1

Data Collection Project

Erin Davis

Regent University
 2

Data Collection Project

Part One: Preassessment

During my first student teaching placement, I conducted my data project with a fifth-

grade class at Bettie F. Williams Elementary School in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The student

population of the class was nineteen students. The class was made up of eight males and eleven

females. Out of these students, 10 are identified as gifted. No students in the class had an IEP or

504 Plan, nor English language learners. The class was made up of nine African Americans, four

multiracial, three Hispanic, and two Caucasian students. The data project was centered around

the Virginia Mathematics Standard of Learning 5.2 a) “The student will represent and identify

equivalencies among fractions and decimals, with and without models.” Before instruction on

this standard, I gave the students the preassessment. The preassessment was created by the

school division. Each student was given the preassessment. I used the data from the assessment

to plan and differentiate my instruction for this objective based on student readiness.

The assessment aligns with Math SOL 5.2 because it tests for the skills and knowledge of

identifying equivalencies among fractions and decimals with and without models. Questions 1, 3,

and 4 assessed representing fractions with denominators that are thirds, eighths, and factors of

100 in their equivalent decimal form with concrete and pictorial models. Question 1 asked

students to shade in ¾ on the hundreds grid and write the equivalent decimal. Question 3 showed

a model of 4/5 and asked students to circle the fractions and decimals that were equivalent to the

shading of the model. Question 3 also assessed representing decimals in their equivalent fraction

form (thirds, eighths, and factors of 100) with concrete and pictorial models. Question 4 asked

students to choose which model best represented 3/5 out of three choices. Lastly, question 2

assessed identifying equivalent relationships between decimals and fractions with denominators
 3

that are thirds, eighths, and factors of 100 in their equivalent decimal form without models. This

question asked students to circle all the decimals equivalent to 2/8.

I collected data by using a chart that had each skill and the corresponding questions. If

the students got the question correct, I marked them with a yes. If it was incorrect, I marked it

with a no. Some students received partial since questions 2 and 3 had more than one answer

choice. Therefore, if the student found at least one correct answer, but not all of the answers,

they received partial credit. I highlighted the areas where the students received a “no” or did not

demonstrate the skill in the preassessment. Then I created a graph based on the number of points

the students received for each question. Since the questions are aligned with the skills, I can look

to see the skills they need to learn. For the questions they got, they do not need further

instruction.

From the data, I concluded that the majority of students did not have the skills of

identifying and representing fraction-decimal equivalencies. I placed the students into four

ability groups based on their scores/readiness. Group 1 was the highest-scoring group. Three

students were able to correctly answer each question, which demonstrated to me that they

already had the knowledge and skills and could be placed in Group 1. Even though these three

students demonstrated their skills, it was clear that the whole group needed instruction. There

was not any compacting I could do in terms of not needing to teach certain skills or information.

Group 4 was the lowest-scoring group. Groups 2 and 3 were those who fell in the middle.

Throughout this project, I used flexible grouping. Based on the preassessment data, I created four

small groups based on the strengths and weaknesses the students exhibited. Group 1, the highest

group, consisted of students 3, 12, 14, and 15. The students who performed in the middle made

up the largest group, so I split them into two groups named Groups 2 and 3 based on similar
 4

strengths and weaknesses. Group 2 consisted of the second highest performing students: students

6, 8, 11, 13, and 17. Group 3 was the third highest performing with students 5, 10, 16, 18, and

19. Lastly, in Group 4 the lowest group was students 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9.

 5

Preassessment Data Chart

Preassessment Data
MA.5.1.2 The student will represent and identify equivalencies among fractions and decimals, with and without
models. (SOL 5.2a; Number and Number Sense)
On the state assessment, items measuring this objective are assessed without the use of a calculator.  
Represent fractions with
Represent decimals in their Identify equivalent relationships
denominators that are thirds,
equivalent fraction form between decimals and fractions with
eighths and factors of 100 in their
Student (thirds, eighths and factors denominators that are thirds, eighths
equivalent decimal form with
Name of 100) with concrete and and factors of 100 in their equivalent
concrete and pictorial models. Q
pictorial models. Q 3 decimal form without models. Q 2
1,3, 4

1 1,4- No 3- Yes No No

2 1,4- No 3- Yes No No

3 Yes  Yes Yes

4 1, 4- No 3-Yes No No

5 1,4- No 3- Yes No No

6 1,4 - No 3- Partial No Partial

7 1, -Yes 3- Partial 4- No No No

8 Yes Partial No

9 No No No

10 1,4- No 3- Partial No No

11 1,4- No 3- Yes Partial No

12 Yes Yes Yes

13 1,3- No 4- Yes Partial No

14 Yes Yes Yes

15 Yes Partial Partial

16 1,4- No 3- Partial No No

17 No Yes No

18 1,4- No 3- Yes No No

19 1,4- No 3- Partial No No
 6

Preassessment Data Graph

Preasessment Data
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
 7

Preassessment
8
 9

Part Two: Description of Four Activities

I used the assessment data to create whole-group instruction and flexible group

instruction to teach Math SOL 5.2a. On day 1 the students were given the preassessment, I taught

a whole group lesson on the day after the preassessment was given. I taught this lesson without

knowing the data from the preassessment. Therefore, this was a general introduction to the

standard. I used a Google Slide to teach unit fractions and their decimals, such as one-half and

one-fourth. The students followed along by taking notes on the slides. They copied their fractions

and decimals in order on a number line as I modeled on the board.

For Day 2, I planned my instruction based on the data. I looked at each student’s

preassessment and placed them into four groups based on readiness. I did this with the intention

of using flexible grouping. I knew these groups would change over time, but this gave me an

initial idea of students’ readiness. From this data, I determined more whole-group instruction

was needed for all of the skills. Therefore, on Day 2, I started the whole group instruction with a

Think, Pair, Share activity. I displayed a set of fractions and decimals on the board. I asked if the

decimals and fractions were all equivalent to each other. The students took a moment to think

and then turned to a shoulder partner to share their ideas. I walked around to listen to their ideas.

Then we came back as a group and discussed if they were equivalent, which all of them were

equal to 0.5 or ½. I chose this strategy for students to cooperatively learn with other students who

have different levels of readiness.

I also introduced an anchor chart to the students. I made an anchor divided into six parts,

each with a unit fraction, the decimal equivalent, and a model representing the value. I let the

students know this was their “friend” that I was going to leave up so they could look at it when

they needed help. Afterward, the students took out their Chromebooks to complete the Fraction
 10

Decimal Equivalents Nearpod. It was a teacher-led Nearpod, so each student was doing the same

problems at the same time. I walked around and observed the students’ work then we went over

the problems as a class. I ended the lesson with an exit ticket. The ticket was displayed on the

board which showed a model of a ten by ten with 4/10 shaded in. The students were to identify

the fraction and equivalent decimal the model was representing. From this exit ticket, I made

new groups based on the students’ responses.

After Day 2 instruction, I determined that with the exception of three students, no one got

everything on the exit ticket, and the majority was missed. Therefore, I determined more whole-

group and small-group instruction was needed. I used flexible grouping to create new groups

based on the exit ticket for Day 3. Some students moved up in groups after the two days of whole

group instruction. A couple of students moved down as they were not able to complete all parts

of the exit ticket.

On Day 3, the students started to work in their small groups. Before breaking into small

groups, we started by reviewing the entrance ticket which was writing the equivalent decimals

for a set of fractions. Next, we completed a S.H.O.R.E. Close, Far, and Between activity in

which it displayed three fractions or decimals, and the class determined which ones were closest

to 0, ½, or 1. This served as a review for some and a reinforcement of skills for others.

Next on this day, the school’s Math Coach and Math Tutor pull one group each, of the

teacher’s choice. I chose to put the two stronger groups (Group 1 and Group 2) with the tutor and

the coach so I could work more closely with those who were struggling and figure out what they

were not understanding. My cooperating teacher pulled a group as well so each of the four

groups was being met with. For my cooperating teacher’s group, she worked with Group 4, the

lowest group. I gave her the Spicy Pepper game to work on with the students. This game was
 11

tiered with three levels. If the card had three peppers on it, that was the most challenging, two

peppers in the middle, and one pepper was easy. I instructed her to work on the one-level pepper

cards with the students, and if they were showing they were ready to do some two-level pepper

cards as well.

I worked with Group 3. We worked on an activity called Ice Cream Scoops. Each student

was given a set of ice cream scoops. These scoops had a fraction, decimal, or model on them. I

laid out a set of cones with decimals on them. I started with a fraction, such as two-thirds. We

took turns in the circle and the students added a scoop on the cone if they had an equivalent

value. We went through all the cones and then went through the remaining cards that students

did not match themselves. I talked through the cards together with the students. For example,

showing how to convert the fractions. Then I worked with them to add the scoops to the right

cones.

On Day 4, I went back to whole group instruction. After working more closely with some

students, I was able to see their misunderstandings which I used to improve my instruction for

the whole class. After the first three days of instruction, I felt I was giving the students too many

strategies and too much information at once. I created a flow chart of steps to organize this

information and introduced it to them on this fourth day. The flow chart started by asking “Is it a

Unit fraction?” This means the students are to look at the anchor chart and see if the denominator

or decimal is on it. If yes, then they are to add the unit decimal based on the numerator. If not,

the students ask, “Can we make it a friendly fraction?” Then they decide whether to multiply or

divide to make it a fraction they are familiar with. I wrote these steps out on the board and the

students followed along by creating the flow chart in their math notebooks.
 12

After teaching this flow chart of steps, I had the students continue working on the

Nearpod from Day 2. We completed the Nearpod as a class, this time going through the steps

from the flow chart to answer the questions. I modeled how to use the steps for the students on

the Nearpod for a couple of problems, then I let them complete them independently. When we

came back to review as a group, I had the students share how they went through the steps to get

the answer. After the Nearpod, the students had an exit ticket. I displayed two fractions, 2/8 and

6/24 on the whiteboard and asked if they were equivalent. Then I asked students to write the

equivalent decimal of the fractions. Everyone got the exit ticket correct except for four students.

These four students are those who had been in my low group, Group 4. This showed me the

whole group instruction with the steps was extremely beneficial to their learning.

Day 5 was the last day of instruction before the assessment. I chose to have the students

work in their small groups. I created the groups based on Day 4’s exit ticket. I created a

differentiated activity for the students to complete called Who is the Imposter? This activity was

based on the popular game Among Us. The students were given three rows of characters. One of

the characters was the imposter meaning, it did not represent an equivalent set of a fraction and a

decimal. The students met with their group at the table corresponding with their group number.

For example, Group 1 met at Table 1. They had the sheet in the middle of the table. The students

could use their notebooks to help find the imposter. I also emphasized that the students use the

flow charts in their notebooks to help them.

Each group was given a different card. Group 1 was given more challenging decimals

and fractions. Such as improper fractions and denominators different from the unit fractions.

Group 4, the lowest group, was given unit fractions and friendly fractions on their card. Group 3

mostly had unit and friendly fractions, but also included an improper fraction. Group 2 was
 13

similar to Group 3, but I incorporated a couple of challenges such as improper fractions and

unfamiliar denominators. While students were working as a group, I was able to walk around and

monitor their progress. I was also able to give assistance to groups who needed it, such as

Groups 4 and 3. After the group work, we reviewed the activity as a class. Each group shared an

example of an imposter from their card. The class then independently completed an exit ticket

which as them to list two equivalent fractions of 4/5 and the equivalent decimal of 4/5. I used

this data to determine that the students were ready for the post-assessment to be given the next

day.
 14

Student Work and Lesson Materials

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
 23

Part Three: Post Assessment

The post-assessment I used was created and provided by the district. This assessment

aligned with the teaching standards. The first part had students matching fractions to their

decimal equivalents. These fractions were all unit fractions or could be made into “friendly

fractions”. The second part gave a unit fraction and had the students write the equivalent

decimal. Part three gave the decimal 0.4 and asked students to circle the equivalent fractions out

of the set. The fourth part provided students with a model on a hundreds grid and had them name

the equivalent fraction and the equivalent decimal it represented. Part five provided students with

either a fraction or decimal and asked them to represent it on the hundreds grid. Then the

students were to write the equivalent decimal if they were given a fraction or the fraction if they

were given the decimal. Lastly, question 6 was a short answer. The students were to determine if

the two fractions were both equivalent to the decimal and then provide an example of another

equivalent fraction.

To assess the data from the post-assessment, I used the same chart as I did with the

preassessment. I aligned the questions to the skills. Again, some questions had multiple answers,

so I gave partial credit to students if they got at least one correct answer. After creating separate

charts for the pre and post-assessments based on skills, I created one chart which compared the

students’ scores on the two assessments. If they received full credit on the preassessment they

received 20 points toward their 100-point score. If it was partial credit for a question, the

students received 10 points. For the post-assessment, each question was worth 12.5 points for

full credit and 6.25 points for partial credit. In comparison to each other, the majority improved.

There were three students who received a 100 on the post-assessment and their scores went down

on the post. This occurred because the last two questions on the post-assessment were created by
 24

the district to be a challenge. Therefore, I created two graphs, one including those two questions

in the data and the other without it. The data without the two questions showcases the growth the

students made in their assessment scores.

Should I teach this standard again, I would introduce the flow chart of steps early on. The

exit ticket data proved the difference this made in the students’ understanding. Providing the

students with clear steps helped organize their thought processes and strategies when working

through the problems. It also helped organize my instruction to make sure I was providing clear

explanations. I would also change the small group activities I used for Group 3 and 4. I would

give Group 4 the ice cream activity because it aligned with the foundational skills for the

objective. I would then give Group 3 the tiered pepper cards so they could do level one and level

two activities. Overall from the pre to post-assessment, the students improved, and I had

evidence of their learning. The differentiated instruction proved to help students in their learning

of these skills.
 25

Post Assessment Data Chart

MA.5.1.2 The student will represent and identify equivalencies among fractions and decimals, with and without models.
(SOL 5.2a; Number and Number Sense)
On the state assessment, items measuring this objective are assessed without the use of a calculator.
Represent fractions with Identify equivalent relationships
Represent decimals in their
denominators that are thirds, between decimals and fractions with
equivalent fraction form
eighths and factors of 100 in their denominators that are thirds, eighths
Student (thirds, eighths and factors
equivalent decimal form with and factors of 100 in their equivalent
Name of 100) with concrete and
concrete and pictorial models. Q decimal form without models. Q1,2, 3,
pictorial models. Q 4, 5
4, 5 6

1 4- Yes 5-No 4-Yes 5- Partial Yes

2 4,5- No 4- No 5- Partial 1,2,3- Yes 6- Partial

3 4- Yes 5- No 4- Yes 5- Partial 1,23-Yes 6- Partial

4 4- Yes, 5- Partial 4- Yes 5- Partial 1- Partial 2,3- Yes 6- No

5 4- Yes 5- Partial 4- Yes 5- Partial 1,2,3- Yes 6- Partial

6 4- Yes 5- Partial 4- Yes 5- Partial 1,2,3- Yes 6-No

7 Yes 4- Yes 5- Partial Yes

8 4- Yes 5- Partial Yes Yes

9 4- Yes 5- Partial 4- Yes 5- Partial 1,2,3- Yes 6- Partial

10 4- Partial, 5- No 4- Partial, 5- No 1,2,3- Partial 6- No

11 4- Yes, 5- Partial 4- Yes, 5- Partial 1,2,3- Yes 6- No

12 4- Yes 5- Partial 4- Yes 5- Partial Yes

13 4- Yes 5- Partial 4- Yes 5- No 1,3- Yes 2- Partial 6- No

14 Yes 4- Yes 5- Partial Yes

15 4- Yes 5- Partial 4,5 - Yes Yes

16 Yes Yes Yes

17 Yes 4- Yes 5- Partial 1,3- Yes  2,6- Partial

18 Yes 4- Yes 5- Partial Yes

19 4- Partial 5- No 4,5- Partial 1,2,6- Partial 3- Yes

Post Assessment Data Graph

 26

Post Assessment Data

19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Post Assessment Data Excluding Questions 5 and 6

 27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Series5 Series6

Post Assessment
28
29
30
31
 32

Pre-post Test Data Comparison Graph

Pre-Post Test Comparison

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Preassessment Postassessment
 33

Pre and Post Assessment Data Graph Excluding Post Assessment Questions 5 and 6