Amanda Kaercher

10/23/19

Student Learning Analysis

Huron Elementary is located in Clinton Township, Michigan. In my class, 17 students are white (3 are
Albanian and speak it fluently), 8 are African-American, and 2 are Asian. There are 15 girls and 12 boys. I
do not have any special needs students who took this test. We have three ESL students, only one who
doesn't understand English enough to impede the math test. Three students have IEPs that will allow
them to retake the test if needed.

The two learning goals for this assessment were "Students will be able to complete and understand
double-digit multiplication arrays. Students will be able to complete a math sentence for the
double-digit multiplication array. Students in this class took a math assessment, and the data from the
test was analyzed and used to inform my instruction. The goals/objectives align with the state standard
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.4.NBT.B.5​ Multiply a whole number of up to four digits by a one-digit whole
number and multiply two-digit numbers using strategies based on place value and operations
properties. Illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area
models.”

Double-digit multiplication is one of the most challenging standards/topics for fourth grade to
understand. To show student growth, they were given a pre and post-assessment with correlating
problems. In between the pre and post-assessment, students were given multiple lessons on
double-digit multiplication. Students were given whole group instruction, small group instruction, and
individual instruction. They were also given Checkpoints (quizzes) throughout the unit. Finally, the
pre-assessment was regiven and used as a study guide for the test.

For whole group instruction, I would write problems on the board, such as 12X13. At the beginning of
the unit, I would set the problem up completely. I made an array by breaking the 12 into 10 and 2 and
the 13 into 10 and 3. I would model the array with them and explain. I did this for multiple lessons.
When I believed the students were ready to move on, I would break it apart and have them draw the
array and fill it out. Finally, I would just give the students 12X13, and they would break it apart, make,
and fill out the array themselves along with the correlating mathematical sentence. During all of these
lessons, I would walk around to provide individual help. Students that were struggling were placed next
to students that were excelling at providing additional support. During all of these lessons, I would also
have as many students as possible show how they broke apart their array. Coming up and showing gave
excelling, average, and below students a chance to feel comfortable and hear it broken down at their
level.

When students appeared to be independently applying this skill, I gave them a checkpoint (quiz). I would
then pair struggling students with excelling students to go over the quiz together. After the second
checkpoint, if students still didn't excel, I would work with them to explain every problem. Finally, I
regave them the post-assessment they previously took. We then took a whole math period to do every
problem together and answer questions. They then used that as a study guide for the test the next day.
Students had a wide range of scores on this exam. Some students excelled on the pre and post-test.
Some students excelled on the post but not the pre. However, no one excelled on the pre and not the
post. All students improved from their pre-assessment compared to their post-assessment.
As you can see, scores ranged from a student knowing 0 percent to 1 percent of knowledge (student 27)
to a student getting 100 percent to 100 percent (student 20). Then there was a lot of middle ground
where students made significant improvement such as:
● student 5 in question 2 going from 0% to 67%
● student 6 in question 3 going from 0% to 87%
● student 8 in question 2 going from 31% to 100%
● student 12 in question 3 going from 1% to 88%
● student 16 in question 3 going from 2% to 100%
● student 18 in question 2 going from 0% to 67%
● student 23 in question 2 going from 0% to 100%
● student 16 in question 3 going from 2% to 100%
● student 18 in question 2 going from 0% to 67%
● student 25 in question 2 going from 33% to 100%
● student 13 in question 2 going from 0% to 67%, and in question 3 going from 3% to 100 %
● student 24 in question 2 going from 33% to 100%, and in question 3 going from 50% to 100 %
● student 14 in question 2 going from 0% to 67%, and in question 3 going from 2% to 87 %
● student 15 in question 2 going from 0% to 100%, and in question 3 going from 3% to 88 %
These are a lot of students who significantly improved. However, I can group them and see a range of
similar strategies. Students either did mental math or did work on the side (adding areas or adding to
figure out multiplication).
“Post” on Top and “Pre” on Bottom

These are the students who did side work.

These are the students who did mental math.

(Students who did mental math improved but not at the level of students who did side work.)

It is notable that most students who excelled used adding/side math. The other students who used
mental math were either students who excel or were below grade level. If the student was above grade
level, their scores skyrocketed and stayed the same for they could multiply big numbers in their head or
already knew it during the pre-assessment. Students who do not excel tended to just know the question
multiplying one digit by two digits, and then flopped on the two-digit times two-digit. I believe this is
because it multiplied a single-digit number by another number in the tens or hundreds. Students knew
already you just put the zeros at the end.

Students who still immensely struggled (27, 22, 19, 3) tended to leave the problems blank or guess. To
help these students, I will give them individual/small group help. During lunch, I will go over what they
got wrong. I will do more example equations. I then will walk around, making sure each student gets my
attention. I will get to see where their train of thought went wrong. For many of them, they simply can't
multiply and need to do repeated addition; for others, they just used numbers such as ten because of
the problem next to it. Another trend I saw was not being able to break both numbers up. Therefore I
will focus on breaking up one number and then use repeated addition.

A few of these students have an IEP, so they will be allowed to retake the test. However, the other
students will also be allowed to retake it if they write me a note on how they will improve. Then the two
scores will be averaged.

Although all students improved, not all improved as much as I had hoped they would. After this analysis,
I will stress for students to do work on the side. I will show them how students who took the time got a
better grade. To enforce this, I may make it part of their grade, to show their work or train of thought on
arrays.