Data Analysis

Assessment Data Analysis

I have created a table and a graph representation of student learning progress by learning goal.
The table and the graph show the progress that students made from the pre-assessment and the postassessment. By looking at the bar graph, one can observe that student learning did progress for each
learning goal. Assessment scores increased anywhere from twenty to as much as fifty points after the
unit of instruction.
By looking at the bar graph, it is apparent that some learning goals were more successful in
terms of pre-assessment score versus post-assessment score. Learning goal one was the least successful
in terms of the growth from pre-assessment and post-assessment score. The achievement in student
scores from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment is impressive on learning goal two with an
improvement of seventeen points. The most successful learning goal is apparent by looking at the bar
graph-learning goal three. The students scores doubled in learning goal three from the pre-assessment
to the post-assessment.
The bar graph gives a great visual representation of student learning, but the table allows one to
see individual student progress and individual mastery of the learning goals. The level of mastery that I
had set for each learning goal was 80%. According to my learning goals, seven students out of twenty
surpassed my learning goal; however, there were eight additional students who were within less than
three points of meeting my learning goal. For learning goal two, there were thirteen students who
exceeded my learning goal. For learning goal three, there is an impressive eighteen students that
exceeded my learning goal.

Assessment Data Analysis by Gender

The group characteristic that I selected as a subgroup was gender. Based on the graphic

representation, one can examine that student achievement was fairly comparable between boys and
girls on the pre-assessment and the post-assessment. The largest contrast between scores and gender
occurs in learning goal two. While the boy's and the girl's scores on the pre-assessment were fairly
comparable, the scores on the post-assessment showed a larger discrepancy based on gender.
This learning goal contained the concept of perimeter. In this area of the assessments, the
students were required to measure each side of a polygon with a ruler to determine perimeter, count
square units to determine perimeter and determine the missing value of two sides of a rectangle to
determine perimeter. These questions required a great attention to detail and very precise measurement
and counting skills. Although the general math skills of the boys and the girls in this classroom are
fairly comparable, I believe that the fact that these questions required such attention to detail that they
may have been more difficult for the boys in this class.
There are several reasons I chose gender as a group characteristic to further analyze assessment
scores. First, the number of girls versus the number of boys in this classroom was unbalanced. In this
class of twenty students, there were nine girls and eleven boys. I thought that it would be interesting to
see the difference in achievement between the boys and the girls. Secondly, there is a common stigma
in our society that boys are better at math than girls. Although, I can not find any studies to back up this
claim (in fact, I have found studies proving the opposite), I thought that this would be an interesting
comparison for this reason. Lastly, I designed several activities in this unit to appeal to the stereotypical
male learning style. I chose several activities that centered around videos, cooperative learning and
hands-on experiences. I thought it would be beneficial for me to see if this style of learning happened
to benefit the male students in this classroom.
By observing the graph, one can observe that gender did not play a tremendous role in the preassessment and post-assessment scores in this unit of learning. The students went into the unit with
about the same amount of knowledge on the subject matter. The boy's scores and the girl's scores on the
pre-assessment were fairly comparable on all learning goals.

The post-assessment scores provided slightly more contrast between the genders of the students.
The girls scored slightly higher than the boys on the post-assessment in learning goal one. The girls
scored about six points higher than the boys on the post-assessment for learning goal one although they
went into the unit with about the same score (within tenths of a point). This could mean that the boys
needed a little bit more time learning about measurement or that they needed more hands on
experiences with measuring. However, with my personal knowledge of the students and their scores, I
know that there are more lower achieving male students in this class than there are lower achieving
female students. I believe that these three lower achieving male students could have benefited from
more practice and more one-on-one instruction with the content of learning goal one. With the
improvement in these student's scores, the boys' score would have more closely matched the girls
scores.
Learning goal two provides the largest discrepancy between boy's post-assessment and girl's
post-assessment scores. The girls scored fifteen points higher than the boys on their post-assessment for
learning goal two. This is a sizable discrepancy. As stated previously, my assumption is that the boys in
this class struggled with the attention to detail required for these questions. If this assumption is correct,
then I believe that the boys could have benefited from more practice with questions that are similar to
what was on the post-assessment. This remediation would help them become more efficient at
measuring to determine perimeter. I believe that if they were more proficient it would not be as time
consuming and the scores would be closer to the girl's scores.
Learning goal three is the most comparable between the scores of the boys and the girls. The
boys and the girls made within tenths of a point of the same score as each other. I believe that this is
because the students had several exit cards and homework assignments that required them to determine
area. Because of this extra practice, it is apparent that all students in the class became proficient and
were able to show their proficiency. Gender did not play a role in this area.
Assessment Data Analysis by Student

The two students I have chosen to discuss are student 8 and student 3. Student 8 and student 3
were chosen because they have demonstrated considerable different levels of proficiency with each of
the three learning goals.
Student 8 is a hard-working student who is an average achiever in all subjects but struggles
considerably with math. Student 8 benefits greatly from one-on-one instruction or small group
remediation in math. However, student 8 typically needs two to three separate exposures to a math
concept during one-on-one instruction for the information to be retained. Although there was
progression for each learning goal for this student, student 8 was still unable to attain the learning
goals. One factor that hindered this student's success was the unavailability for the instructional time
that this student needs to fully comprehend math. Because this unit was a two-week unit and a lot of
content was taught in this short time, there was not a lot of time for one-on-one remediation. Although I
did give this student some one-on-one remediation, I was unable to give this student several different
exposures with one-on-one remediation for this student to fully grasp the math concept.
Student 3 is a top achiever in the classroom in all subject areas. This student always completes
work accurately and rapidly. Student 3 has never needed one-on-one remediation and is often a peer
coach assisting peers in math. This student typically exceeds learning goals in every subject but I think
that this student thrived in the faster pace of this unit. Because this unit was taught right before spring
break, measurement concepts were taught in two weeks. I believe this student benefited from being
able to move on each day instead of reviewing day after day.
Knowing the proficiency level of these students is imperative to ensuring their success. These
two students demonstrate very different levels of ability and performance. Knowing the skill levels and
ability levels of these students can assist the teacher in meeting each of the student's needs, anticipating
weak spots and differentiating instruction so that all students can learn.
As stated above, student 8 is one student that struggles with math and benefits from remedial
instruction. There are several students in this class who are lower achievers in math and benefit from

remedial and one-on-one instruction. Because I was aware of these student's learning proficiencies, I
gave the students an exit card every day. The exit card was either a worksheet or a short slip of paper
with a few math questions similar to what was covered in class. Through these exit slips, I was able to
immediately pull students who needed remediation and provide quick one-on-one instruction to these
students. I believe that this is why so many students were successful in meeting the learning goals and
why this particular student was more successful on the post-assessment than the pre-assessment.
Student 3 is a high achieving student who always finishes work quickly and accurately. Because
I knew this student's learning proficiency, I was able to provide this student with extension activities.
There were two other students in the class who also caught on quickly and finished work very fast. I
always had a challenge for these students in the form of a word problem or higher level questions.
Sometimes, I would even have student 3 create word problems or welcome work problems that were
similar to the content we had covered in math class that day. Because this student was always busy and
always pushed to a higher level than his peers, I believe that this student was able to flourish and grasp
the math concepts that were presented in this unit.
Being familiar with your student's learning proficiencies is invaluable to teachers. This
knowledge can revolutionize a teacher's classroom and can be an effective way to effectively benefit
students. Because I knew the learning proficiencies of these two very different students, I was able to
plan instruction that would better suit their particular needs.

Student 3 and student 8 demonstrated different levels of success in terms of meeting the
learning goals. While student 3 was able to meet all three learning goals, student 8 was unable to meet
any of the learning goals. The two learning goals I will be discussing will be learning goal two and
learning goal three. Learning goal two dealt with the student being able to determine the perimeter of a
polygon by using measuring (measuring the sides or counting square units). Learning goal three stated
that student will be able to determine area by counting square units.

Student 8 was unable to meet any of the three learning goals that I established for this unit. On
the pre-assessment, student 8 received 0.00% for learning goal two and by the post-assessment student
8 earned a 66.66% for learning goal two. Although this student did not meet the learning goal, this is a
remarkable improvement. I believe that the reason for this student's success in meeting the learning
goal for perimeter was the consistent practice this student received. I created and distributed perimeter
exit cards nearly every day of the unit. I did this because perimeter required that students measure,
which aligned with learning goal one and it also aligned with learning goal two. Student 8 benefits
greatly from one-on-one instruction that is consistent over several days and this is just what this student
received based on the exit cards. Whenever this student would answer an exit card incorrectly, I would
pull him immediately and work it on it together with him.
For learning goal three, the student stayed at 66.66% for the pre-assessment and the postassessment. I believe that one teacher-controlled factor that could have helped him would have been the
one-on-one remediation. I did not make area exit cards because area was explicitly taught in the
preceding unit of geometry. Although area was covered for homework and classwork, this was not a
topic that typically was remediated in one-on-one instruction. The homework and classwork that was
completed by students was gone over with the whole class, not one-on-one. I believe that this factor
was the component that could have assisted this student in meeting the learning goal.

Student 3 was able to meet all of the learning goals. On the pre-assessment, student 3 received a
66.66% for learning goal two and on the post-assessment the student received a 100.00%. Student 3
made a 33.33% on the pre-assessment for learning goal three and earned a 100.00% for the postassessment. The student not only met, but exceeded these learning goals. This student benefits from
whole group instruction and does not need any additional remediation. Since there was whole group
instruction daily, I believe that this exposure to the material allowed the student to grasp the concepts
and demonstrate a high level of achievement. I also credit his success to the extension activities that

required higher level thinking skills. The extension activities were rigorous and required a lot of time to
complete and I think that these activities helped prepare him for the post-assessment.