Pre-Assessment

GOAL: To gather information about what the students currently know about
lines, angles, and shapes so Brynn and I can know what we need to teach and
what not to teach based on the data we gather.

In our pre-assessment we included questions about our unit that the

students need to know by the end of the unit. There were questions about
specific lines, the names of quadrilaterals, and different types of triangles.
The students need to know the names of the angles in order to answer the
questions on triangles. We used testing, interview, and observation.
We gave the assessment to the students on Wednesday the 15th of March
at 9:30 am. We were in the library and there were other groups in there so
it was a little noisy. We asked questions before giving the test then had
them sit down and work on the pre-assessment individually. We walked
around and observed what they were doing as they took the assessment
and after they were finished we had them show us what they thought a
symmetrical line was on a whiteboard. Recess was at 9:45 so they had 15
minutes to complete it. All the students handed us their tests back when
they had answered all the questions they knew so they had adequate
time. The students didnt know very many of the questions which showed
us that they needed to learn all of it. I wish we would have included some
easier questions along with the harder ones so that we had a baseline to
work from.
Every student had the same test, given the same amount of time, and
took the test in the same place so I feel like the test was valid, although
we didnt test to see how reliable the test would be overtime, but Brynn
and I administered it together, and the items were the same for everyone.
If we were to administer the test again I would like to set better
expectations. Some of the students started talking to each other and
asking questions and we had to tell them they couldnt do that because
we hadnt set the expectation beforehand. I would add more information
on it that was from previous units leading up to the one we were teaching
because we werent able to get a baseline of where they were at we just
knew they didnt the information wed be teaching in the unit.
 2

Pre-Assessment Results
Student Score
Amelia 4/15 or 27%
Charlie 3/15 or 20%
Claire 4/15 or 27%
Sadie 1/15 or 7%
Teague 2/15 or 13%
Tristan 2/15 or 13%

Pre-Assessment
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The range of scores is 4 with the mean being 2. 67 or 17.8%, median being
2.5 or 16.5%, and mode being 2, 4 or 13%, 27%. This tells me that there is a
lot of improvement for my students to learn and that problems 4 and 12
are ones that more than half of my group are familiar with so I may not
need to teach those concepts as in depth as I will all the other concepts.
The data demonstrates that squares, parallel lines, and perpendicular lines
are concepts that are concepts that are strengths to most students.
The pre-assessment data showed that we were on target with what we
needed to teach and showed that the students didnt know a whole lot
of what we were going to teach so there is room for the students to learn
and grow.
Post-Assessment
 3

GOAL: Gather data that shows the students have learned the content that has
been taught in this unit. I will use the data to see what concepts the students
strongly understood and what areas were weak so I can know what instruction
techniques worked best.

The day of our post-assessment was Wednesday the 29th of March. Before
we gave the post-assessment we had a review and talked about the
concepts we had learned. We observed the students as they reviewed
with us to see which students still needed to look at their flip charts and
which ones knew the content with automaticity. We then split the groups
into groups of those who felt confident enough to take the test, those who
needed to review triangles, and those who needed to review
quadrilaterals. All the students felt comfortable with lines. Brynn review
triangles with the group of students who needed and I review
quadrilaterals with the other group while the rest of the students who felt
confident took the test. One the students who needed review time felt
confident in what they had learned they would go and take the
assessment.
We set better expectations this time which I think helped the validity of the
test. All the students took it individually and at the same spot and could
have as much time as they needed during the half hour from when we
started giving out assessments. The items on the post-assessment were the
same as those on the first. Brynn and I administered it together, and
although we didnt test stability reliability I feel like the test was reliable.
Questions were objective which decreases bias.
If I were to change anything I think I would have it set up where those
reviewing with Brynn and I werent in the same area as those trying to
take their test. I didnt realize this, but some of the students might have
been able to hear terms we were talking about that they were being
tested on. Although as I looked over at the students testing occasionally, it
didnt seem as though they were paying attention to us, they were very
focused.

Post-Assessment Results
 4

Student Score
Amelia 12/15 or 80%
Charlie 12/15 or 80%
Claire 9/12 or 75%
Sadie 10/15 or 67%
Teague 9/12 or 75%
Tristan 12/15 or 80%

Post-Assessment
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The range of the scores is 3 so they were closer together this time. The
mean score 10.67 or 76%, the median is 11 or 77.5%, and the mode is 12 or
80%. The scores improve immensely compared to last time, and although
they werent all 100% it still showed a huge growth and six of the problems
were answered with 100% of the students getting the problem right.
Questions 6, 7, & 9 are areas of concern because more than half of the
students got the problems wrong. We should have taken number 7 out to
begin with because it was a concept we didnt have to teach and didnt
end up teaching, number 6 was a misleading question because the sides
of the parallelogram that were longer than the others were only slightly
longer making it look like they could be the same length, making the
shape a rhombus, which would add two other students to the total of
students getting that problem right.
If I were to teach this unit again I would emphasize angles and their
relationship to acute, right, and obtuse triangles a little better. Many
students werent grasping that obtuse angles needed to be drawn larger
than right angles, but they knew they were big angles. I would emphasize
 5

that idea more. Doing that and taking out question 7 and fixing question 6
would have improved the scores even more making me feel that the
students really had mastered the content taught. Looking at the scores
also showed me I should have differentiated my instruction even more for
Teague and Claire