You are on page 1of 6

Valery Chekmazov EPS 513 Shaunti/Diane February 10, 13

Assessing Student Learning

Part I: Summarize student performance in a table or graphic form.

The graph that I chose for my paper represents the data collected for the pre and post tests that Ive administered for the unit on preparation for the NWEA Fall testing. Ive used Crosswalk Coach book as the main source for assessment because its aligned with Common Core standards that will be tested on NWEA and because a large part of my instruction would consist of teaching test taking skills, therefore I wanted to mimic the test taking experience as much as possible. Both pre-test and the post-test are strategically aligned, hitting identical standards and include parallel questions to assure test validity. The pre-test was administered on the Friday prior to the week on instruction and was used as an informative tool on which standards students were struggling with and which standards students grasped well. The results of the pre-test drove the weeks instruction. If you refer to the Table I, and review the pre-data analysis, you will automatically notice that the majority of the students failed the pre-test, with an average 54% of the students passing the class (getting higher than 70%). The table also summarizes how each student performed on each of the ten questions. Only 11% of the entire class answered question 4 (standard RH.8.7) correctly, which made it the most common wrong answer for the preset. Second most difficult question was 5, with 16% of the class answering correctly, followed by questions 9 and 3 that got respective 58% and 73% answering success rates. The standards for

these 4 questions were targeted for instruction. The post-test (Table II) represents the summative assessments and mastery of the targeted skills post-instruction. Students strengths and weaknesses based on the assessment data The data show that students greatest strength was in questions number one, seven and nine. These questions mostly tested students comprehension and right there lower-thinking skills. In terms of the students weaknesses, the pre-test data (Table I) showed that most students got questions 3,4,5, and 9 wrong. The questions correlate to [RI.8.2], [RH.8.7], [RI.8.8], [RI.8.9] standards respectively. The biggest challenge for most of the students was answering question # 4 that based on the common core standards and tests students graphic and chart analysis skills. Only 14% of the class answered that question right. The second most difficult question was question #5 (16% accuracy) correlated with identifying arguments in writing and test students ability to recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced. Question #9 (58% accuracy) tested students compare/contrast skills. Finally the last skill that students struggled with was in question #3 (72% accuracy) that dealt with determining the main idea of the paragraph. These questions and skills seemed to show the area of greater need. Since overall achievement of the class was low and every student got at least one answer wrong, no need for greater challenge was found. The post data-chart (Table II) shows a significant increase in student sores after specific areas of weaknesses were targeted with appropriate instruction. Both individual and whole-class scores went up from an average 52% met and exceeds (from pre-test) to 82% class average (post-test). The weaknesses in standards from

pre-test have significantly improved after instruction as can be seen by individual question result correlating to each standard.

Patterns across class and in individual students. By looking at the pre-test data table across class, it is obvious that most of the student struggled with questions 4,5, and 9. Only 3 students got questions 3, and 4 right. Therefore these were the standards and skills that had to be improved the most. In terms of common patterns between the two tables (pre and post-data), a reoccurring struggle with standards [RI.8.2] and [RI.8.9] is seen. Even after instruction, most students seemed

to be struggling with these skills. Looking at individual trends looks like Zontrell, one of the classes lower performers, and a student who has comprehension difficulties, has improved slightly (2 questions) but has not made enough gains to pass the test. Shamar, another lower-performing student has showed opposite, by increasing his score from a failing grade to an average of 80% (based on the post test data). So when it cam to the low achieving students the results of learning really differ based on individual cases.
Part II: Using Assessment to Inform Instruction:

Looking at both the pre-test and the post-test data, it is evident that most students are still struggling with [RI.8.2] and [RI.8.9] standards. It seemed that a week of targeted instruction on these two skills has not proved to be as fruitful as that on the others. The next course of action, if time allows, would be to reteach these skills using a different approach than was attempted in the first post-test instruction. Since most growth in learning has occurred in other areas, I would

presume that more visual approach to teaching should be attempted, trying to appeal to different leaning styles. Since both standards deal with main idea and comparing and contrasting information, (higher order thinking) skills, I would imagine that a sort of comparative matrix project could also prove helpful in building students comprehension of text and analytic skills.
Next steps for instruction would be to focus on re-teaching the skills related to standards [RI.8.2] and [RI.8.9] that, base don the post-test data were the least correct

amongst the entire class. Since both questions show student mastery below 70%, the teaching implications would have to be re-teaching as a whole group. Individually Damone and Zontrell should be pulled into a small strategy group targeting the standards that correlated to the questions they got wrong on their post-test assessment.

Table I: Pre-Test Data for 8th Literacy (High)

Questions Student 1. Zontrell 2. Daryanna 3. McKenzie 4. Zach 5. Damone 6. Takeya 7. Tyler 8. Jacasia 9. Dominique 10. Chancez 11. Shamar 12. Kyra 13. Jayson 14. Tatyana 15. Davante 16. Dyamond 17. Kenecia 19. Kathryn % Of right Qs 1 X 2 3 4 [RI.8.2] [RH.8.7] X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 6 [RI.8.8] X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 7 8 9 10 [RI.8.9] X X

% of Qs Correct 40% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 70% 70% 80% 60%

X X X X X

20% 40% 20%

X X

60% 90%

X X

60% 90%

73% 100% 73%

11%

16%

79% 95% 95% 58%

73% Avg. % 54

Table II: Post-Test Analysis for 8th grade Literacy (High)

Questions Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 [RI.8.2] [RH.8.7 [RI.8.8] X 7 8 9 [RI.8.9] X X 10 X

% of Qs Correct 60% 80% 90% 80% 60% 70% 90% 90% 70% 80% 90% 100% 70%

1. Zontrell X 2. X Daryanna 3. McKenzie 4. Zach 5. Damone 6. Takeya 7. Jacaysia 8. Dominique 9. Chancez X 10. Shamar 11. Kyra 12. Jayson 13. Tatyana 14. Davante 15. Dyamond 16. Kenecia 17. Kathryn 18. Tyler % Of right 95% 89% Qs

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

80% 80% 80% 90% 100% 72% 72% Avg. % 82

58%

95%

95%

89% 100% 44%