenty.
The “Check My Progress” quiz is very similar to the pre-assessment in structure and quantity of
questions. This assessment will be recorded as a grade, but also used as a tool to decide what material
needs to be re-taught. The total question number is twenty
The conclusive exam in this unit is a two page front and back exam with thirty questions. Twenty
questions are equations that need solved or number sentences that need compared, while the other ten are
word problems or chart questions that use a table or data to answer.
 All quizzes count as thirty percent while tests are seventy percent.
These assessments are aligned with the Common Core standards 4.NBT.A and 4.NBT.B that deal with
place values, ordering/comparing numbers, and basic arithmetic strategies. The McGraw-Hill math
textbook directly follows these standards and indicators within each chapter.
“Am I Ready” Front:

“Am I Ready” Back:
2

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Jankouskas

Student Scores on Pre, During, and Post-Assessments:
Pre-Assessment:
Student
Score
#1
70
#2
85
#3
90
#4
30
#5
65
#6
90
#7
70
#8
50
#9
85
#10
55
#11
85
#12
85
#13
40
#14
45
#15
70
#16
85
#17
35
#18
65
#19
80
#20
55
#21
55
#22
70
#23
40
#24
65
Mean
65.21
During-Assessment:

Student
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
Mean
Post-Assessment:
Student

Score
80
100
100
60
90
100
70
65
95
70
90
85
65
70
90
100
80
65
95
80
75
60
60
80
77.21

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
Mean

90
93
100
80
93
93
80
76
93
76
93
90
67
76
100
100
86
70
97
83
76
100
83
83
86.58

Score

Explanation:
The scores above are from the pre-assessment, during-assessment, and post-assessment. I
highlighted these boxes either green for a good performance or neutral for anything less than exceeding
expectations. I did not highlight any student’s scores red or poor performance in the pre-assessment
because they may not have the schemata to do what was necessary. What categorized as a good
performance or exceeding expectations was a score of at least an eighty-five or a Low “B” up to a high
“A”. An average or neutral score was between seventy-seven and eighty-four. This section ranges from a
3

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Jankouskas

low “C” up to a low “B”. The red highlight means the student scored either a “D” or a “U” which is
labelled a poor performance.
On the pre-assessment students ranged from thirty to ninety. There were seven students who
scored above average on the pre-assessment which is very promising. This means these particular
students have completed this type of mathematics prior to this unit and therefore have the schema to
perform well. Many students achieved scores that are technically failing grades. This is what I expected
most students to score because they had not been taught this before in their curriculum. That is why the
fact that a large number of students receiving an “A” or a “B” was so impressive. This data also shows
me that the pre-assessment was reliable because many students did not understand the concept of place
values prior to instruction.
The during-assessment contained a lot of student growth. Only two students stayed the same and
one student decreased in score. Every other student increased their scores and some dramatically
example; Students #4 and #17 increasing thirty points and forty-five points. This assessment also told me
that roughly half of the students do not fully understand the concepts being taught, while I can expect ten
students to get either an “A” or a “B” on the post-assessment. After reviewing this data and specifically
which questions were answered incorrectly I have decided to re-teach a lesson on place values.
The post-assessment exam had six students achieve a poor performance, however none failed.
This exam had ten students receive an “A” with four of those being perfect scores. I expected there to be
more neutral scores than above average scores, however the result shown in the data is more encouraging.
Specifically the student who had decreased from pre-assessment to during-assessment ended up acing the
exam. This I hypothesize to be contributed to by this student’s daily medicine. On the day of the duringassessment this student had not taken the medicine and did not focus on the assessment.

Chart Title
120
100
80
60
40
20
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24

0

Pre-Assessment:

Post-Assessment:

This graph shows each student’s performance on the pre and post-assessments. Through this
graph we are able to see the growth each student has made during this unit.
4

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Jankouskas

Low, Medium, and High Achieving Students:
Low:
The low achieving student I chose was student #17. This student struggles in all subjects and is
pulled out for resource for two hours per day for ELA and math. I chose this student because when
confident and motivated this student excels with times tables up to twelve, and basic arithmetic processes.
Unfortunately this student is often upset or unconfident in his/her abilities and therefore will decide not to
apply himself/herself and achieve poor scores.
Medium:
The medium achieving student I chose to study was student #7. This student is always on task
and focused, however he/she usually will achieve a “B” or “C” on assignments, rarely achieving an “A”.
I chose this student because this student is very motivated and eager to learn. This gave me the hope that
when studied more closely that this student could achieve an “A” and then make that his/her new standard
for achieving.
High:
The high student I chose is student #6. This student is very motivated and focused on learning.
This student is never a behavioral issue or an academic one. If this student achieves a “B” on an
assignment he/she will become very upset with himself/herself . I chose this student because without
question this student will receive an “A” in math because of the work ethic this student shows towards
school/learning.

Importance of Choosing Three Students:
I think that looking at three students where one is a low performer, one is an average performer,
and the third is a high performer can give the instructor a pretty accurate dynamic of the class. For
example if an assessment is completed and not even the high performing student is able to achieve an
average score, then I think the instructor taught it in a way that was not conducive to their students. If the
low performing student earns a perfect score along with every other student, the instructor knows that
either everyone cheated or whatever instructional strategies they used worked wonders. Looking at three
diverse student achievers gives benchmarks of where you can predict each student to score, it gives the
instructor a base point to create reasonable goals for students, and shows student progress. It is basically
a case study of the three students. If something worked, then the instructor has the information to know
and understand that, then repeat it for the next topic.
Looking at pre-assessment and post-assessment data is all about improving as instructors and
learning how to teach the students in your class more productively. This profession is all about the
students and the perfect environment cannot be achieved unless you practice-adapt-practice-adapt as a
teacher. Everyone is always learning as a teacher we must learn from our students in order to teach our
students.

5

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Low Student Pre-Assessment:

Medium Student Pre-Assessment:

6

Jankouskas

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Jankouskas

High Student Pre-Assessment:

Low, Medium, and High Students’ Performance:
Low:
This student started off the unit with a pre-assessment that was to be expected. Throughout
the unit I made sure that when I assisted this student during independent work that I was very positive
in order to keep the student confident and willing to try. Quickly this student began to raise his/her
hand in class often to answer questions and to read. The during-assessment proved a little challenging
still, where the student achieved a “C”. The student was happy however because normally the student
receives “U’s” or “D’s”. Every day this student would come into math with an eagerness that prior to
this unit he/she lacked. This was very encouraging to see, especially when this student gained a “B” on
the unit exam. When this student received his/her test back from being graded he/she was trying to
show it to everyone. I am very proud of this student for the effort he/she had put into this math unit.
Medium:
This student started off taking the pre-assessment and achieving a seventy percent which was
better than I expected. This student continued to try and improve, making sure to stay focused and
avoid distractions, but he/she gained zero ground after the during-assessment. This was disheartening
to see because this student tries very hard in all subjects. He/she always has all of his/her homework
7

EDUC 461: TWS #6

Analysis of Student Learning

Jankouskas

complete. After the post-assessment this student jumped to an eighty which is still a “C”, but it showed
the effort this student had put forth in order to achieve a higher score on the post-assessment than the
during-assessment. This score definitely represents the middle of the class average if not a little below.
High:
Student #6 scored a ninety on the pre-assessment, which is a high “B”. Then scored a perfect
one hundred on the during-assessment. This student’s score dropped on the post assessment down to a
low “A” of ninety-three. I think that this is due to how the unit exam was laid out. In class we had not
completed too many problems that involved looking at data and interpreting it in order to equate an
answer. This along with the fact that there were more questions may have been the reason this student
struggled on this assessment compared with the previous one.

8