Measure of Student Learning Data

Number Name Pre-Test (# Correct) Post-Test (# Correct) Growth

1 Arroyo Silva, Dylan 4 6 2
2 Bianchi, Frank 7 7 0
3 Buteau, Ryan 8 7 -1
4 Christopher, McKinnon 3 - -
5 Coyle, Gage 5 5 0
6 DiRico, James 7 7 0
7 Garcias, Andrew 5 7 2
8 Garza, Daniel 6 7 1
9 Halbrook, Alec 5 6 1
10 Jolicoeur, Aimee 6 7 1
11 Laware, Zachary 6 5 -1
12 Liquori, Jake 4 5 1
13 Martino, Rebecca 7 8 1
14 McGovern, Aidan 5 7 2
15 Pluta, Matthew 8 8 0
16 Ransom, Daniel 7 7 0
17 Richards, Andrew 6 8 2
18 Soufan, Eman 8 6 -2
19 Stone, Melanie 4 4 0
20 Sullivan, Patrick 3 6 3
21 Taylor, Jack 6 7 1
22 Trecker, Michael 7 8 1
23 Turley, Connor 6 7 1
24 Vachon, Fraiser 4 8 4
25 Vigneault, Julia 7 - -
26 Zamboni, Dino 4 7 3
Question Pre-Test (# Wrong)
1 2
2 7
3 18
4 6
5 2
6 11
7 6
8 8
Post- Test (# Wrong) Growth
1 1
1 6
12 6
4 2
0 2
9 2
1 5
4 4
 Raw Data of Pre and Post Tests for Fahrenheit 451 Unit

8
Correct Answers on Pre and Post Tests

2
Pre-Test
1 Post-Test
0

Students in Senior, Multi-Level, Science Fiction Course

 Student Growth from Pre-Test to Post-Test
4

3.5
Growth from Pre-Test to Post-Test

2.5

1.5

0.5

Students in Senior, Multi-Level, Science Fiction Course

Impact on Student Learning Based on Growth from Pre-Test to
Post-Test
Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact

4%

23%

73%
 Wrong Answers for Each Question on
Pre and Post Tests
18

16

14
Number of Wrong Answers

12

10

Pre-Test
6
Post-Test
4 Growth

Questions on Multiple Choice Pre and Post Tests

Summary of Data
This data represents the measure of student learning in a 4 week, 20 lesson unit on the novel Fahrenheit 451. At the very beginning of
the unit the students took an 8 multiple choice question quiz on literary elements found in the novel. At the very end of the unit the
students took the same 8 multiple choice question quiz. The very first graph shows the number of correct responses from each student
for both the pre-test and the post-test. This shows how 15 out of 26 students improved to some degree.
The next graph shows the growth for each student from the pre-test to the post-test. This is a more clear representation of how 15 out
of the 26 students improved their score and knowledge from the pre-test to the post-test.
The next graph shows the number of wrong answers for each of the 8 questions on the pre and post tests. It also shows the growth
between the two tests in regard to the questions, all which correspond to a specific literary element from the text. This data shows me
how the class did in regard to topics such as imagery, characterization, and dystopian elements. I can view how for every question,
overall as a class, they improved because there were less wrong answers for each question in the post-test compared to the pre-test.
Finally, the pie chart measures the impact on students based upon their growth between the pre-test and the post-test. It shows low,
moderate, and high impact which can tell me how much of an impact I had on my students with this lesson.

Analysis of Data
After looking at all the data available, I would argue that there has been some moderate growth in student learning throughout this
unit. At first glance, it may seem like there has been quite low growth, but by analyzing all parts of this, I can get a better picture of
my students learning as individuals and also as a class in regard to different topics. First, I can see that 15 out of my 26 students have
improved, whether it is by low, or moderate, or high growth. That is 58% of my students. To then break that number down further, I
can view the pie chart of student growth to view how many low, moderate, and high impacts I had on my students. Almost 30% of
my students were moderate or high growth. However, this does not take into account 4 out of the 6 students who had no growth but
were in fact high scorers of either 7 or 8 correct out of 8 questions. By looking at these pieces of data, I can see how 60% of my
students with no growth still did incredibly well on this test of knowledge. While I strive for the improvement of all my students, I
must recognize how it is sometimes more difficult to improve if one already at or almost reaching the goal rather than someone who
has plenty of room to improve and aim for the same goal.
In addition to this, I get a fairly interesting insight into how my students understand different topics by analyzing the number of wrong
answers for each question for both the pre-test and the post-test. I can see that as a class, they have the best handle on science fiction
elements and symbolism. They had very few wrong answers for the pre-test and even fewer in the post-test. I can conclude that these
topics were well known before this pre-test but the unit reiterated these ideas and students were able to become more familiar with
those topics by the end of the unit. I can also view how my students had very little knowledge of dystopian elements with almost 70%
of the class answering incorrectly on the pre-test. However, this was a large topic covered in our unit and I can view how effective it
was by seeing that 33% of students who answered wrong on the pre-test answered correctly on the post-test. Finally, I can see the
most improvement in the topics of censorship and irony. Censorship was a main theme in the novel and I would argue the reason why
I viewed an 88% improvement overall from the pre-test to the post-test for that topic is because it was a reoccurring big idea
throughout the unit. I saw similar results in regard to irony. I viewed an 83% improvement overall from the pre-test to the post-test. I
believe I viewed such an improvement because irony can be a high interest topic for students and the activity we did in relation to
irony for the novel Fahrenheit 451 was very straightforward.
Therefore, by analyzing all the data available, I can conclude that I had a moderate impact on my students learning for the unit on
Fahrenheit 451. The initial data suggests a low impact, but by looking into the details of this data, I can come to understand that there
were several factors that point to a moderate impact rather than a low impact. Those factors include general growth of all students,
high achieving students with no growth, and growth as a class in regard to different topics. The next time I teach this unit I will make
adjustments with the goal of achieving high impact on student learning for my students, but overall I am pleased with how this unit
turned out and how I was able to have a moderate impact on my students the first time I taught this unit.