Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Nick Sawyers

Pre/Post Assessment Analysis No graphs or Charts


The Pre/Post Assessments given to students in the 1st hour class were identical assessments,
giving me a clear idea of what information students understood and what they need more review
on. The 12 students total being assessed came in the form of 11 females and 1 male. Of the 12
students, 4 were seniors, 5 juniors and 3 sophomores. None were ESL, Sped Ed or had IEPs.
The assessment consisted of 20 points possible in the form of True/False, Multiple choice and
Matching.
The first assessment was given prior to any information from the unit being provided, giving me
an idea of students prior knowledge of kitchen sanitation and foodborne pathogens. The quarter
had just changed, giving us a whole new class of students, and I had already taught my second
lesson. Still needing to assess student understanding for the teacher work sample, I decided to
review student understanding from day one, with no prior knowledge, to a couple weeks into the
unit. Over the next few weeks the students were given and reviewed the information in the form
of PowerPoint presentations, readings assigned, labs done, in-class activities and portfolios
made.
Student knowledge was limited and the test results showed that much review was needed.
Because students were not required to have prior knowledge on these subjects, the assessment
was not used to alter their overall grade it was just used to gage student understanding.
Below is an overview of students grades of assessment #1:

Column 1 identifies that there are 12 students who took the assessment.

Column 2 identifies the gender of each student.

Column 3 identifies how many point out of 20 the student earned.

Column 4 identifies each students percentage grade.

Column 5 identifies a letter grade for each student based on the following

scale:
90-100 = A, 80-89 = B, 70-79 = C, 60-69 = D, Below 60 = F
On the first assessment the above table shows that of the 12 students who took the assessment:
only 1 student got a C, 3 students received Ds and 8 students received Fs. The greatest student
disparity is between student 3, received a 70%, and student 12, who received a 30%. After
reviewing the first assessment, it was clear that all of the students needed more knowledge on
foodborne illnesses and the information being assessed.
The second assessment was given to students after a couple weeks into the unit, after they had
been presented the information during class, readings they were assigned, during labs they had
done and through the informational portfolio they constructed. The students were unaware that
the first or second assessment was being handed out at the time. This could help better gage
student understanding or could have hindered the results by creating more test anxiety for the
students. Working with my homeroom teacher, we tried a lot of variation within the lessons for
which I was present for. Trying to connect with interpersonal and intrapersonal learning styles,
we had the students work on individual portfolios to show their understanding of the unit. To
connect with the more intrapersonal learning styles we had the students through labs in groups,
after they had seen a demo or video. The labs and portfolios were a focus for the more
kinesthetic learning style, while Powerpoint presentations and videos were directed at the

learners who are more audio and visual focused. The second assessment only had 11 students
present when it was handed out and the missing students data was never recorded. The 11
students total being assessed came in the form of 10 females and 1 male. Of the 11 students, 4
were seniors, 4 were juniors and 3 sophomores.
Below is an overview of students grades of assessment #2:

Column 1 identifies that there are 11 students who took the assessment.

Column 2 identifies the gender of each student.

Column 3 identifies how many point out of 20 the student earned.

Column 4 identifies each students percentage grade.

Column 5 identifies a letter grade for each student based on the following

scale:
90-100 = A, 80-89 = B, 70-79 = C, 60-69 = D, Below 60 = F
On the second assessment the above table shows that of the 11 students who took the assessment:
there were 3 As, 2 Bs, 4 Cs, 1 D, and 1 student who was not present. The greatest student
disparity came between student 3, who received a 100%, and student 19, who received a 60%.
When summarizing and comparing the findings from both assessment #1 and assessment #2 the
visual below gives us an idea of student understanding.

An overwhelming majority of students received a higher grade on the second assessment, with
one students second score not able to be recorded. This was expected, because students had
limited prior knowledge and exposure to the material being assessed. With the second
assessment showing a consistent improvement in scoring for almost all students, you can look at
each individual performance and gain a better insight on how well that particular student
performed. Below is a classroom layout indicating where students normally sit when present.
As indicated above, the visual gives you a percentage idea of how much each particular student
increased their score from assessment #1 to assessment #2. The visual indicates that although
most of the students increased their score, the student who did not were sitting in the back two
rows. The visual also indicates that students sitting in the first two rows or the middle section of
the room all improved their assessment scores by 20-30%.
With the results from assessment #1 and assessment #2 being compared through charts and
visuals, its obvious to indicate that students did exceptionally better after being presented the
information, which was expected. The graphs and visuals also present how much improvement
was made between each assessment by each particular student.
Students had a high degree of success when asked to process the information into their own
words and then present that information to the class in the form of a presentation, portfolio or
finished product during lab. Students had success in the areas of foodborne illness, pathogens,
and sanitation. Students were in the middle of the road when assessed on the functions of the
nervous and endocrine systems. This information was presented to students in Powerpoints and
reviewed in their readings, but not modified in different forms during lab or presentations. Some
students didn't do so well when asked to demonstrate their understanding of food sanitation and

cross contamination during lab. This is expected when students are just beginning or have had
limited time in the kitchen working with different forms of food.
Questions #5 & #6 would be two questions I would reword and were not constructed very well.
Question five asked the student to pick the answer that "best" describes and question #6 asked
which answer would be the "most essential" so both questions are unclear and are worded for
opinion answers. Making the questions more black and white instead of asking for a vague
answer would help benefit the student.
Overall, the results demonstrated very effective teaching to the class and sub-groups, on average
students showed a 20-30% increase from assessment #1 to assessment #2. Teaching to a class of
12 allows you to interact with the student a bit more than you would in a bigger classroom, but
also gives you the chance to work on your modification and lesson differentiation. Majority of
the girls in the class showed improvement after a few weeks in the course and all of the boys
increased in scores as well.
Some of the things I would have changed about the time between assessments would have been a
more direct review on the nervous and endocrine systems, having the students make
presentations in groups or being able to tie in an educational lab or activity that would have been
more memorable to the students and would have increased achievement results. Also when the
students are in small groups or pods, having them teach each other would have been an effective
strategy to incorporate in future lessons.