Data Analysis of Student Understanding:

As a whole, my class improved during the course of this unit. Data from the preassessment shows that 14 students were proficient, scoring 6/8 or above. Ten students were
below proficient, scoring 4/4 or lower. After the post-assessment, those numbers went up to 21
students being proficient and only one student being blow proficient. Class wide, 17 students
improved their scores, zero students declined, six students scores stayed the same, and five
students had insufficient data because of absences during the post-assessment. This data is
demonstrated on the data table and chart below. (* indicates ELL or IEP student)

This analysis is encouraging, but also gives me a better idea of how I can improve my
teaching in order to improve student learning. Analysis of my subgroups (IEP and ELL students)
indicates that I need to give even more attention to specific students to ensure comprehension.

The missing data from the post-analysis demonstrates to problem that student absences
causes. I will need to follow-up with students that miss class.
I am encouraged that the least missed questions were those that asked students to
define Utopia, Dystopia, and Theme. Considering the material that was being taught, I was
happy to see that students had solid background knowledge to work with.
Breakdown of Pre/Post Assessment Questions
I chose to do a simple definition assessment. We were reading the novel The Giver, with
our main points of discussion centered around themes the text offered. I wanted to see if the
students were familiar with Utopian and Dystopian societies. This is currently a popular theme
not only in young adult literature, but also in cinema. We focused quite a bit of time on the
various themes the text offered. Why the author chose to write about them and why these
themes might be important not only for the novel, but from a global perspective.
The remaining words to define were common words found in the text. These words were
common enough that I felt the students had heard them before, but complex enough that they
might not fully understand what the words meant. There appeared to be an fairly even split with
these words on the pre and post assessment. A fair amount didnt score well on the preassessment, but most students showed improvement on the post-assessment.
Subgroup Performance:
I chose to use my ELL and IEP students as subgroups for this unit. Both of these groups
regularly require extra support and guidance to ensure student learning. With the exception of
one student whose score remained the same, all of the students that took both assessments

showed improvement. Unfortunately I did have one IEP student and one ELL student miss the
post-assessment due to absences. This enforces the importance for students to be in class as
well as the attention I need to pay to these students.
ELL Students:

14

10.5

Post-Test

Pre-Test

3.5

Student 2

Student 9

Student 20

Student 27

IEP Students:

16

12

Post-Test

Pre-Test

Student 9

Student 15

Student 23

Student 26

Reflection and Overall Conclusions:

I do feel that my students gained knowledge from this unit. They contributed to class
discussions and showed improvement in formative and summative assessments. Nonetheless, I
do wish I would have taken the students to deeper levels of critical thinking. If I have another
opportunity to teach this text, I will focus on fewer topics and explore the topics I choose much
deeper. This data did encourage me that overall I am helping my diverse students with their
learning, but I need to offer that extra help right from the start.