Katie Hugus

Form 2
Comprehensive Unit Format, Part B Design of Assessment:
Pre and Post Assessment

Context & Overview:

This unit plan includes seven, sixty minute whole group lesson plans and three, twenty minute small group lesson
plans for third grade students over the course of three weeks. The unit was taught at Hillcrest Elementary School in
Burlington, NC. The unit is a mathematics unit that focuses on introducing division and division word problems. Language
Arts is integrated in this unit through developing speaking and listening skills. There is a diagnostic assessment included in
this unit, which was given two days before the unit started. An additional diagnostic was given during the second week of
assessment because new material was going to be covered in the unit. Ultimately, the information that the second
diagnostic assessment covered was removed from instruction. There was a same task summative assessment given the
day after the final lesson was taught. The diagnostic and summative assessments were both same task so they were
aligned with each other and properly measured student growth on specific learning targets. The diagnostic assessment
consisted of 14 questions, while the summative assessment had 11 questions. Some questions were removed from the
original diagnostic based on the material that my cooperating teacher wanted me to cover in this unit. The assessment
consisted of 6 multiplication and division equations with the rest being word problems. Students were asked to show
their work using pictures, words and numbers. They were both scored based on if they showed all their work, including
pictures, numbers and words (one point per item). By showing their work in various forms, students were given the
chance to show their knowledge in a way that they felt confident in.
Essential Understanding (big idea of unit):
The essential understanding that this unit investigated was understanding the properties of division and
beginning to look into the relationship between multiplication and division. Through the ten lessons that I planned, my
students were able to uncover the difference between multiplication and division word problems. They were also able to
explore several different division strategies that could help them solve various types of division problems. Students were
able to work with and identify different methods to solve division problems that worked for them. During the small group
lessons, students were able to look closely at both multiplication and division word problems to determine what makes
them different. Students created their own word problems with their new knowledge about the components needed to
create an effective word problem. Throughout the entire unit, students engaged in activities with partners and explored a
variety of strategies to solve division problems. There were several points throughout the unit where I gave students the
ability to reflect on the strategies they wanted to use and which ones they felt confident with using. Several students
strategy preferences even changed over course of the unit. While working with various partners and teams over the
course of the unit, students were able to develop their speaking and listening skills while recognizing that different
methods work for different individuals. Students were working towards developing a greater conceptual understanding of
multiplication and division, while working on increasing their procedural fluency. This relates to the overall big idea that
students were acquiring different skills and strategies they could use to help build their understanding of the relationship
between multiplication and division.
The diagnostic and summative assessment plans aligned with this essential understanding and helped me gain
insight into what skills my students had a secure grasp on and what they still needed more work on. The diagnostic
assessment helped me understand where my students were with their comprehension of multiplication and basic
division. This assessment also allowed me to get a sense for their understanding of how to solve word problems. It
became apparent that my students did not have a strong grasp on either multiplication or division. They also expressed
misunderstandings on how to solve both multiplication and division word problems. I was a bit apprehensive about
centering my unit on division, especially when the students did not have the strongest comprehension of multiplication.
My unit proceeded with division, spending a few extra days on working with building a foundation for division and
providing students with several strategies that can be used to help solve division problems. The summative assessment
allowed me to see that my students could successfully use the division strategies to solve rote division problems and start
working on solving division word problems. Most students were thrown off by the various structures that division word
problems can appear in, which was part of the reasoning they did not fully grasp all of the components of the big idea.
That being said, my students were able to demonstrate the overall essential understanding that there is a connection

between division and multiplication and working on finding strategies to increase their procedural fluency and conceptual
understanding.
Assessment of Learning and Instructional Effectiveness:
For my diagnostic and summative assessments, I chose to use the same task model, which means that the
assessment given for the diagnostic was the same as the summative. There was a slight difference in the summative
assessment because a few questions were removed from the assessment based on the material that was included in the
unit. My cooperating teacher requested that I continued to focus on division word problems, rather than multiplication.
The assessment consisted of 6 rote multiplication and division problems. There were 4 division word problems and one
multiplication word problem following. Students were asked to show their work using words, pictures and numbers.
Students took about one hour to complete the diagnostic assessment individually before the unit instruction began. The
summative assessment was completed the day after instruction was completed and students used the same amount of
time to complete this. Both assessments were graded after they were completed and the scores were recorded. The
diagnostic and summative assessments were designed with several standards in mind and focused learning targets.
Student Mastery:
This assessment will allow me to measure students comprehension of the learning targets because I can easily
compare the scores from the original assessment to the final assessment. This helps me monitor the understanding that
my students have of the concept of the unit, both before and after instruction. If my students are able to increase their
scores on their summative assessment from their diagnostic assessment, I will know that they have gained knowledge
during the unit. I will also need to take into account behavior problems and absences that may influence their scores. My
assessments were aligned with the standards that this unit focused on, as well as the learning targets that were taught
during the unit. The items on the assessment were created and slightly modified along with the material that was taught
in the unit, which will show if my students have mastered the content.
Below is a table of specifications, which provides evidence that my assessments were aligned with the learning
targets and standards that guided the unit. The table also demonstrates the various Blooms levels that were engaged
while focusing on those concepts.
Table of Specifications
Item Learning Targets and Percent of Unit
#
it covers
1-6
7
8
9
10

11

Fluently multiply and divide within

100. (30%)
Use multiplication and division within
100 to solve word problems. (40%)
Interpret whole-number quotients of
whole numbers (i.e. sharing) (25%)
Use multiplication and division within
100 to solve word problems. (40%)
Use the relationship between
multiplication and division to solve a
division problem. (5%)
Interpret whole-number quotients of
whole numbers (i.e. sharing) (25%)

Justification of Item Type

Blooms Level

Constructed Response

Understand

Brief Constructed Response

Apply

Brief Constructed Response

Apply

Brief Constructed Response

Understand, Evaluate

Constructed Response

Understand, Apply

Brief Constructed Response

Analyze

Justification of Item Type

The questions on the diagnostic and summative assessment vary between constructed response and brief
constructed response items. I chose to vary the type of question on the assessment to get more work from students and
allow them to show their comprehension n various forms. The constructed response questions focused on the rote
problems that needed to be solved. Procedural fluency with rote division and multiplication is a component of the big idea
of this unit. Another main focus of my unit was using different strategies to solve problems, which brief constructed

response questions go hand in hand with. These responses allow students to show their understanding using words,
numbers and pictures. Before students began both assessments, we went through it as a class to underline the various
instructions and what students needed to show in their answers. I had several students that were allowed to have the test
read aloud to them in the back of the room to ensure they understood the questions.
Instructional Effectiveness:
My assessments will also demonstrate my instructional effectiveness and allow me to tailor my instruction for my
students learning. I was also able to determine how effective my instruction was based on the differences in the scores
between the diagnostic and the summative assessment. If students have an increase in their scores, I will be able to show
that my instruction on the material was effective and my students understanding of the concepts are improving. It is
important to note that the differences between the assessment scores is not only determined by the effectiveness of my
instruction. Behavior problems, absences and other interruptions during the unit play a role in students performance. The
diagnostic assessment revealed that many of my students were not proficient in solving multiplication or division word
problems. It showed that they had little understanding of the concept of division. They did, however, show some proficiency
in solving rote multiplication problems. This let me know that the main focus of my unit needed to be on introducing the
concept of division and solving word problems. The summative assessment scores showed that my students have an
increased understanding of division and the relationship between division and multiplication, which was the essential
understanding I wanted my students to gain from my instruction. The differences in their scores was not entirely the result
I was hoping to get, but I do believe that the flow of my unit played a role in this. My cooperating teacher wanted me to
focus my unit on introducing division and incorporating multiplication using area, which are two things I did not think my
students were ready to begin learning based on their understanding of multiplication. After my introduction on division, I
spent two days of instruction on area and then reverted back to division based on guidance from my cooperating teacher.
If I was able to spend those two valuable days of instruction on division, I believe the summative assessment scores would
be higher. However, I am still pleased with the effectiveness of my instruction overall because my students demonstrated
an understanding of the concept of division and strategies that can be used to solve problems.
**Handouts are attached**
Analyzing the Results
Since my assessments were the same task, I scored each one based on the same guidelines. These guidelines were
determined before giving the assessments and grading them to increase their reliability. While scoring the assessments, I
wanted to make sure the students were given credit for any knowledge that they had on the question. They were given a
point for showing their work using words, numbers and pictures. Some students were given partial credit for a problem
because they could show their work using a picture, but they had not been able to explain their work. There was one
problem that required students to look at a solution to a multiplication problem and determine if it was right or wrong,
then explain why and give the correct solution. Students were very successful with determine the correct solution, however
there was some confusion when it came to giving the answer that the work was wrong. Students would state that the work
was correct, but go on to show the answer should have been something different. These students were given partial credit
for understanding the concept of the commutative property and showing what the correct answer should have been. There
were 6 rote multiplication and division problems that were 1 point each. These problems would either be right or wrong
because they were focused on building procedural fluency. Each students points were added up and divided out of 22
possible points. The main thing I was looking for while grading these assessments was a conceptual understanding of
multiplication and division and different strategies that could be used to solve various word problems.
Validity
While creating and implementing my assessments, I had to ensure that they had validity, in other words, my
students scores on the assessments would support my understanding of their comprehension of the content and what
decisions to make with my students. To make sure that my assessments had validity, I made sure that all students could
understand each question and what was required, Before both the diagnostic and the summative assessments, I read
through the test with the whole class and had all of the students underline sections of the directions that told them what
they needed to provide for each question. There was a group of students that qualified for real a-louds during the
assessment, so they sat in the back of the room and had every question read to them. These things made the instructions
of my assessments more valid.

Another component to the validity of my assessments was giving my students two separate diagnostic assessments
and using one of these assessments for the same-task summative assessment. One diagnostic was given before any
instruction began that covered rote multiplication and division problems, as well as word problems. This diagnostic was
used for the summative assessment that was given to students at the end of the unit. An additional diagnostic was given to
student during the second week of instruction that covered distributive property and finding area using multiplication. After
talking with my cooperating teacher, she advised me to remove this content from my unit and focus on the concept of
division and solving word problems. This was even after I had already taught two lessons on area. This decision enhanced
the validity of my assessments because I removed one of the diagnostics based on the progress of my students and what
they were learning over the unit.
Reliability
Along with the validity of my assessments, I had to ensure that they were also reliable, meaning that both
assessments were consistent and stable. One thing I did to enhance the reliability of my assessments was limiting the types
of items on the assessment. I focused on using constructed response and brief constructed response items to align closely
with the learning targets and the big idea of the unit. I needed my students to show me that they had strengthened their
procedural fluency in rote multiplication and division problems, while also showing me a developing understanding of the
connection between division and multiplication. I organized both my diagnostic and summative assessments in the same
way, beginning with the rote problems and ending with the word problems. I tried to put the problems in a logical manner
that started with more of the constructed response questions and ended with the brief constructed response questions. I
removed some questions from the original diagnostic when creating the summative. This was motivated by providing my
students with a more manageable number of problems to complete in an hour and focusing their efforts on division word
problems, which was a main focus for the unit.
The grading criteria was explicitly stated before, during and after the assessment were completed. Before the
assessments were given, I went through the grading criteria with the whole class and the points were listed on the
assessment itself. Students were aware that in order to receive full credit for the brief constructed response questions, they
needed to show their work using words, numbers and a picture. This was for me to ensure they understood the material
and also for them to ensure they had all components of the answer that they needed. Students were given partial credit
for questions that included some of the correct work, but not all of it. One of the assessment items asked students to
identify if a sample solution to a multiplication problem was correct, why or why not, and asked students to show the
correct equation and picture. This question was a total of 4 points. Several students were given 3 points for showing the
correct work, but mistakenly identifying that the sample work was correct. Even during the assessment, I reminded students
that they needed to include all components of the question. Setting clear guidelines for how the assessment was to be
graded helped ensure that the grading of them would be more reliable.
The reliability of my assessments was also improved by ensuring the testing environments were the same. Students
moved their desks apart and into testing position which made sure they were spread out and could not distract each
other. Students put up their offices or folders to give them a private area to work in. I went through the instructions for
both diagnostic and summative assessments in the same manner. There was a group of students that qualified for a read
a-loud of both assessments, so they were at a table in the back of the room having each of the questions read to them. By
creating the same environment for both assessments, allowed my students to have the same experience for each
assessment.
Bias
I tried to avoid bias when scoring my assessments by covering the names and grading them in no particular order.
This allowed me to eliminate any bias based on the students assessment I was grading. I had my cooperating teacher review
the assessments in addition to myself to ensure that she agreed with the scores that I had given each student. Before
grading the assessments, I went through my grading criteria and reasoning behind it with my cooperating teacher, who
agreed with my logic. By getting feedback from an additional person, I was able to ensure my assessments were graded
fairly and without bias. After grading the assessments, I went through them again to compare the items that I had given
partial credit to. I wanted to make sure that for any component that I had given partial credit to was consistent throughout
all of my assessments. If one student was given partial credit for something, anyone who had the same thing should have
been given partial credit. All of these things helped me eliminate any bias in my assessments.

Accommodations
The main accommodation that took place for my students was giving a read a-loud to three of my students. These
three students are ELL students, so they were read each question of the test as they were taking it. We went through the
test as a whole class and the three students came to the back of the class and got each question read a-loud to them.
Overall, both of my assessments were easily accessible by all of my students. I used Universal Design elements in both of
my assessments when creating the layout and selecting the situations for the word problems. I used examples for the word
problems that all of my students could relate to, which made the accessible for all of the diverse learners in my class. I
organized my assessment in a way that was easy to read and follow. All of the directions had the points included and the
specific items underlined and bolded that students needed to include for each question.
Analysis of the Student Learning Data
Student Name
Jabari
JaKaden
Angel
Jonathan
Jykiera
Jamison
Alfonso
Jefferson
Tristin
Michael
Antonio
Howard
Savannah
Santiago
TeRihanna
Tory
Makayia
Bella
Alan
Janiyah
Arianna
Jake
Gabe
Diagnostic
Mean: 5.4 (21.6%)
Median: 5.75
Mode: 4

Diagnostic Score (Out of 25)

5.5
4
6
0
11
5.5
11
4
6.5
8.5
8
3
6
N/A
3
7
8
11
8
4
4
5
2

Summative Score (Out of 22)

11
14
4
4
14
5
10
21
14
14
17
12
8
15
6
10
15
22
20
4
13
15.5
3

Summative
Mean: 11.8 (53.25%)
Median: 13
Mode: 14

Looking at the data, it is evident that before my unit of instruction, my students had a limited understanding of
the concept of division and how it relates to multiplication. The average score on the diagnostic assessment was a 5.4 out
of 25, which is equivalent to a 21.6%. The highest score on the diagnostic was an 11 out of 25, which is equivalent to 44%.
Several students had this score on their diagnostic assessment, showing they had a greater understanding of
multiplication as we began learning about division. While looking through the diagnostic assessments, a majority of
students correctly answered the rote multiplication problems, which showed me they had a basic understanding of how
to answer multiplication problems. They struggled with all forms of word problems, multiplication and division. The
variety of word problems and the different situations caused students to struggle with answering them. This
misunderstanding allowed me to guide my unit by focusing on division and using different word problems. Some students
tried to solve division problems as multiplication problems, which showed their misunderstandings of the concept. The

diagnostic scores allowed me to see where my students had understandings and what elements of multiplication and
division needed to be focused on.
Looking at the summative data, it is not especially clear that all of my students retained the information in my
unit, but there was some progress that was made. The average score increased to 11.8 out of 22, which is equivalent to
53.25%. This showed me that all of my students do not have mastery of the content that was taught in my unit. Several of
my students showed a large growth over the course of the unit, which showed me that they have increased
understanding and mastery of the subject. The median score on the summative increased from a 5.75 to a 13, which is an
increase of about 7 points. Although the majority of my students did not show a mastery of the subject, they did gain
understanding of the concept of division and what strategies they can use to solve the problems. Looking through their
summative assessments, almost all of my students used division strategies to try and solve the problems and used the
correct approach to division word problems. I believe the main problem with the unit was the disorganization of
instruction and introducing division when students did not have a great understanding of multiplication. The content that
my cooperating teacher was division and using multiplication to find area. These two concepts were following the
curriculum planning guide for the grade level, however, this group of students had not had enough instruction or practice
time on multiplication and word problems. I expressed this concern to my cooperating teacher, but she wanted me to
continue on with division. I also spent two days of instruction on finding area using multiplication, which could have been
spent on division strategies and word problems. The weeks for my unit were also very inconsistent for instruction time.
Each week there were only two straight days of my unit instruction, which were interspersed with holidays and testing
days. This caused some confusion and inconsistency of instruction. There were a few students whos score had decreased
from the diagnostic to the summative, which is something that I was expecting based on the particular students. When
looking at their scores, behavior problems and absences have to come into play. If students are taken out of the
classroom or are not at school for the few days of instruction that I was given for the unit, there is only so much
intervention that can be completed before the summative assessment. During the last few lessons, I had intentionally
partnered students or worked with a small group to help students get more one-on-one instruction on division. Overall,
the increase in scores for my students was not the result I would have wanted, but I believe they worked towards
understanding the units big idea.
I was happy with the work that my students had shown on their assessments and throughout the unit, but I
believe the unit instruction and content could have been more successfully organized. I would have liked to spend more
time in my unit focusing on multiplication and multiplication word problems, rather than jumping straight into division. If
my students had a greater understanding of multiplication, I believe they would have been more successful with the
division instruction. The organization of instruction could have been more successful if it was consistent across the days
that I was given to teach. If my students had more experience with word problems and multiplication before beginning
division instruction, they could have used that conceptual understanding to help solve their division problems. The overall
inconsistency of this unit of instruction may have been a large motivator behind why students did not demonstrate a
mastery of the subject. Overall, I was proud of the hard work that my students put in to learn about division and how they
demonstrated their knowledge of the concept of division thus far.