TWS 6: Analysis of Student Learning- Showcase Lesson Whole Class: Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Pre-Assessment 40 40 20 40 40 100 20 100 40 100 100 100

100 40 40 40 100 40 20 40 40 Absent Pulled OutExtended Resource Pulled OutExtended Resource During Assessment + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + * * Post-Assessment 50 40 100 90 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 90 90 100 90 95 95 100 50 Pulled OutExtended Resource Pulled OutExtended Resource

This data showed me that the same students who performed well on the pre-assessment also performed well on the post assessment. The post-assessment showed more issues of students not putting the units more so than not accurately completing the actual mathematic computations. As a whole, 90 percent of the class was proficient with how to find area and perimeter of rectangles by the end of the two lessons. I did not count the three perimeter word problems included in the post assessment worksheet because word problems are a general struggle for students in this class, so them not accurately answering those questions is a larger issue that is not reflective of the area and perimeter lessons I taught. The pre-assessment had 6 questions, but I did not count the last question because it did not pertain to my lessons. This pre-assessment had two perimeter questions and three area questions. If students got the perimeter questions correct but the area questions incorrect they received a scored of 40 for the pre-assessment. Students who did not accurately answer one perimeter question nor all three of the area questions

they received a 20. Students who answered all five questions correctly received a 100. Assessment during the lesson was based on student participation in the discussion and partner activities. Students received a plus sign (+) if they were on task throughout the lesson or a minus sign (-) if they did not remain on task and had to be prompted to complete their work. The post-assessment was graded for accuracy. Again, I did not count the three word problem questions as part of students grade because to me, those questions did not show whether my students met the lesson objectives or not. Students who correctly answered the perimeter and area computations received a 100. Students who missed one perimeter question and or one area question received a 95. Any student who inaccurately answered 2 perimeter questions received a 90. Students who only turn in half of their work (only the area chart) received a 50 and students who only turned in an incomplete area chart, received a 40 because they completed two of the five mathematical computations on the area chart. One student was absent during the preassessment and then only turned in half of her post-assessment work, thus received a 50 for their post-assessment grade. Two students are considered extended resource and are pulled out during math instruction to work with the resource teacher, so data was not collected from those two students.

Individuals: Robert= High Faith= Medium Libby= Low It is important to understand the learning of these particular students because knowing such information will help further assess classmates of the same level more precisely. In doing so, I can better address issues of other high, medium, and low achieving students. Without knowledge of student achievement from differing levels, the teacher cannot truly know what his or her students need to improve. Roberts pre-assessment showed that he was proficient in both perimeter and area. During the lesson, Robert helped his partner solve the perimeter and area and he added to discussion when called on. His post assessment showed the same results. He accurately computed the area and perimeter for all questions of the individual work, including the perimeter word problems. He actually helped point out that the books answer for one of the word problems was incorrect. Thus, he met the lesson objective. Faiths pre-assessment showed miscalculations for the first perimeter question and no understanding of area. For area, she added all of the sides as she did for perimeter. During the lesson, Faith provided answers to the examples presented. She also worked with her partner to explain reasoning for a particular rectangles perimeter or area. The post assessment showed that Faith fully grasped the concepts of perimeter and area. Although, she did struggle with two of the perimeter word problems, but again word problems are a consistent problem for these students. Overall, I feel that Faith met the objective and now has a stronger grasp on the concepts of perimeter and area. Libbys pre-assessment showed that she had prior knowledge of perimeter, but lacked prior knowledge of area. She added the sides for area as she did for perimeter.

During the lesson, Libby added to class discussions showing through explanation how to solve for the perimeter or area of a given rectangle. Her post assessment showed improvement, but she did not read directions carefully for the two find the missing side questions and she solved for the perimeter instead of the missing side. However, when writing out the numbers in the formula, she used the missing side; she just did not answer the question when it asked for the missing side and not the perimeter. She also did not correctly answer two of the perimeter word problems. However, as a whole, I believe Libby met the objective and better understands perimeter and area after the two lessons.