You are on page 1of 54

1

Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Evidence of Student Learning


Shannon LeRoy
Towson University

2
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Part A: Learning Context, Topic and Objectives


Lutherville Laboratory is a public elementary school that is located in Lutherville,
Maryland. They pride themselves in being a magnet school, focusing in Science, Mathematics
and Communication. As of this year, they became a Green School; focusing on energy
conservation and habitat restoration. Lutherville Laboratory teaches students from Pre-K through
5th grade. There are a total of 420 students enrolled, which is exceeding their capacity of 407
students. The student population mostly consists of Caucasians; other race/ethnicities include
Asian, African American and Hispanic. Lutherville Laboratory has 7% of the student population
receiving Limited English Proficiency (LEP), 11% who receive Special Education Services, 12%
who receive Gifted and Talented (GT), and 16% who receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARM).
The majority of the teachers (83%) teaching have their Masters degree and have 11-20 years of
instructional staff experience.
Lutherville Laboratory models exceptional teamwork and communication skills on a
daily basis. Teachers, paraprofessionals, and service providers (Occupational and Speech
Therapists) are constantly and frequently in open communication with one another. They all
make sure to keep consistency among themselves; this is most advantageous for the child.
Lutherville laboratory has several different classroom models, including: general education,
inclusion and self-contained classrooms. The classroom model of focus for this evidence of
student learning project is a Pre-K inclusion classroom consisting of 9 students. This is the only
Pre-K classroom in the school. The gender spread is: 5 girls and 4 boys. There are 4 students
with IEPs, their exceptionalities include: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Developmentally
Delayed (DD) and a hearing impairment. There are a few cultural and linguistic differences in
my classroom; there are 2 students who speak another language other than English at home. One

3
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

student speaks Russian at home; she understands the English language fairly well but will
occasionally respond combining Russian and English words. The other student who speaks
Chinese at home understands and responds in the English language very well but is extremely
soft spoken and does not express facial expressions for different emotions. The current ELLs
(English Language Learners) cannot receive ESOL services until next year when they are in
Kindergarten. The reason being that they will most likely catch up to their native speaking
peers by the end of Pre-K, in the hope that they will not need ESOL services in Kindergarten.
There is a range of oral development in my classroom: one student is non-verbal who uses a
text-to-speech device for communication, three students have limited speech, two are on grade
level and three are considered advanced. There is also a range in their written language
development; the three students who have advanced speech also have advanced writing skills.
They are able to write their letters and names clearly. The rest of the class cannot clearly write
letters yet and needs more practice with fine motor skills (writing).
There are several behavior concerns in my classroom but with the Instructor Assistant
(Beth) and Adult Support (Donna) alongside the Special Education teacher (Ms. McGregor) and
I, class disruptions can be addressed without disruption to the lesson and learning environment.
The classroom routine and structured classroom environment is important to accommodate
students with special needs. All the students have a velcro schedule and every time they rotate to
a different station they have to make a match. The students start with circle time, then rotate
through centers (literacy, math and play), then they have art, playground and goodbye on their
schedules. This schedule is done for all the students, but it is especially helpful for students with
special needs because it can lessen their anxiety by giving them that structure and routine. The
only time all the students are receiving instruction as a class is at circle time or at art, other than

4
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

that they are broken up into groups at their stations. For my evidence of student learning project I
am teaching circle time, the literacy station and the art station. There will be a different literacy
and math objective each day. There is no written objective based on circle time or art. The
objectives are mindful of the diverse group of students to help them achieve learning goals
presented by the states curriculum framework.
The literacy objectives for the three-day lesson are aligned with the Maryland College
and Career Readiness Standards. The reading foundational skills anchor standard in place
for Day 1 and Day 3 literacys objective is RF3 CCR: Know and apply grade-level phonics and
word analysis skills in decoding words. The essential skills needed of this unit are the
knowledge and ability to begin to associate names of letters with their shapes; begin to notice the
beginning letter in familiar words; and begin to associate names of letters with their sounds. The
reading literature anchor standard in place for Day 2 literacys objective is RL2 CCR:
Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key
supporting details and ideas. The essential skills needed for this unit are the knowledge and
ability to identify the beginning, middle and end of text; retell text or part of the text in an
appropriate sequence; and determine the important ideas and messages in literary texts.
Students will be broken up into 3 homogenous groups with 3 students in each group. The
basis of decision for group members is based primarily on formal observations of the students
performance abilities in reading comprehension, reading phonics and written expression. Group
1, consists of the lowest functioning students who need lots of prompting, verbal reminders to
stay on task and hand-on-hand. Group 1 has Sophia, Lex, and Monte in it; all these students have
IEPs. Group 2, consists of higher functioning students who still need prompting and need help
with letter recognition and sounds. Group 2 has 2 typical peers in it TyShawn, and Zariah, and 1

5
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

student with an IEP, Anna. Group 3, consists of the highest functioning students who are seen as
advanced. Group 3 has Isaiah, Carmen and Grace in it.
The Day 1 literacy objective is: Students will be able to associate the beginning letter
in familiar words by matching D letter cards to pictures of objects starting with letter D.
Group 1 will be given verbal prompts and visual cues (pointing) and their goal will be to match
at least 3 D letter cards to 3 labeled pictures. Group 2s goal will be to match at least 5 D letter
cards to 4 un- labeled pictures. They will receive minimal verbal prompting and visual cues as
they are matching. Group 3s goal is to match at least 5 D letter cards to 5 un- labeled pictures.
Also, I want to try and let them figure it out on their own, giving as little verbal prompting and
cues as possible.
The Day 2 literacy objective is, Students will be able to identify and sequence the main
story elements by putting the event pictures in the correct order. For Group 1, I think it would
be best for them to just choose from and correctly order 3 events; I will have no other pictures
for them to pick from to lessen confusion. They will also be given verbal and visual cues (shown
pages of the story with the main event on it). Group 2s goal will be to correctly sequence 4 main
events. This group will have 4 pictures to choose from and put in the correct order; there will be
no other pictures for them to choose from. They will be given verbal and picture cues when
needed (shown certain pages of the story). Group 3s goal will be to correctly sequence 5 main
events. This group will have 5 events that they will have to put in the correct order; there will
only be the 5 pictures to choose from. I will allow them to look through the book if they need
help, but I would like for them to try and figure it out on their own first.

6
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The Day 3 literacy objective is, Students will be able to associate the beginning letter
in familiar words by matching D and M letter cards to pictures of objects starting with letters
D and M. Group 1s goal will be to match at least 2 D and 2 M letter cards to labeled
pictures. When they are matching the letter D card to the labeled picture they will be given
verbal prompts and visual cues (pointing). Group 2s goal will be to match at least 2 D and 2
M letter cards to un-labeled pictures. They will receive verbal prompting and visual cues as
needed. Group 3s goal will be to match at least 3 D and 3 M letter cards to un-labeled
pictures. When they are matching I want them to try and figure it out on their own, giving them
as little verbal prompting and cues as possible.
I decided it would be best to alternate the literacy activities; Day 1 relates to phonics, Day
2 relates to the story Max and Mo, and Day 3 relates to phonics again. I want to alternate the
literacy activities so that the students have a break from phonics; it also allows them to do an
activity related to the story.
The math objectives for the three-day lesson are aligned with the Maryland College and
Career Readiness Standards. The mathematics anchor standard in place for Day 1 maths
objective is PK.CC.A.2: Identify which number comes just after or just before a given number in
the counting sequence to 10 with visual support sand manipulatives. This was the closest
MCCSS standard that I could find that relates to ordinal numbers. The essential skills needed
for this unit are the knowledge and ability to count forward beginning from a given number with
the known sequence; ability to name the numbers that comes just after a given number using
visual supports such as manipulatives, as students demonstrate proficiency remove the use of
visual supports and manipulatives; and ability to count out given quantity. The mathematics
standard in place for Day 2 and 3 maths objective is PK.CC.B.5- Represent a number by

7
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

producing sets of objects with concrete materials, pictures, or numerals. (First -0-5, and then to
10). Can correctly respond when asked how many after counting concrete objects. The
essential skills needed for this unit are the knowledge and ability to correctly pair and name the
numeral with the correct amount of concrete objects; ability to identify a written numeral and
create sets of objects to represent the quantity using concrete materials or pictures (First 0-5, then
to 10). The student also understands the amount of objects in the set (quantity) is represented by
the numeral.
The same homogenous group of students who will rotate through the literacy station will
rotate through the math station. The groups of students stay the same throughout all the centers.
The Day 1 math objective is, Students will be able to identify ordinal numbers first to fifth by
matching number cards (1-5) to manipulatives ordered from first to fifth. Group 1s goal will be
to identify ordinal numbers first to third using labeled manipulatives. This group will only match
number cards from first to third because I think asking them to order objects first to fifth would
be too advanced. Group 2s goal will be to identify ordinal numbers from first to fifth using unlabeled manipulatives. This group will receive verbal prompts and gestures (pointing) as needed.
Group 3s goal will be to identify ordinal numbers from first to fifth and the manipulatives will
not be labeled. They will also receive a lot less verbal prompts and gestural cues (picture cues
and pointing).
The Day 2 math objective is, Students will be able to count sets of 1, 2 and 3 by
correctly pairing numeral cards 1, 2 and 3 with the correct set of concrete objects. Group 1 will
be given lots of modeling, verbal prompts and visual cues (pointing). Group 2 will receive less
verbal and gestural prompting. Group 3s goal will be to write the correct number that

8
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

corresponds to each set. This group will write how many are in each set instead of matching a
numeral card to the set. This challenges to group by practicing to write numbers 1 through 3.
The Day 3 math objective is, Students will be able to count sets of 4 and 5 by correctly
pairing numeral cards 4 and 5 with the correct set of concrete objects. Group 1s goal will be
count sets of 1, 2 and 3 by correctly pairing numeral cards 1, 2 and 3 with the correct set of
concrete objects. This is what they did yesterday; I think it is a good idea to review this again. I
think asking them to count sets of 4 and 5 would be too advanced. Group 2s goal will be
correctly pair numeral cards 4 and 5 to the correct set. This group will receive verbal and gestural
prompting as needed. Group 3s goal will be to count sets of 4 and 5 by writing the correct
number that corresponds to the set. This group is expected to write sets of 4 and 5 because I am
confident that they are capable of doing it with a little bit of prompting if needed.
All the literacy and mathematics objectives align with each students performance
abilities and IEP goals, as well as the MCCSS standard and essential skills used for the
unit. Students will be able to demonstrate their knowledge through guided practice and
independent practice in the literacy and math stations. Furthermore, 4 out of the 9 students have
IEPs and perform significantly below grade-level, therefore objectives were tailored to fit each of
his/her needs in order for them to better access the general education curriculum.
Part B: Assessment Plan
All pre-assessment data for literacy and math was taken one week prior to the start of the
lesson. The pre-assessment was used to identify each students prior knowledge on the objectives
that will be taught next week. For most of the pre-assessment data I pulled students aside, one by
one as they were in play and/or as they finished their snack.

9
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The Day 1 literacy objective focuses on identifying the letter D. I held up a letter D
card and asked what letter it was. On my chart labeled, Identifying letters and pictures, I
circled whether the student identified and said the letter aloud correctly, incorrectly or if the
student did not respond. I also held up one picture of a dog and asked the student to tell me what
letter the word dog starts with. I used the same chart to circle whether the student identified what
letter the picture starts with correctly, incorrectly, or if the student did not respond. Day 1s
literacy pre-assessment aligns with the objective, therefore this pre-assessment is an
appropriate tool to use.
Upon reviewing the pre-assessment data I concluded that doing an activity identifying the
letter D would be an appropriate choice in practicing letter recognition, sound and identifying
pictures of objects that start with the letter D in the literacy center. The pre-assessment data
showed that out of the 8 students in class (usually 9 total, but 1 student was absent), 2/8 (25%)
correctly identified letter D and said it aloud, 5/8 students (62.5%) incorrectly identified and
1/8 students (12.5%) did not respond. This data shows that the majority of the class does not
understand how to identify the letter D and say the letter name aloud correctly. For identifying
the letter the picture starts with, 3/8 students (37.5%) correctly identified, 3/8 students (37.5%)
incorrectly identified and 2/8 (25%) students did not respond. This is an indicator that they need
more time practicing and learning these skills. From this data, I was able to conclude that all
students in the class would benefit from an activity in learning to identify the letter D and
pictures that start with the letter D to meet unit objectives. There were only 2 students who
correctly identified the letter D. While the data shows that the majority of the students are
struggling with identifying the letter D and pictures starting with D, the data verified that this
activity will be appropriate for all learners. The pre-assessment data implies that all of the

10
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

students would benefit from more individualized instruction on identifying the letter D at the
literacy station. With this understanding, the unit focuses on teaching how to identify the letter
D using different UDL strategies.

11
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The Day 1 math objective focuses on identifying objects first to fifth. I lined up five
small plastic pumpkin manipulatives and asked the student to point. I asked which pumpkin is
first in line, second in line, third in line, fourth in line and fifth in line. On my chart labeled,
First to fifth, I circled whether the student identified first, second, third, fourth, and fifth place
correctly, incorrectly, or did not respond. My chart had a column for each of the five ordinals so
that I was able to see what ordinals students know and do not know. Day 1s math preassessment aligns with the objective, therefore this pre-assessment is an appropriate tool to use.
Upon reviewing the pre-assessment data I concluded that doing an activity with
manipulatives would be an appropriate choice/tool to practice first to fifth in the math center. The
pre-assessment data showed that out of the 8 students in class (9 students total, but 1 student was
absent), 5/8 students (62.5%) correctly identified first place, 2/8 students (25%) incorrectly
identified and 1/8 students (12.5%) did not respond. For second place, 3/8 students (37.5%)
correctly identified it, 4/8 students (50%) incorrectly identified and 1/8 (12.5%) did not respond.
For third place, 2/8 students (25%) correctly identified it, 5/8 (62.5%) incorrectly identified and
1/8 (12.5%) did not respond. For fourth place, 1/8 students (12.5%) correctly identified it, 6/8
students (75%) incorrectly identified and 1/8 (12.5%) did not respond. For fifth place, 1/9
students (12.5%) correctly identified it, 6/8 students (75%) incorrectly identified and 1/8 (12.5%)
did not respond. This data shows that the majority of the class does not understand ordinals first
to fifth and needs more time practicing and learning this skill. From this data, I was able to
conclude that all students in the class would benefit from an ordinal activity using
manipulatives to meet unit objectives. There was only 1 student who received 100% accuracy
and knew first through fifth. While the data showed that the majority of students are struggling
with first to fifth, it verified that the ordinal activity with manipulatives in the math center will be

12
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

appropriate for all learners. The pre-assessment data implies that all of the students would benefit
from more individualized instruction on first to fifth at the math station. With this understanding,
the unit focuses on teaching first to fifth using different UDL strategies.

13
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The
Day 2 literacy
objective
focuses on
sequencing
main story
events. I did
not pull
students out
for this preassessment.
Instead I
gauged their
knowledge
and
understanding about sequencing story events and making predictions during circle time. I read
the story, Yellowbelly and Plum and called on each student unless they raised their hand
willingly. During the reading, I asked questions like, What happens next? and What does
Yellowbelly do next? After the reading I asked, What happened in the beginning, middle and
end? This is the fourth time that the students have heard this story (they stick with one story for
a week) so it is not the first time they are hearing it. Most of them were able to make predictions

14
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

about the story; some of them were accurate, and others were inaccurate. What students seemed
to struggle the most with was putting the events in order and remembering what happened in the
beginning, middle and end. Day 2s literacy pre-assessment align with the objective, therefore
this pre-assessment is an appropriate tool to use.
Upon reviewing the pre-assessment data I concluded that the story Max and Mo would be
an appropriate choice to read during circle time and to sequence events with in the literacy
center. The pre-assessment data showed that out of the 8 students in class (usually 9 total, but 1
student was absent), 3 out of the 8 (37.5%) accurately knew how to sequence events and make
predictions. 2 out of the 8 students (25%) incorrectly sequenced the events and made inaccurate
predictions. 3 out of the 8 students (37.5%) did not respond when asked to sequence events or
make predictions. This data shows that less than half of the class understands how to sequence
and make predictions and less than half do not understand how to do either and needs more time
practicing and learning these skills. From this data, I was able to conclude that all students in
the class would benefit from a sequencing of events activity to meet unit objectives. The
students who understand these concepts will get more practice with it and achieve a higher level
of mastery. While the data shows that not all students are struggling with sequencing events and
making predictions, it shows that the majority of the class is; the data verified that Max and Mo
will be appropriate for all learners. The pre-assessment data implies that all of the students would
benefit from more individualized instruction on Max and Mo at the literacy station. With this
understanding, the unit focuses on teaching how to sequence events using different UDL
strategies.

15
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

16
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The Day 2 math objective focuses on counting sets of 1, 2 and 3. I used the small plastic
pumpkin manipulatives and made sets of 1, 2 and 3. I asked students how many pumpkins were
in each set. On my chart labeled, Counting sets of 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 5, I circled whether the student
identified sets of 1, 2 and 3 correctly, incorrectly or if the student did not respond. Day 2s math
pre-assessment aligns with the objective, therefore this pre-assessment is an appropriate tool to
use.
Upon reviewing the pre-assessment data I concluded that doing an activity with
manipulatives would be an appropriate choice/tool to practice counting sets of 1, 2 and 3 in the
math center. The pre-assessment data showed that out of the 8 students in class (9 students total,
but 1 student was absent), 6/8 students (75%) correctly counted a set of one, 1/8 students
(12.5%) incorrectly identified and 1/8 students (12.5%) did not respond. For counting a set of
two, 5/8 students (62.5%) correctly identified it, 2/8 students (25%) incorrectly identified and 1/8
(12.5%) did not respond. For counting a set of three, 5/8 students (62.5%) correctly identified it,
2/8 (25%) incorrectly identified and 1/8 (12.5%) did not respond. This data shows that the
majority of the class understands how to count sets of 1, 2 and 3. From this data, I was able to
conclude that all students in the class would benefit from a counting sets of 1, 2 and 3
activity using manipulatives to meet unit objectives. For the students who correctly counted
sets of 1, 2 and 3; they touched the manipulatives and counted each pumpkin; to challenge these
students they should be encouraged to count sets without touching the manipulatives and
counting aloud. Students who can correctly count sets of 1, 2 and 3 with 100% accuracy can also
be challenged by counting larger sets. While the data showed that the majority of students are not
struggling with counting sets of 1, 2 and 3, it verified that the counting sets activity with
manipulatives in the math center will be appropriate for all learners. The pre-assessment data

17
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

implies that all of the students would benefit from more individualized instruction on counting
sets of 1, 2, and 3 at the math station. With this understanding, the unit focuses on counting sets
of 1, 2, and 3 using different UDL strategies.

18
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The Day 3 literacy objective focuses on identifying the letters D and M. (The data for
identifying letter D is under Day 2 of literacy). I held up a letter M card and asked what letter
it was. On my chart labeled, Identifying letters and pictures, I circled whether the student
identified and said the letter aloud correctly, incorrectly or if the student did not respond. I also
held up one picture of a milk carton and asked the student to tell me what letter the word milk
starts with. I used the same chart to circle whether the student identified what letter the picture
starts with correctly, incorrectly, or if the student did not respond. Day 3s literacy preassessment aligns with the objective, therefore this pre-assessment is an appropriate tool to use.
Upon reviewing the pre-assessment data I concluded that doing an activity identifying the
letters D and M would be an appropriate choice in practicing letter recognition, sound and
identifying pictures of objects that start with the letters D and M in the literacy center. The
pre-assessment data showed that out of the 8 students in class (usually 9 total, but 1 student was
absent), 5/8 (62.5%) correctly identified letter M and said it aloud, 2/8 students (25%)
incorrectly identified and 1/8 students (12.5%) did not respond. For identifying the letter the
picture starts with, 4/8 students (50%) correctly identified, 2/8 students (25%) incorrectly
identified and 1/8 (12.5%) students did not respond. This data shows that about half of the class
understands how to identify the letter M and can tell me what pictures start with letter M. The
other half of the class needs more time practicing and learning these skills. From this data, I
was able to conclude that all students in the class would benefit from an activity in learning
to identify the letters D and M and pictures that start with letter D and Mto meet unit
objectives. While the data shows that about half of the students are struggling with identifying
the letter D and M and pictures starting with D and M, the data verified that this activity
will be appropriate for all learners. The pre-assessment data implies that all of the students would

19
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

benefit from more individualized instruction on identifying the letters D and M at the literacy
station. With this understanding, the unit focuses on teaching how to identify the letters D and
M using different UDL strategies.

20
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The Day 3 math objective focuses on counting sets of 4 and 5. I used the small plastic
pumpkin manipulatives and made sets of 4 and 5. I asked students how many pumpkins were in
each set. On my chart labeled, Counting sets of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, I circled whether the student
identified sets of 1, 2 and 3 correctly, incorrectly or if the student did not respond. Day 3s math

21
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

pre-assessment aligns with the objective, therefore this pre-assessment is an appropriate tool to
use.
Upon reviewing the pre-assessment data I concluded that doing an activity with
manipulatives would be an appropriate choice/tool to practice counting sets of 4 and 5 in the
math center. The pre-assessment data showed that out of the 8 students in class (9 students total,
but 1 student was absent), for counting a set of 4 four, 4/8 students (50%) correctly counted a set
of one, 3/8 students (37.5%) incorrectly identified and 1/8 students (12.5%) did not respond. For
counting a set of five, 4/8 students (50%) correctly identified it, 3/8 students (37.5%) incorrectly
identified and 1/8 (12.5%) did not respond. This data shows that half of the class understands
how to count sets of 4 and 5 and the other half needs more time practicing and learning these
skills. From this data, I was able to conclude that all students in the class would benefit
from a counting sets of 4 and 5 activity using manipulatives to meet unit objectives. For the
students who correctly counted sets of 4 and 5; they touched the manipulatives and counted each
pumpkin; to challenge these students they should be encouraged to count sets without touching
the manipulatives and counting aloud. Students who can correctly count sets of 4 and 5 with
100% accuracy can also be challenged by counting larger sets. While the data showed that half of
the students are struggling with counting sets of 4 and 5, it verified that the counting sets activity
with manipulatives in the math center will be appropriate for all learners. The pre-assessment
data implies that all of the students would benefit from more individualized instruction on
counting sets of 4 and 5 at the math station. With this understanding, the unit focuses on counting
sets of 4 and 5 using different UDL strategies.

22
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

23
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Throughout the lesson, students will be evaluated using different formative assessment
tools that will gauge whether or not students are meeting the literacy and math objectives set out
for each lesson in the unit. For each literacy and math objective, student progress will be
measured from the use of observation, questioning and the art activities. I will gauge each
students learning and progress through the literacy center rotation. During circle time when
reading Max and Mo I can ask questions based on sequence of events and I can ask students to
make predictions. I can also gauge their understanding of identifying letters D and M during
the art activity when they have to glue pictures on their paper that start with those letters.
The summative assessment that is going to be used to assess student achievement for
this unit is a checklist that is going to be completed at the end of each groups rotation. This
summative assessment was developed to measure how well the students are able to meet
objectives and standards of the Maryland College and Career Readiness Standards (MCCRS). I
will gauge each students learning and progress by using the same checklists I used to collect the
pre-assessment data. I will collect data in the literacy center and Beth (instructor assistant) will
collect data in the math center. I will then compile all the data from these summative assessments
onto a new checklist labeled, Math progress, and Literacy progress. These two checklists
will be used to show student progress for all literacy and math objectives in the unit. The
checklists will display whether or not each student obtained the essential skills and knowledge
for the unit. Each student will be assessed in literacy for their ability to identify the letter D,
M and sequence main events. Each student will also be assessed in math for their ability to
identify objects in first through fifth place, and count sets of 1 through 5. Each student will be
evaluated on the checklist using NI (needs improvement), MP (making progress) or ME (meeting
expectations).

24
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Data: LITERACY
Sequence of events in a story

This data should be taken during circle time when reading story.
Circle a (+) if student correctly identified, (-) if student incorrectly
identified or (0) if student did not respond

Student

Knows how to
sequence events
correctly

1.Grace

0
2.TyShawn
0
3.Zariah
0
4.Anna
0
5.Carmen
0
6.Isaiah
0
7.Sophia
0

Makes accurate
predictions of
what happens
next in story
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

25
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

8.Lex

0
9.Monte

0
+

Data: LITERACY
Identifying letters and pictures
Circle a (+) if student correctly identified, (-) if student incorrectly
identified or (0) if student did not respond
Student

Can identify
letter D;
say letter
name aloud

1.Grace

+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+

2.Zariah
3.TyShawn
4.Anna
5.Monte

Can tell me
what letter
picture
starts with
(D)
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
-

Can identify
letter M;
say letter
name aloud
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+

Can tell me
what letter
picture
starts with
(M)
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
-

26
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

6.Lex
7.Sophia
8.Carmen
9.Isaiah

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

Data: MATH
First to fifth
Circle a (+) if student correctly identified, (-) if student incorrectly
identified or (0) if student did not respond
Student

1.Grace

Correctly
identifies
object in
First
place
+
-

Correctly
identifies
object in
Second
place
+
-

Correctly
identifies
object in
Third
place
+
-

Correctly
identifies
object in
Fourth
place
+
-

Correctly
identifies
object in
Fifth
place
+
-

27
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

0
2.Carmen +
0
3.Isaiah
+
0
4.Anna
+
0
5.Zariah
+
0
6.TyShaw +
n
0
7.Sophia +
0
8.Monte
+
0
9.Lex
+
0

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

Data: MATH
Counting sets of 1,2,3,4 and 5

0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

28
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Circle a (+) if student correctly identified, (-) if student incorrectly


identified or (0) if student did not respond
Student

Correctly
identifies
set of 1
1.Grace
+
0
2.Carmen +
0
3.Isaiah
+
0
4.TyShaw +
n
0
5.Zariah
+
0
6.Anna
+
0
7.Sophia +
0
8.Lex
+
0
9.Monte
+
0

Correctly
identifies
set of 2
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

Correctly
identifies
set of 3
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

Correctly
identifies
set of 4
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

Correctly
identifies
set of 5
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0

29
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Data: Literacy Progress


Circle NI (needs improvement), MP (making progress) or ME (meeting
expectations).
Student

Identify letter D

1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isaiah
4.TyShawn
5.Zariah
6.Anna
7.Monte
8. Sofia
9.Lex

NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP

Identify letter M
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME

NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP

Sequence main
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME

events
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP

ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME

30
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Data: Math Progress


Circle NI (needs improvement), MP (making progress) or ME (meeting
expectations).
Student
1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isaiah
4.TyShawn
5.Zariah
6.Anna
7.Monte
8. Sofia
9.Lex

Identify first to fifth

Count sets of 1, 2

Count sets of 4 and

NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

and 3
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

5
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI

MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP

ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME

MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP

ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME

MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP
MP

ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME

All of the assessments used in this three-day unit were aligned with the goals and
objectives for the lessons as well as the Maryland College and Career Readiness Standards
(MCCRS). Each literacy objective was developed to measure student achievement of the
essential skills and knowledge outlined by each of the standards RF3 CCR and RL2 CCR.

31
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Each math objective was developed to measure student achievement of the essential skills and
knowledge outlined by each of the standards PK.CC.A.2 and PK.CC.B.5.
The students in my class have varying levels of strengths and needs, this unit plan was
also aligned with the principles of UDL in order to accommodate for each individuals learning
style. The assessments throughout the unit are also differentiated to ensure each student is
provided with the most thriving environment to learn new information and to demonstrate their
understanding. By giving students choices in how they can demonstrate their knowledge
provides much more realistic and accurate data. This helps in looking at student progress towards
the objectives of the lessons. I incorporated UDL principles into this unit by using different
modalities to teach. I am presenting information for auditory, visual and kinesthetic learners. The
information is not only presented through one modality, but several ways which is extremely
important. The activities throughout the unit are differentiated based on student
ability/performance. Students were divided up into 3 groups and each activity was differentiated
to fit their specific needs. This allows for a more accurate depiction of each students abilities.
Information was presented in a variety of ways; through reading a story, manipulatives and
visuals.
The scoring tools that will be used in the different assessments in this unit will provide
concrete evidence of student learning. From the summative assessment data at the conclusion of
the unit, I will be able to see how many students met the literacy and math objectives set out in
the lesson plans. From the formative data, I will be able to adjust instruction for the following
day to review information that the students were not able to grasp immediately.

32
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

In order to collect formal data during the lessons, checklists were used to gather and
record data. The data will be utilized to guide instructional choices and lesson activities to best
meet the needs of each individual student. All additional data was collected informally through
questioning and observation.
Part C: Instruction
At the beginning of each lesson students were presented with the literature and math
objectives of the lesson in age appropriate language; both objectives were displayed in the
front of the room. This ensured that the students understood what they were going to learn today
and their expectations of achievement. The goals and objectives for each lesson were aligned
to the MCCRS standards, essential skills and knowledge and each students IEP goals and
objectives. Objectives were modified to meet the individual IEP goals of each student. As
mentioned previously, the MCCRS standards that align with this unit for literacy are: RL2 CCR:
Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key
supporting details and ideas and RF3 CCR: Know and apply grade-level phonics and word
analysis skills in decoding words. The MCCRS standards that align with this unit for math are:
PK.CC.A.2: Identify which number comes just after or just before a given number in the
counting sequence to 10 with visual supports and manipulatives and is PK.CC.B.5- Represent a
number by producing sets of objects with concrete materials, pictures, or numerals. (First -0-5,
and then to 10). Can correctly respond when asked how many after counting concrete objects.
Students were assessed upon ability to demonstrate the essential skills and knowledge associated
with each of these standards. There were 2 objectives each day (1 literacy and 1 math) derived
from the MCCRS standards for this unit.

33
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

I chose to give the students a pre-assessment the week prior to the three-day lesson unit. I
pulled students aside, one by one, as they were in play or when they were finished with their
snack. Pre-assessment data was analyzed to determine where to begin instruction for each
student. It was also used to determine what differentiations each student would receive to meet
the objective. For example, Carmen (in Group 3) already knew how to identify the letter D and
M so I provided her with more pictures and more challenging pictures to match with the letter
cards D and M. On other hand, Lex (in Group 1) cannot yet identify those letters with
accuracy and I had him identify and match less pictures. The pre-assessment provided me
information about each students abilities and readiness levels. To assess if the literacy and
math objectives were appropriate for each day, I reviewed the previous days data. As the
students rotated through the stations, checklists and observations were used to determine if the
following days objectives would be appropriate. Not all of the literacy and math objectives build
upon each other for this three-day lesson unit. Although, Day 1 and 2 of the literacy objectives
build upon each other with identifying letters and matching pictures and Day 2 and 3 of the math
objectives build upon each other with counting sets.
Student motivation and engagement in this three-day lesson unit was necessary and
important to ensure that students would master the essential skills and knowledge for each
lesson. In this group of students there are a few with behavioral problems who also get easily
distracted. When these particular students get distracted their level of comprehension decreases. I
implemented different strategies throughout the lesson in order to maintain their attention. A
variety of learning styles were accommodated so that each student could reach their highest
potential. To make sure students were engaged and excited in the beginning of the lesson I
made circle time engaging for the students as I read the story. For circle time (for all 3 days)

34
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

we read Max and Mo. The first time I read the story, I asked a lot of prediction questions because
I wanted students to try and guess what would happen next. The second and third time I read the
story I had the students hold up either a blue worried face or a yellow happy face on a popsicle
stick. I asked them throughout the story how Max and Mo felt and to hold up the appropriate
popsicle stick. The students really liked this and were very engaged throughout the entire reading
of the story. Another means of motivation I used was providing positive reinforcement in
the form of praise throughout the lessons. I provided praise whenever a student answered
correctly and also when a student answered incorrectly but is showing he/she is trying and giving
his/her best effort. I provided students with praise in circle time and in the literacy center.
To introduce new content for each group, I restated the literacy and math objective
in age appropriate language so that they would have an idea of what they would be
learning. There were different literacy and math objectives taught each day but the procedures
were very similar. I proceeded by modeling while verbally explaining what I was doing. I
provided explicit instruction to avoid any confusion. After modeling, I had each student complete
the activity in the literacy center with my guided assistance. Each student had a turn completing
the activity. Group 1 needed the most assistance and prompting while Group 3 needed the least
amount of assistance and prompting. During this stage, I asked guided questions and based on
the students answer I was able to assess how well he/she understood the concept and my
instructions. As previously stated, independent practice was used as my summative assessment.
For Pre-K students there are never activities that allow true independence but during
independent practice when each student demonstrates his/her knowledge is when I used my
checklists to collect data. Upon completion of independent practice in the literacy center, I
provided explicit feedback and remodeled certain parts or steps if needed.

35
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

It is important to allow students to utilize critical and creative thinking skills to ensure
understanding of the unit. The art activities allowed students to be creative while reviewing
what was learned in the literacy center. For Day 1 and 2 of art, students were given a piece of
paper with letters D and M. Students could choose whether they wanted to draw animals or
objects that started with the letters D or M or they could pick pictures that started with those
letters and glue them on their paper. Students were also able to do both if that is what they chose.
Critical thinking was assessed as students were asked to put the main story events in order. This
required students to recall the main events of the story Max and Mo and put them in the correct
order. Students were also assessed on their critical thinking skills in math with counting objects
in first through fifth place and counting sets of 1 through 5. For the majority of students these
critical thinking skills required practice.
At the end of each lesson, I reviewed the data from the formative assessments to
check for understanding. Students were asked to demonstrate their understanding in a variety
of ways throughout the unit and data was recorded to measure student progress. Formative
assessment tools such as checklists/charts, observations and questioning were all used during this
unit. A checklist/chart was used at the end of each groups rotation to determine which students
had met the objectives for the day. At the end of class, a checklist was used to determine which
students had met expectations, made progress or needed improvement in regards to each lessons
literacy and math objective. In art students did an activity that related to the literacy objective of
that day. Each students final product was used to assess their progress in achieving the literacy
objective that day. As students were working on their art activity, the adults were helping and
assisting but also giving feedback. The feedback was given verbally. For example, if a student
showed me his/her paper and all the pictures on it started with the letter D, I could say, Great

36
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

job, all of your pictures start with the letter D! If I see a student gluing on a picture of an apple
on their paper. I could say, Good try but look at your picture, what letter does apple start with?
Assessing students final art product is effective way of assessing what students learned in the
literacy center.
All of the students in my class have varying learning styles and needs. I have for this
reason differentiated instruction to address each students learning needs, cultural diversity,
and language development. There is one objective for math and one objective for literacy every
day, I have taken each of those objectives and incorporated the appropriate accommodations and
modifications for each student. Kinesthetic and visual learners benefitted from using
manipulatives in the math center. They also benefitted from using the Smart Board when
sequencing main story events. This allowed the students to touch and use visuals to better
understand and learn the concepts. Auditory learners benefitted from listening to Max and Mo
during circle time. Visual learners also benefitted from the pictures in Max and Mo to better help
them understand the story. Students who struggled with written expression were not asked to
write. They were able to use manipulatives instead. An example is that when counting sets,
Group 3 is expected to write the correct number in each set while Group 1 is allowed to use the
option of number cards to represent the correct number. Students who struggled with oral
expression were able to practice how to properly say the letters D and M aloud. This was
accomplished through modeling. I repeated and put an emphasis on the letter D and M at the
beginning of a word. I then had students repeat the sound of the letter or word back to me. To
ensure that students understood what I was asking of them, I scaffolded instruction by modeling,
and then I provided students with less prompting. Throughout each lesson, I provided students
with clear, consistent feedback which was both positive and constructive. I made sure to

37
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

never make a student feel inadequate if he/she gave an incorrect answer. I simply restated the
question and provided the appropriate prompts to better help the student understand. I constantly
observed students body language, which included eye contact and facial expressions. Some of
the students with behavioral problems needed to be reminded several times to be quiet, to stay on
task and to focus.
At the end of the three-day lesson unit most students were able to complete their
objectives according to their learning goals, the MCCRS standards, and the essential skills and
knowledge of the standard. Even though some students did not make sufficient progress, they
were still exposed to and participated in learning new concepts and skills. The activities in the
literacy and math station were where the most important points of the lesson were
captured. Another important point of the lesson included the methods that I used to
instruct each student, as well as the learning that occurred. I was able to model effective
learning strategies in the literacy center in the hopes to reduce the achievement gap between
students with IEPs and their typical peers. Utilizing differentiated instruction was essential and
extremely important because not all students learn the same way. Implementing differentiated
instruction allowed student to express their knowledge in a way that was most meaningful for
them. Due to the instruction that I provided (small group rotations), most students were able to
demonstrate progress in both their literacy and math skills.
The assessments used checked student knowledge and understanding of the most
important aspects of the lessons. Theses assessments also guided me to adjust my instruction for
the lessons to best accommodate each student. The summative assessment provided me
information on which students have met the objectives, which ones are making progress and
which ones need more time and practice learning the skills to meet the objective. Using

38
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

appropriate assessments such as checklists/charts, questioning, and observations (in


centers, circle time and in art) will lead to more accurate data and more effective
instruction. In turn this will lead to more student progress.

Part D: Analysis & Instructional Decision Making


The results from the pre-assessment from literacy and math, were taken one week
prior to the three-day lesson unit. The pre-assessments for literacy and math showed whether
students had correctly identified, incorrectly identified or if they did not respond. The preassessment data is included in part B of my ESL. For literacy, only 3 students out of the 8, were
able to accurately make predictions and sequence the events and only 2 were able to accurately
identify letters D and M and match the appropriate pictures. For math, only 1 student was able
to accurately identify objects first through fifth place and only 3 students were able to accurately
order sets of 1 through 5. The other students who could not accurately identify did not possess
the prior knowledge and needed more practice with those particular skills.
The following charts display the students formative assessment data that was taken
from the Day 1 and Day 3 art activity. Day 1 and 3 art activities were similar except on Day 1
students learned letter D and on Day 3 students learned letter M. Students were given a piece
of construction paper with a big dotted letter D on it for Day 1 and letter M for Day 3. They
were asked to trace the letter. Next they were asked to pick out (from pre-cut pictures) the
pictures that started with letter D or M. There were 3 pictures that started with letter D, 1
picture that started with A and 1 picture that started with S. For Day 3 it was the same
procedure, except instead of 3 pictures of objects starting with letter D they started with the

39
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

letter M. This was one way that I was able to assess the knowledge they had learned in that
days literacy center. If a student was unable to pi ck the appropriate pictures independently,
he/she received an F for Full assistance. If a student was able to complete part of the activity
independently, he/she received a P for Partial assistance. If a student picked all the pictures by
him/herself independently with no prompting, he/she received an I for Independent. The goal
was to have the students pick the appropriate pictures with as little prompting as possible. As
depicted in the chart, some students were able to improve from Day 1 to 3, while about half of
the students performances stayed about the same. Zariah, Anna, Lex and Monte showed the
most growth within the two day formal assessment. Isiah and Carmens performance was the
same during the two days. Sophia showed minimal improvement but she did not digress.
Student
1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isiah
4.TyShawn
5.Zariah
6.Anna
7.Lex
8.Sophia
9.Monte

Day 1 Art- letter D


I
P,I
I
N/A- absent
P
P
F
F

Day 3 Art- letter M


I
I
I
N/A- absent
P,I
P,I
P,F
F,P (when provided with less

pictures options)
P,F

The following charts display each students summative data from Day 1, 2 and 3 in
both literacy and math. I used the same chart format for the literacy and math summative data as
I did for the pre-assessment data. At the end of each literacy rotation I circled whether each
student correctly responded, incorrectly responded or whether they did not respond at all. I took
data in the literacy center and Beth took data in the math center.

40
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

41
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

42
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

43
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

The charts below show each students percentage change/growth from the literacy and
math pre-assessment given prior to the unit to the summative assessment data taken each day in
the literacy center. To calculate the percentage of student growth from the pre to post
assessments, I used the summative assessment percentage for each student and then subtracted

44
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

the percentage that each student earned on the pre-assessment. For my summative assessment
data and pre-assessment data I used a (+) to symbolize 100%, (-) to symbolize 50% and (0) to
symbolize 0%. According to the data, most students have either already mastered the
content/skills or have showed an increase in their performance from Day 1 to Day 3 in both
literacy and math.
Day 1 Literacy- identifying letter D
Student

Pre-assessment %

Summative

Growth %

1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isiah
4.Anna
5.TyShawn
6.Zariah
7.Lex
8.Sophia
9.Monte

100%
50%
100%
50%
N/A
50%
50%
0%
50%

assessment %
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
50%
0%
100%

0%
50%
0%
50%
N/A
50%
0%
0%
50%

As shown above on the Day 1 literacy chart, 4 students showed a 50% increase in their
learning. On day 1, Zariah was unable to identify the letter D, but with more practice on day 3
she was able to differentiate the difference between letter D and letter M. She still needed a little
prompting; her letter identification improved by using pictures of objects starting with both letter
D and M. Anna could identify the letter D on day one but she could not tell me what letter
the pictures started with; that was another step that she had to practice and by day 3 she was able
to identify both letters without any prompting. On day 1, Grace mixed up the letter D with B
but by day 3 she could identify the letter D with no prompting or confusion. Monte could

45
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

identify the letter D and match pictures but he needed prompting by day 3 he could identify the
letter D on his own.
Day 2 Literacy- sequence events
Student
1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isiah
4.Anna
5.TyShawn
6.Zariah
7.Lex
8.Sophia
9.Monte

Pre-assessment %

Summative

Growth %

100%
100%
100%
50%
N/A
50%
0%
0%
0%

assessment %
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
50%
0%
50%

0%
0%
0%
50%
N/A
50%
50%
0%
50%

As shown above on Day 2 literacys chart, 4 students showed a 50% increase in their
learning. On day 1, Anna could make predictions and sequence events with prompting and cues.
By day 3, she had improved these skills; I think me modeling these skills in the literacy center
helped her a lot. On day 1, Zariah had a difficult time sequencing events; she would just guess.
By day 3, she was sequencing events with a lot less prompting, she improved these skills with
more practice. Lex was better at making predictions than sequencing events but on day 3, he
improved this skill. He remembered what was in the story and put the pictures of the events in
order; I was very impressed. Monte also impressed me by remembering the events in the story
and using the picture cues to help him put the events in order.
Day 3 Literacy- identifying letter M
Student

Pre-assessment %

Summative

Growth %

46
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isiah
4.Anna
5.TyShawn
6.Zariah
7.Lex
8.Sophia
9.Monte

assessment %
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
50%
0%
50%

100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
0%
50%
0%
50%

0%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
100%
0%
0%
0%

As shown above on Day 3 literacys chart, only 1 student showed any progress, she
showed a 100% increase in her learning. Zariah had a bit of trouble with identifying the letter D
on day 1, but with more practice she was able to improve this skill. On day 3, she could much
more easily identify the letter M without as much prompting and cues. I think what helped her a
lot was the exposure of letters and pictures and the practice she got in the literacy center.
Day 1 Math- first to fifth
Student
1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isiah
4.Anna
5.TyShawn
6.Zariah
7.Lex
8.Sophia
9.Monte

Pre-assessment %

Summative

Growth %

50%
50%
100%
50%
N/A
50%
50%
0%
50%

assessment %
100%
100%
N/A
100%
N/A
100%
50%
0%
100%

50%
50%
N/A
50%
N/A
50%
0%
0%
50%

As shown above on Day 1 maths chart, 5 students showed a 50% increase in their
learning. On the pre-assessment Carmen knew her numbers 1 through 5, but the terms first,
second, third, fourth and fifth were not used very often in her vocabulary. With more exposure

47
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

and practice, she had mastered these terms and could apply them accurately. Grace knew first,
second and third but did not know what came after that. But with more practice she had also
mastered these terms. Anna knew first and second, but after the literacy center activity she
understood these terms and could use them accurately. Zariah only knew first and third, but with
more expose and modeling she understood it by the end of the day. Monte could not correctly
identify objects first through fifth but by the end of the day he had mastered this skill.
Day 2 Math- sets of 1, 2 and 3
Student

Pre-assessment %

Summative

Growth %

1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isiah
4.Anna
5.TyShawn
6.Zariah
7.Lex
8.Sophia
9.Monte

100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
50%
0%
50%

assessment %
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
50%
0%
100%

0%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
0%
0%
0%
50%

As shown above on Day 2 maths chart, only 1 student showed progress; he showed a
50% increase in his learning. When pre-assessing Monte he was unable to correctly count sets of
1, 2 and 3. By the end of the math center on Day 2, he was able to do so. I think the extra
practice and modeling help him understand this concept. I also think that the reason there were
not more students showing progress is because this is a skill that most students know by the age
of 4; it was too easy for most students.
Day 3 Math- counting sets 4 and 5

48
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Student
1.Carmen
2.Grace
3.Isiah
4.Anna
5.TyShawn
6.Zariah
7.Lex
8.Sophia
9.Monte

Pre-assessment %

Summative

Growth %

100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
50%
50%
0%
50%

assessment %
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
50%
50%
0%
50%

0%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
0%
0%
0%
0%

As shown above on Day 3 maths chart, no students showed an increase in their learning
or showed any progress. The students who already had accurately counted sets of 4 and 5 on the
pre-assessment were the only students who could correctly identify sets of 4 and 5 on Day 3. All
of the other students did not seem to grasp this idea, maybe it was a bit too difficult for them. It
could also be because it was a new skill that they have not practiced a lot yet. With more
practice, exposure and modeling I am sure that the rest of the students could also master this
skill. Counting sets of 4 and 5 was only taught for 1 day in math, if it were taught a few more
times students would grasp the concept better.
To disaggregate the data based upon various contextual factors, the students in small
groups were either Caucasian, Asian, African-American, non-verbal or culturally diverse and/or
learning English as a second language. Four out of the eight students have an IEP. All students
come from a middle-class family. Two of the three African American students made sufficient
progress while the other one did not make progress (he received 100% on all parts of both the
pre-assessment and summative assessment). One of the three Caucasian students showed
substantial improvements, 1 did not make sufficient progress and 1 maintained her skill set. The

49
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

two English Language Learner students showed significant progress. These students benefitted
from the use of visual cues and pictures.
When analyzing the patterns of achievement, I can conclude that an increased score on
the pre-assessment correlated to an increased score on the summative assessment. Students like
Grace, Carmen and Isiah scored a 100% on almost all parts of the literacy and math preassessments and summative assessments. With the exception that Isiah scored a 100% on all
assessments in both literacy and math. These students had already been exposed to many of these
concepts and skills prior to the lesson, they had already had practice with them therefore they
performed so well on the summative assessment. That is also why these 3 students did not show
a lot of growth or progress. I can also conclude that the students who showed the greatest percent
of growth in their learning were the students who just needed extra practice, exposure and
modeling. Monte, Zariah and Anna had not been exposed to many of the math skills; their
summative assessments show that they have made significant progress in both literacy and math.
When analyzing patterns for lack of achievement, I noticed that 1 student in particular did not
meet the MCCSS standards for the unit for both literacy and math. This student is the lowest
functioning in the class. Sophia is non-verbal and has autism. She mainly uses her
communication device during snack time. Therefore, it is difficult for her to communicate at
stations and at circle time. This also makes it difficult for me to assess her knowledge. A lot of
the work done at the station with her is hand-on-hand and lots of prompting and repeating
directions. Sophia did not display any percentile increase in her learning in literacy or math,
which may indicate that she does not obtain the essential skills or knowledge that is needed
during these literacy and math activities.

50
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

For future instruction, to improve student outcomes to meet MCCSS standards, I


would implement a few different instructional techniques, interventions, and assessment
modifications. One instructional technique that I would implement is allowing groups more
time, especially Groups 3. Having more time for questions and time to practice concepts and
skills would be extremely helpful for particular students. Another instructional technique that I
would implement but would be difficult is practicing the literacy and math skills for more than
one day. It is mostly the math skills that are only taught for one day and then the next day the
students are taught a different concept. I would practice the math concepts for a few days so that
they are able to have multiple days of practice. In regards to interventions, I think that providing
instruction in a quieter environment with fewer distractions would be of great value for students
such as Sophia, Lex and Monte. With surrounding small group rotation (play and math) taking
place along with having manipulatives in front of them to touch, Sophia, Lex and Monte may
have had a more difficult time concentrating and performing the task. I only think that these 3
students would benefit from a quieter environment, the rest of the class performs well in the
usual setting. An assessment modification that I would implement to address the lack of
student achievement would be to provide students with a choice board so that they have more
options of how they would want to show me what they have learned. I think giving students the
option of using technology (Smart Board), using manipulatives or writing it on small
whiteboards is a great idea. All the students enjoy when I use the Smart Board during circle time,
this may mean that they may be more successful with using the Smart Board to demonstrate their
learning. Allowing students more choices and options during assessment also ensures that my
lesson plan and activities align with the UDL principles and that I have used differentiated
instruction.

51
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

By analyzing all the collected data from this three-day unit, I can conclude that most of
the students made some growth from the first day to the last day of the lessons. The data
recorded using checklists/charta, assessments, questions, and observations represent the overall
success of the unit and an accurate representation of student progress. In the future, small
adjustments to the instruction and summative assessment would likely increase student success
in meeting the MCCRS standards and essential skills and knowledge.

Part E: Reflection and Self-Evaluation


Upon reflection of the data and outcomes from the small group instruction in
literacy, I feel that the unit was successful. The data compiled from the pre-assessment,
formative assessment and summative assessment have shown me that 6 out of 8 students were
able to meet the MCCSS standards and essential skills and knowledge in literacy and math. Two
students were able to partially meet the standards and essential skills and knowledge in literacy
and math. Observations as well as data from assessments showed strong evidence of student
growth. There was more student growth for the students in the lower ability group than the
higher ability group. The higher ability group with Carmen, Grace and Isiah in it already knew
and had mastered most of the concepts taught throughout the 3 days. Even though they had
mastered most of the concepts, Carmen and Grace still showed growth. I feel that all students
could have had more growth if it was just one literacy and just one math concept that was
focused on for the three days, instead of a new one every day. Also, if the higher group was
provided with even more challenging problems I feel that more growth would have occurred as

52
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

well. Despite these opportunities for improvement, I feel that effective instruction influenced the
positive student growth outcomes.
The instruction of this unit influenced student learning to a great extent. Instruction was
differentiated with each students need in mind. Throughout the 3 day lesson unit students
participated in a literacy and math activity everyday that was engaging. I incorporated different
levels of activities for the different ability groups, art activities and interactive story reading in
order to meet the needs of each individual student. Instructional strategies I utilized throughout
the unit to address cultural and linguistic differences of learners were: scaffolding, visuals,
hands-on activities, modeling and prompting. Each of these strategies aimed to address student
needs to ensure the lessons were accessible for everyone. On the first day, in the math center,
students were to count objects in first to fifth place. For group1, the objects were labeled
numbers 1 through 5 and they received more prompting and modeling. This type of visual aid
was beneficial for Group 1 because they require that extra help and prompting. By modeling and
scaffolding instruction for all students, I was able to meet them where their exact needs were.
Data for the first day in math, showed that 6 out of 8 students were able to meet expectations in
this area and 2 students did meet expectations but needed more prompting and cues. From this
data, I can conclude that the math activity for day 1 was successful because all 8 students either
met or made progress towards expectations.
Based on the implications acquired from the student achievement data, future
instructional activities would be modified to better fit the needs of the students. In the future, I
would like to teach one literacy and one math concept for at least a few days. During this unit,
students had a new math and literacy objective each day and this was too fast paced in my
opinion. Another aspect that I would like to improve on is providing the students with more

53
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

instructional time to practice these skills. The majority of the class is students with disabilities
and they should be provided with more time to practice these new skills and concepts. I would
like to keep the small group instruction but allow students more time to interact and practice with
the manipulatives.
When creating a unit for any type of classroom, especially a special education classroom,
it is extremely important and essential to collaborate with other professionals who work with the
same students and/or population. Both before and throughout this unit, I constantly collaborated
with the special education teacher (my mentor) to gain perspective on what worked and what
was not as effective for each student. Through our observations, my mentor and I realized that it
would be best to have stations after snack time. Lex was unable to go through all the stations
before snack; I think he just really needed that break. This was implemented during my 3 day
lesson unit and it worked out well; Lex was more focused. Another professional with whom I
collaborated to gain perspective was the Instructor Assistant (Beth). Beth helped me plan the
math activities and art activities. She gave me very helpful and creative math and art ideas that I
could use in my future classroom. Constant collaboration and reflection is necessary for effective
instruction and student learning to take place.
Two personal professional learning goals based on CEC standards that emerged from my
reflection and experienced with this unit were CEC standards 1 and 4. The first CEC standard 1
is Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences. This experience gave me the
opportunity to think in depth about providing the most effective activities and instruction for
each individual student. It was difficult to tailor the activities and instruction to each students
needs but it is critical. In the future I will continue to educate myself on the UDL principles so
that I can accommodate my students diverse needs. The other CEC standard is standard 4:

54
Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Assessment. Coming up with a summative assessment was the most challenging for me
throughout this lesson unit. I used the same checklist for my summative assessment as I did for
my pre-assessment. I originally thought this would be the most effective but afterwards I realized
I should have incorporated more UDL principles within the summative assessment. I should have
let students choose how they wanted to show me what they have learned. I gained great insight
from this experience about creating assessments that will increase my future accuracy of data. I
will use all of the knowledge I gained from this entire experience to continue to improve learning
outcomes for all my students by making sure that my classroom fits all their diverse needs.