Measure of Student Learning 

5P Class Cognitive Graphs:

5P SKILL TEST
5C Cognitive Results
5C Skills Test:
5B Cognitive Assessment:
5B Psychomotor Assessment:
Impact of Student Learning Analysis:

Summary of Student Learning:

5P: 17 Students showed high impact of learning in the cognitive testing
2 Students showed moderate impact of learning in the cognitive testing
0 students showed low impact of student learning in the cognitive testing
12 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing
7 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing
1 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing

5B: 14 Students showed high impact of learning in the cognitive testing

3 Students showed moderate impact of learning in the cognitive testing
1 students showed low impact of student learning in the cognitive testing
10 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing
8 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing
1 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing

5C: 14 Students showed high impact of learning in the cognitive testing

2 Students showed moderate impact of learning in the cognitive testing
2 students showed low impact of student learning in the cognitive testing
8 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing
10 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing
1 Students showed high impact of learning in the psychomotor testing

Student learning within the unit was measured in many different ways, predominantly,
through informal teacher observations and checking for understanding. There was also use of
tangible assessments throughout the unit as well, such as, exit slips, pre/post tests, journals and
peer checklists. This gave myself the opportunity to monitor student growth and learning over
the course of the Nitroball/Volleying Unit. The Pre-Test gave me a better look at areas students
needed more focus on and designed the content for the unit towards the areas. The results of the
three separate classes gave extremely useful and beneficial feedback. Students on the pretest
score extremely low across all three classes, which shows the progress on the cognitive test to be
very impressive. On the pretest 5P scored a 35%, 5B scored a 34% and 5C scored a 26%. These
scores were shocking to me, especially with the knowledge that they have learned about the
content area before. I analyzed that all areas on the pretest showed that they knew very minimal
about the serve, bump or set. With that information gathered I set the class up in ways for
students to succeed. The methods used in the unit are reasons that I felt students showed extreme
progress by the end. During instruction, students had the opportunity at first to listen to me break
down the skill cues, after the first few days, they were student lead where each day a student
would breakdown that cue for a class. All around the room, I had set up fluorescent skill cue
poster boards at the station in which the skill would be taking place and encouraged that students
would read them before starting that specific activity. Students also were in charge of peer
assessments where they had to watch students do the skill and they had to evaluate if the skill
was demonstrated or not. Likewise, students had exit slips in which they were able to see the
action that was happening and the word next to it, helping students who may need to see rather
than read. The constant reminders of the skill cues, I felt helped the students grow cognitively
which is showed by their class averages and the charts above of high, moderate and low student
growth. The class averages skyrocketed by at least 37+ points in each class, 5P (79%), 5B (71%),
and most impressively, 5C (76%, an increase of 50 points!). Safe to say, I am extremely happy
that students went beyond my expectations.
Some modifications I would make have become apparent though for cognitive
development. Potentially, I would utilized the jigsaw teaching method on one of the first days to
allow students to become an “expert” in at least one are and teach the rest of their group that
skill. I believe that this may have enhanced student cognitive learning in at least one skill area
and give them ownership. Lastly, I would like to have posted pictures around the gym on how
the skill would look, this would give students the opportunity to see as well as, read, like I had
previously mentioned with the exit slip.
In the psychomotor domain, students demonstrated in the beginning some shock to me on
how little skill cues were demonstrated in the analysis station but, it aligned with the cognitive
testing that some students did not either know or understand. Students in 5P demonstrated 2 out
of 5 skill cues, 5B showed 2 out of 5 skill cues as well, and 5C demonstrated 1 out of 5 skill
cues. By the end, students in each class averaged 4 out of 5 skill cues shown. I was pleased by
this result, this gives me confidence that students will be able to show underhand serving at the
control level in middle school. I believe that the cognitive development of the students went hand
in hand with their psychomotor development. The amount of opportunities to respond the
students had increased muscle memory and skill development. The best part of the skill
development I believe was having stations, with appropriate time at each. At three of the stations,
students had the opportunity to work on one specific skill cue whether it was bump, set or serve.
The students were there for an appropriate amount of time to keep their attention on task, under 8
minutes each. Each day the skill progressed from extremely basic to getting into game play, each
day had its own logical progression based on their development. We also each day had an
“application station”, this station was where the student could practice all three skills together in
a modified game situation, allowing them to test what they have learned in progress to being
ready for Nitroball. I feel that the progressions were key in the development of their skills being
shown.
I felt that the psychomotor development in the class was extremely strong and I taught
the content of serving as well as, the other two areas well. I would modify this by exploring each
individual skill to each individual class. For example, one class would be tested on bump, one
would be tested on set and one would be tested on serving. I feel like this would open the door to
testing the station method of teaching making sure that the students are getting enough of each
skill area.
Should I teach this again, I felt like it was a strong unit and it went well. I would however
change the content that was delivered, from a physiological standpoint to a more historical/about
Nitroball/Volleying unit, a little more than the basics. This I believe would set a good base and
then as they progress throughout the years, they can begin to learn more different and specific
content.