Brian Lyda EDUC 429 TWS 5 Analysis of Student Learning Whole Class: Student Number (1-26) 1 (High Performer)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Low Performer) 10 11 12 13 14 (Average Performer) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mean Median Mode Pre-assessment Score (0-6) 3 3 4 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 0 4 4 Pre-assessment 2.04 2 2

Post-assessment Score (0-6) 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 1 3 5 4 5 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 DID NOT TAKE DID NOT TAKE DID NOT TAKE Post-assessment 3.65 4 5

Brian Lyda EDUC 429

25 22 Student Number 19 16 13 10 7 4 1 0 2 4 Assessment Score Post-assessment Pre-assessment Linear (Pre-assessment) 6 8

Brian Lyda EDUC 429 Whole Class:

The above table and chart both display pre and post assessment data of 26 students that were present for my three lessons dealing with the Revolutionary War in South Carolina. The raw data from the pre-assessment shows that 8% of students scored 0, 27% of students scored 1, 30% of students scored 2, 23% of students scored 3, 12% of students scored 4, and 0% of students scored 5 or 6. 65% of students answered less than half of the questions correctly while 12% of students answered more than half of the questions correctly. The average pre-assessment score was a 2, as was the median and the mode. The post-assessment results were very encouraging for the most part. 0% of students scored 0, 4% of students scored 1, 26% of students scored 2, 13% of students scored 3, 18% of students scored 4, 35% of students scored 5, and 4% of students scored 6. The average post-assessment score was 3.65, and the median was a 4 while the mode was a 5. (It should be noted that students 24, 25, and 26 did not participate in the post-assessment due to participation in the GATAS program. These students were pulled out of class during the time the final lesson was taught and post-assessment was given). The percentage of students that scored a 5 or 6 increased from 0% to 39%. The average score increased from 2.04 to 3.65. The chart demonstrates further trends from pre to post assessment. It can be seen that 78% of students increased their score from the preassessment to the post-assessment. 13% of students scored the same, and 9% of students decreased their score from pre-assessment to post-assessment. On top of that data, 72% of the students that increased their score did so by at least 2 points. Student #4 made the largest increase. This student went from a 0 pre-assessment score to a 5 post-assessment score. Each score decrease was by 1 point. This happened with 2 students (student #9, student #23). Individuals: It is important to analyze student performance carefully. One way to do this is to examine students that demonstrate different levels of performance on the given task. It is important to understand what caused this difference in performance. Was it due to an instructional decision? Was it due to the students attitude that day? Why was instruction more affective for one student but not the other? These are the types of questions that need to be answered to properly reflect on student performance to improve instruction for the future. If performance differences were due to factors under the control of the teacher, this should be understood and improved upon for the next lesson. The ultimate goal is to have all students performing at the highest level. The three students that I have chosen to more closely analyze for this assessment are Student #1 (high performer), Student #9 (low performer), and Student #14 (average performer). Student #1 scored a 3 on the pre-assessment (see attachment 5.0) and she scored a 6 on the postassessment (see attachment 5.1). This student was the only one to answer all questions correctly on the post-assessment. Both assessment scores were above the class average. She doubled her score from pre-assessment to post-assessment. This student was engaged throughout all lessons. She never has to be called down for talking or being off task. She strives to please the teacher at all times. During activities within the 3 lessons, the student demonstrated that she was obtaining the knowledge outlined in the lesson objectives. She correctly filled in a Venn diagram (see attachment 5.2) dealing with the Patriots about which we learned. She also developed, along

Brian Lyda EDUC 429

with her group members, a poster about Thomas Sumter (see attachment 5.3) and led her group in the presentation of the information to the class.

Student # 9 scored a 2 on the pre-assessment (see attachment 5.4), and a 1 on the postassessment (see attachment 5.5). This student was one of two students that had a score decrease from pre to post-assessment. She was the only student to answer less than 2 correctly on the postassessment. This student is an English Language Learner (ELL). She answered 1 question correctly about the 3 Patriots with which we worked. This was the focus of the second lesson and the group presentations. She did not show engagement during the 3 lessons that were taught on the subject. For the Venn diagram (see attachment 5.6) dealing with the Patriots about which we learned, she left it incomplete. This tells me that she was not listening very effectively during her peers presentations. While her group was working to make their poster about Andrew Pickens, she was often talking to other students about other topics. During the presentation, she stood to the side and seemed disinterested. I had to call her down on several occasions throughout my 3 lessons due to talking or being off task during group and independent work. She does not demonstrate problem behavior or act out to displease the teacher; however, she often seemed disinterested or disengaged.

Student # 14 scored a 3 on the pre-assessment (see attachment 5.7) and a 3 on the postassessment (see attachment 5.8). This student was one of three students that did not increase or decrease in score. Her pre-assessment score was slightly over the average and her postassessment score was slightly below the average. She answered the same 3 questions correctly on the pre and post-assessments. She answered 1 question correctly about the 3 Patriots with which we worked. This contradicts the fact that this student did fairly well on the Venn diagram assignment (see attachment 5.9). She did not clearly identify how the two Patriots were the same, but she did identify differences. This tells me that she was listening during her peers presentations, yet she could not translate this to the post-assessment questions. She did not speak during her groups presentation, but she did seem interested and engaged during it. She was very quiet throughout all of the lessons taught on the subject. She did not speak out or answer questions, and she did not seem off task during class activities. She is often so quiet that she goes unnoticed during lessons.