Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 1

Planning, Preparation, Instruction, and Assessment Competency

Kimberly Peltonen
Regent University

In partial fulfillment of UED 495 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2020.

Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 2

Introduction
Planning and preparing instruction are the heart of teaching. If a teacher is to teach

effectively, it is necessary to have a complete academic picture of a student’s understanding of

the objective. This picture is painted through assessments and spans from a student’s

background knowledge about a topic and continues all the way to the summative assessment

where they can competently demonstrate their understanding. Gathering the necessary

information to get a complete picture takes time and a clear understanding of “what the student

should be able to know, do, and understand upon leaving, expressed in product terms”. (Wiggins

& McTighe, 2005, pg. 6)

The artifacts I am submitting for this competency demonstrate how I used pre-assessment

and post-assessment data to plan appropriate instruction for the objectives being taught in my

fourth-grade class. I used pre-assessment data to organize my math lesson plans as I began

teaching about adding and subtracting fractions, which included dispelling a misunderstanding

about adding and subtracting fractions. The post-instructional assessment data for the science

lesson on the cause of the seasons was instrumental in revealing an adjustment I needed to make

in my teaching when my students showed low levels of understanding after I taught a lesson.

Rationale of Selected Artifacts

Pre-Assessment for Adding and Subtracting Fractions and Mixed Numbers

The artifacts I have chosen to demonstrate the competency of planning, preparation,

instruction and assessment using a pre-instructional assessment relate to adding and subtracting

fractions and mixed numbers having like and unlike denominators as required by Virginia Math

SOL 4.5b. (Virginia Department of Education, 2019) The artifacts are a pre-assessment and a
Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 3

data chart that reflects the results of the pre-assessment. Prior to beginning instruction, I

developed a pre-assessment that contained problems that reflected the five basic functions

students would need to be proficient in by the end of this unit: estimate and add two fractions

with unlike denominators, estimate and subtract two fractions with unlike denominators, estimate

and add two mixed numbers, and write four fractions in their simplest form. It is noteworthy to

mention that while the pre-assessment was being administered, I had many students ask what to

do if they did not have any idea how to work a problem. After reviewing the pre-assessments, I

generated a data chart to help me quickly see patterns of errors and get a sound, overall picture of

student understanding. The data revealed that there is very little understanding of any of the

concepts contained in this math objective. The data also revealed that many students had the

misunderstanding that denominators could be added and subtracted.

As a result of the pre-assessment data, I began instruction by spending a couple days

reviewing improper fractions, mixed numbers, and how to convert them back and forth during

guided practice and small group. Due to the high number of students who have very little

understanding of how to add and subtract fractions, I slowed instruction down to one concept per

day. On the first day of instruction for this topic I taught adding and subtracting fractions with

like denominators with significant amount of time focused on guided practice and an emphasis

on correcting their misunderstanding on being able to add and subtract denominators. I repeated

that process for adding and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators on a different day and

adding and subtracting fractions with mixed numbers on yet another day. Currently, I am still

teaching this unit but have plans to spend the majority of our math instructional time on

independent practice through games and task cards that require them to practice adding and

subtracting fractions and mixed numbers, and in small groups of students determined by their
Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 4

level of mastery or need. At present, I have four different small groups that are working from

levels ranging from just adding and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators to a group

that independently demonstrates a clear understanding of the objectives.

Post-Assessment for the Cause and Identification of Earth’s Seasons

The artifacts I have chosen to demonstrate the competency of planning, preparation,

instruction, and assessment using a post-instructional assessment relate to the cause and

identification of the seasons in the Northern Hemisphere. The artifacts are an exit ticket, the

revised version of the exit ticket that was used as the summative assessment, and the data chart

that reflects the results of the exit ticket. After I taught a whole group lesson about the

relationship between Earth’s axial tilt and the revolution of the Earth around the sun in relation to

Earth’s seasons as they relate to the Virginia Science SOL 4.8 a, b, I administered a formative

assessment in the form of an exit ticket to gauge the level of understanding of the students.

(Virginia Department of Education, 2019) The exit ticket I chose was a diagram of Earth in four

positions around the sun and the students needed to label each sphere with which hemisphere

was receiving the most direct sunlight, and then label the correct seasons correspondingly. After

reviewing the exit tickets, I generated a chart to help me quickly see patterns of errors and get a

sound, overall picture of student understanding. The data revealed that only two students in the

class of twenty-five were able to correctly label the seasons. The data also revealed that half of

the class did not have an adequate understanding of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres,

which directly impacted the student’s ability to understand what was being asked of them.

As a result of the data, I altered my lesson plans to include a 10-minute mini-lesson on

the hemispheres using the classroom globe as a visual aid and retaught the lesson on the seasons.

During re-instruction on the seasons, I took extra time to deepen student understanding by giving
Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 5

numerous opportunities for students to repeat what they just heard. For extra reinforcement, I

had students answer a random question relating to the seasons diagram as an entry ticket into the

classroom at the beginning of each day, followed by review as part of their morning work in the

form of a worksheet where they had to label or drawing and labeling a diagram on the

whiteboard.

Additionally, after re-examining the diagram used for the exit ticket, I decided to make

some changes to reduce any confusion the layout of the exit ticket itself may have caused. I

simplified the wording and changed the diagram to one that had a more simplistic, cleaner

representation of the Earth and the sun, and then used it for the summative assessment. By

simplifying the visual appearance of the diagram, I was able to more clearly convey what was

being asked. The cumulative impact of these adjustments to assessment and to instruction

resulted in all students passing the assessment given three days after the exit ticket was

administered, twenty-two with a grade of Advanced Proficient and two with a grade of

Proficient.

Reflection on Theory and Practice

In her book Instruction for All Students (2008), Paula Rutherford asserts “When teachers

use assessments accurately and appropriately, student success follows”. (pg. 23) Intentional,

high-quality instruction is only possible when there is relevant data as its foundation. Using

carefully chosen assessments throughout the instructional process “can provide more objective

information on which to base judgements” that achieve the desired learning objectives. (Waugh

& Gronlund, 2013, pg. 4)

Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 6

The post-instructional science assessment I used displayed that the students did not

adequately understand the Earth’s role in causing the seasons. As a result, I was able to alter my

teaching methods that allowed me to meet the needs of my students more effectively. By using

entry tickets involving questions, worksheets to reinforce what they knew, and having them draw

the Earth’s revolution diagram served as vital tools “to reveal students’ understanding and

misunderstanding”. (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, pg. 169) I also considered the possibility that

the tool of assessment might have led to confusion and subsequently improved the exit ticket and

found it to be an effective summative assessment. The cumulative result of the changes was an

overwhelming display of student growth as demonstrated by their ability to correctly identify the

Earth’s movement in relation to the cycle of the seasons.

The math pre-assessment I administered indicated that most of the class had very little

understanding of adding and subtracting fractions and mixed numbers which gave me a clear

starting point for instruction and revealed a misconception about adding and subtracting

denominators. Using the data from the math pre-assessment, I was able to begin instruction at an

appropriate level of understanding of the students in my class and address a specific

misunderstanding that would inhibit student success. As instruction has continued, additional

formative assessment tools have made it possible for me to address specific student needs and

form small groups based on the student’s level of understanding.

Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 7

References

Rutherford, P. (2008). Instruction for all students. Alexandria, VA: Just ASK Publications.

Virginia Department of Education. (2019) Standards of learning: Math Grade 4. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/2016/stds/stds-

grade4.pdf

Virginia Department of Education. (2019) Standards of learning: Science Grade 4. Retrieved

from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/science/index.shtml

Waugh, C., & Grolund, N. (2013). Assessment of student achievement. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc.
Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 8