Analysis of Student Learning

Whole Class Table and Graph

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
25
26
Average

Learning
Goal 1
Pre
Post
9%
100%
9%
72%
18%
81%
27%
94%
9%
89%
0%
44%
27%
100%
0%
83%
18%
100%
0%
72%
27%
100%
36%
89%
9%
50%
81%
89%
0%
78%
27%
94%
54%
89%
9%
94%
0%
72%
0%
89%
9%
44%
0%
61%
18%
94%
18%
83%
9%
61%
18%
94%
17%
81%

Learning
Goal 2
Pre
Post
50% 100%
50% 100%
50% 100%
50% 100%
50% 100%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
50%
50% 100%
50% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
50%
50%
100% 100%
0%
100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
50%
50%
0%
50%
0%
100%
0%
50%
0%
100%
0%
100%
50% 100%
0%
100%
50% 100%
40%
85%

Learning
Goal 3
Pre
Post
100% 100%
0%
100%
50% 100%
100% 100%
100% 75%
50%
25%
100% 75%
100% 100%
50% 100%
50%
50%
100% 100%
50% 100%
50%
25%
100% 100%
50%
50%
50% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
0%
75%
50%
75%
0%
75%
0%
50%
100% 100%
50%
75%
0%
50%
0%
100%
58%
81%

Learning
Goal 4
Pre
Post
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100% 100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100% 100%
0%
0%
100% 100%
0%
100%
100% 100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
19%
88%

Overall
Score
Pre
Post
40% 100%
35% 76%
40% 86%
55% 96%
35% 88%
20% 40%
45% 88%
30% 84%
35% 100%
30% 72%
55% 100%
55% 92%
35% 42%
90% 92%
5%
76%
50% 96%
70% 92%
40% 92%
0%
72%
25% 88%
25% 52%
15% 64%
40% 96%
35% 84%
20% 64%
30% 96%
37% 82%

Whole Class Pre and Post Assessment Averages

100%200%300%400%500%600%700%800%900%
1000%
100%
88%
85%
90%
82%
81%
81%
80%
70%
58%
60%
Average (Percent) 50%
40%
37%
40%
30%
19%
20% 17%
10%
0%
Assessment

Whole Class Summary

The table and graph above display the whole class averages for each learning
goal and the overall score on both the pre and post assessments. It is clear to see
that the student achievement was higher for all goals on the post-assessment. My
prediction was that each learning goal on the post-assessment would average 85%,
which is a low B on the grading scale. LG2 and LG4 met this goal at 85% and 88%
respectively. LG1 and LG3 both averaged at 81%, which is just shy of my prediction.
I was hoping that the overall average for the post-assessment would also be at 85%
or higher, but it ended up at 82%. This is still a decent score for such a difficult unit
and much higher than the 37% average for the pre-assessment.
Because there were a few less questions on the pre-assessment than the
post-assessment, the averages could be slightly off. For example, on the preassessment there were 11 questions relating to LG1. The post-assessment
contained 18. This LG was the biggest section because it was the basis of the whole
unit. The whole class average moved from 17% to 81% for this specific goal. That is

an increase of 64%. Individual student-wise, half of the class did not meet the goal
of 85%. Some of those students were very close, like #3 and 8, others such as #6,
13, 21, and 25 were less than 60%. However, all of these students that did not meet
the goal showed major improvement from the pre-assessment.
Learning goal 2 was assessed by 2 questions, and the whole class average
was exactly 85%, increasing by 45%. Due to this section being so small it was kind
of hit or miss. Consequently, even if students only missed one, they still did not
meet the goal of 85%. The questions were in a two part format, where students had
to write both the rule for the pattern and then fill in the missing blank. They could
receive half credit, if necessary, but most did not. Student #7 did not show any
improvement for this LG, receiving 0% on both the pre and post assessments. There
were 5 students who received 100% on both the pre and post assessments.
There were 4 questions used to assess LG3, making each worth 25%. The
class average was 81%, only 4 points shy of my prediction and 24% higher than the
pre-assessment. A little more than half the class mastered this goal completely,
while the other half scored a 75% or less. On this section, there were a few
students, such as #6, 7, and 13 who actually scored less on the post-assessment
than they did on the pre-assessment.
Learning Goal 4 was similar to LG2, in that the number of questions was very
small. In fact, there was only 1 question that related to LG4. It would have been
helpful to include more questions, but this one was meant to be very simple. The
whole class average began at 19% and increased to 88%, surpassing the goal. 23 of
the 26 students received 100%.
After analyzing the data depicted in the table and graph, I am able to
conclude that the students learned more about adding and subtracting fractions

with unlike denominators than they already knew. I was told that they did study this
in fourth grade, but at the beginning of the unit, it did not seem as if they did. The
majority of the students improved tremendously. 15 students exceeded my goal of
85%, 3 were just shy of it, and the rest have room for improvement.

Subgroups
I chose to analyze the assessment results based on whether or not the
students are in Challenge. On Wednesdays, math class is taught to ability groups
instead of just the whole class. There is one math period that last about an hour,
consisting of those students, about half the class, not in Challenge. The period
normally runs over because that can be a difficult group to teach. They tend to
move through the content slowly and need directions and examples explained many
times. The period to teach math to just the Challenge students is about 30-45
minutes long. Even though it is a shorter amount of time, there is usually extra time
at the end. These students are very quick to understand and grasp the content with
minimal help. Below are a table and graph of scores for LG1 and overall.
Catego
ry

Stude
nt

Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge

Learning
Goal 1
Pre
Post
9%
100%

Overall
Score
Pre
Post
40%
100%

18%

81%

40%

86%

27%

94%

55%

96%

9%

89%

35%

88%

27%

100%

45%

88%

18%

100%

35%

100%

11

27%

100%

55%

100%

Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Challe
nge
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha
Non
Cha

12

36%

89%

55%

92%

14

81%

89%

90%

92%

16

27%

94%

50%

96%

17

54%

89%

70%

92%

18

9%

94%

40%

92%

20

0%

89%

25%

88%

23

18%

94%

40%

96%

Avera
ge
2

26%

93%

48%

93%

9%

72%

35%

76%

0%

44%

20%

40%

0%

83%

30%

84%

10

0%

72%

30%

72%

13

9%

50%

35%

42%

15

0%

78%

5%

76%

19

0%

72%

0%

72%

21

9%

44%

25%

52%

22

0%

61%

15%

64%

24

18%

83%

35%

84%

25

9%

61%

20%

64%

26

18%

94%

30%

96%

Avera
ge

6%

68%

23%

69%

Learning Goal 1 and Overall Average for Challenge vs. Non-Challenge Students
100%

100%200%300%400%
93%
93%

90%
80%

69%

68%

70%

Challenge Average

60%

48%

Average (percent) 50%

Non Cha Average

40%
30% 26%

23%

20%
10% 6%
0%
Assessment

From both the table and the graph it is plain to see that those students in
challenge had a higher performance level on both LG1 (Students will recall the
methods of using modeling, estimating with benchmarks, finding common
denominators, creating equivalent fractions, and renaming (DOK 1, 2), in order to
solve a multistep problem containing addition and subtraction of fractions and
mixed numbers with unlike denominators (DOK 2)) and the assessments as a whole.
I chose to compare the scores for LG1 because it was the section with the largest
amount of questions, making it the easiest to compare. All students were given an
equal opportunity to master this goal, as well as learn the content in the class.
Actually, those non-Challenge students had more time in the classroom to work on
the content than those in Challenge. For LG1, those students in Challenge scored an
average of 26% on the pre-assessment and a 93% on the post, exceeding the goal I
set of 85% by 8%. The non-Challenge group scored a 6% originally and 68% on the
post-assessment. This score is incredibly lower than the set goal and the score for

Challenge, but it was 62% higher than the pre-assessment. On the assessments as
a whole, the Challenge average was a 93%, meeting the set goal, and the nonChallenge scored 69%, 26% below the set goal. This data for both LG1 and the
whole assessment depict just how incredible the learning gap and performance
level within this one classroom really is. Perhaps the non-Challenge group should
have been given way more time to learn and practice the content, but that would
not be beneficial to those students who did not need it. On the other hand, there are
the Challenge students who obviously could have moved a little faster through the
material, but were being held back. There were some students in the non-Challenge
group who showed higher performance levels during formative assessments,
therefore it was definite that they understood the content but were not focused
during the test or made many careless mistakes. Errors like these throw the scores
off a little and make others think that they honestly do not understand, reflecting
the teacher in a negative way. If the assessment had been given in a normal way,
without going over the review first page by page, the scores might have been
completely different. The difference between the two would have been greater since
those students in the non-Challenge group who really need examples would not
have received them. Either way, though, the data is a good indicator of the two
different levels of performance in this classroom.
Individuals
Student

1
25

Learning
Goal 1
Pre
Post

Learning
Goal 2
Pre
Post

9%
9%

50%
0%

100%
61%

100%
100%

Learning
Goal 3
Pre
Post
100%
0%

100%
50%

Learning
Goal 4
Pre
Post

Overall
Score
Pre
Post

0%
0%

40%
20%

100%
100%

100%
64%

Pre and Post-Assessment Averages for Students 1 and 25

100%
80%
Average (percent)

Student 1

60%

Student 2

40%
20%
0%
Assessment

I have chosen to compare student #1 and #25 because of their different

performance levels in all subjects and opposing personalities.
Student #1 is an 11 year old boy. He is very outgoing, bright, and always at
the top of the class. He is very social, which often affects his behavior in the
classroom, however his grades never slip past a B. This student is in Challenge.
Student #25 is also an 11 year old boy. He is quiet and reserved, which might
be the reason why he does not have many friends in the classroom. He does not
have much support at home, so his grades tend to suffer. If he is not interested in
something, he does not pay attention and falls behind. However, when he is
interested, he is incredibly smart and informative. This student has several
accommodations in the classroom. He is not in Challenge, but goes to resource
twice daily.
These students are a good picture of the two different levels found in this
classroom. Student #1 does not have to work very hard to get good grades. It all
comes naturally to him, and he often volunteers to answer questions. For
assessments, he barely has to study. He completes the study guides but leaves
them at school. Student #25 lacks focus, causing him to have to work much harder

in order to achieve even a low grade. When asked questions, he avoids answering
or simple says he does not know. The answer keys for study guides are emailed
home to his parents a week before the assessment. He also leaves study guides at
school, and does not seem to use the answer key at all.
These differences are the main reasons I wanted to compare these two
particular students. Looking at the pre-assessment data, student 1 received 40%,
which is double student 25s score. The post-assessment scores show that student 1
made a 100%, increasing 60% from the first test. Student 25 received 64%, with
only a 44% increase. Both students made a large amount of progress and gave their
normal performances. While 64% is not a good grade, it is what was expected of
student 25.
Now I would like to break this assessment apart. On the pre-assessment for
LG1, both students scored 9%. Student 1 was able to increase that by 91%, scoring
a 100% on the post-assessment. Student 25 received a 61%, which is almost the
same as his overall score.
Student 25 showed the most growth on LG2. His original score was 0%, but
he managed to score 100% on the post-assessment. Student 1 originally scored
50%, but doubled that to 100% on the post-assessment.
On LG3, student 1 did not show any growth; he scored 100% on both
assessments. Student 25 answered one question right, moving his score from 0% to
50%.
Finally, both students performed the same on LG4. On the pre-assessment
they received 0%, but they both answered the question correctly on the postassessment, increasing their score by 100%.

When taking the formative assessments (2 quizzes) into consideration, the

summative assessment scores were just about right. Student 1 originally scored an
80 on the first quiz, which is very unusual for him. After correcting his careless
mistakes and receiving half credit back, the score became a 93. On quiz 2, he
received a 95%. Student 25 received 0% on the first attempts of both quizzes. After
re-teaching and re-quizzing, he still failed the assessments at 60% on both.
Looking at student 1s scores, along with other students scores, it is evident
that the content was taught and understood. He was able to attain a perfect score
on the post-assessment. Student 25s range of scores proves that re-teaching, requizzing, and changing the post-assessment format (reviewing page by page) was
helpful. One of his accommodations is that he needs examples for every few
problems on classwork and homework. He performed much better after receiving
this accommodation for the quiz and test, but still did not meet the overall goal of
the unit.