TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

Teacher Work Sample: Standard 6: Analysis of Student Learning

A Unit on Science for Fourth Grade
ELM 598
Mary Bartkowski
Judy Halvorson
University of Phoenix, Hawaii Campus

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

Analysis of Student Learning

In the following section, I am including data on pre/post assessments to
determine students progress related to the unit learning goals. I have
included details for the whole class, specifically analyzed the data for several
subgroups, and included information on two specific students.

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

Pre/Post-Assessment Scores for All Students

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

100.0%

95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

90.0%

85.0%
85.0%
85.0%
85.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%

80.0%

70.0%

75.0%
75.0%

65.0%
65.0%

60.0%
60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%
20.0%

20.0%

10.0%

20.0%

15.0%
15.0%
15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
10.0%
10.0% 10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
0.0%
C1
0.0%
A1
0.0%
C2
0.0%
E1
0.0%
A2 C3 E2 B1 A3 B2 D1 B3 B4 A4 E3 E4 B5 D2 E5 D3 C4 A5 C5 D4 D5
Pre%

Post%

The pre and post-assessment results indicate that the students in this fourth
grade science class increased their understanding of forces that shape the
Earths surface. The students scored 84.6% on the post-assessment which is
an increase of 75.4 points from the average pre-assessment score of 9.2%.

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

Individual students increased their scores between 60 and 85 points. These

graphs present all of the individual student scores on the pre and postassessment for each student.

Pre/Post Assessment Averages for All Students

100.0%
84.6%

90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

9.2%
Pre %

Post %

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

The pre-assessment indicates that prior to me teaching any of the learning

goals, none of the students were able to demonstrate a mastery in any of the
four learning goals. After I had taught all of the learning goals in my unit,
88% of the students were able to demonstrate mastery of Learning Goal 1,
84% were able to demonstrate mastery of Learning Goal 2, 80% were able to
demonstrate mastery of Learning Goal 3, and 92% were able to demonstrate
mastery of Learning Goal 4.

Students Demonstrating Mastery by Learning Goal

100.0%
90.0%

92.0%

88.0%

84.0%

80.0%

80.0%

70.0%
60.0%

Pre-Assessment

Post-Assessment

50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

0.0%LG1

0.0%LG2

0.0%LG3

0.0%LG4

Furthermore, 18 out of the 25 students were able to show mastery of

all four learning goals and only one out of the 25 students could not
demonstrate mastery of any of the learning goals. Of the remaining six
students, two mastered one learning goal, and the other four students
mastered three out of the four learning goals. I was able to provide the

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

students who did not master all four learning goals with at-home connections
and small-group instruction to continue to cover these concepts and provide
practice opportunities for the students. In future units, I plan on writing in a
day after the post-assessment to reinforce student learning and to fill in any
gaps of understanding for students who may not have mastered all of the
learning goals. I did not do this for this lesson and feel that the 20 minutes
that I allotted myself to cover any questions that students had regarding the
test was not sufficient or productive.

Percent of Students Demonstrating Overall Mastery of Learning Goals After Instruction

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%

72.0%

70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%

24.0%

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

4.0%
Post-Assessment
Mastery of No LGs Mastery of Some LGs Mastery of All LGs

Additionally, this data indicates that there was significant progress made for each
learning goal. The students cumulative scores increased between 71.2 and 80 points per
learning goal from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment. I do think this difference is quite
remarkable and have to question its validity. I did ask for input from my cooperating teacher
regarding these results. We concluded that one factor that was not taken into consideration is

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

that the students are not routinely given pre-assessments before a unit. In other words, they may
have purposefully bombed this first test. Still, there are other factors to consider as well. Such
as, similar wording between pre and post-assessments, repition of material over the eight
lessons, and familiarity with me and my teaching and testing style by the time this unit postassessment was delivered.

Pre/Post Assessment Scores by Learning Goal

100.0%
85.6%

90.0%

84.0%

85.6%

83.2%

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%

Pre %

Post %

50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

5.6%
LG1

8.0%
LG2

12.0%

LG3

11.2%

LG4

The one student that did not master any of the learning goals is a
student with an active emotional/behavioral disability and specific learning
disability for reading and writing. This student did require redirection during
each lesson and was supported by another student with reading and writing
work. Initially, the groups that the cooperating teacher had assigned to each
student seemed to contribute to his lack of attention and focus. On day five,
I did switch these pre-assigned groups and formed groups that I felt would

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

contribute to the overall success of each student. This students new group
was comprised of three students of equal abilities, was moved to the very
front of the room, and I was able to oversee and interact with this group
much more often than where they were previously located. Unfortunately, I
did not think that I made this switch soon enough to fully benefit this
student. However, on the formative assessments for the last few days of the
unit, this students work was done carefully and he showed understanding. I
feel that if this student were allowed to continue to work with this new group
of students, and located much closer to the front of the room, then he may
show improvement on assessments.

Pre/Post Assessment Averages by Disability Status

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

89.1%
75.0%

11.5%

4.4%

Students w/ No Disability
Pre %

Students w/ a Disability
Post %

E1 and C2 are the students that only mastered one of the four learning
goals. C2 does receive special education for both math and reading, but E1
is in the classroom for the whole day. C2 works at a fairly consistent pace

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

and completes tasks on time with support in reading. He pays attention and
shows perseverance on challenging assignments. E1 typically rushes
through the assignments and does not complete the tasks with quality in
mind. He typically does not pay attention while the lab is being
demonstrated and therefore is unable to follow directions when working
independently or within a group. Moreover, he interrupts the lesson with
inappropriate comments and noises and is unwilling to put forth his best
effort on assignments.
C2 struggled significantly in the written and reading portion of each
lesson. In retrospect, I feel I should have front-loaded each lesson with
vocabulary building exercises specific for his skill level as an alternate
activity to the other bell-ringer activities. I feel that reading the questions
and answers to him during the test was not a significant enough
modification. If I had focused solely on bridging the gap of understanding
scientific language with this student, he may have scored better on the postassessment. Had E1s behavior and attention been more consistent and had
he been able to separate social and work time better, he may not have
struggled nearly as much as he did. I have been able to watch him perform
during the early portion of the day far better than towards the end of the
day. He is very productive during reading and math in the morning, but after
lunch his stamina decreases and this directly effects his productivity and
focus. I did administer his science test to him before lunch and I feel that
this was a good choice because he was able to score proficiencies in three

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

10

out of the four learning goals. Looking back, I think that he could have
benefitted from deep breathing exercises right before the start of class as a
way to help him maintain focus at the end of the school day.
Subgroups: Students with and without Disabilities
The subgroups that I will detail are students with a disability and
students without a disability. 88.2% of the students without a disability
mastered all four of the learning goals whereas only 37.5% of the student
with a disability were able to master all of the learning goals. Additionally,
none of the students without a disability were unable to master any of the
learning goals, whereas 12.5% of the students with a disability could not
master any of the learning goals. Students of all backgrounds and abilities
have a need to learn and be included in learning science skills. I had thought
that I planned for the challenges this may present by writing in specific
accommodations for the unit. I feel that I could have arranged time within
the school day to further assist these students comprehend this science unit.
I think more one-on-one time with this group may have benefitted them as a
whole. Although, I did have small learning groups within the science class,
this time was primarily used for the active lab portion of the lesson. I do not
wish to take this activity away from any group, but this time may have been
used more efficiently had I covered the terms and concepts more
aggressively with this group. So, for future lessons, I may provide additional
diagrams and graphics for the key terms at this time to this group of
students to ensure that they comprehend the concept. They were able to

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

11

successfully complete the lab, but were less able than the students without a
disability to correlate that lab activity to the science concept.

Percent of Students Demonstrating Overall Mastery of Learning Goals by Disability Status

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

88.2%

50.0%
37.5%

11.8%
0.0%
Students w/ No Disability

12.5%

Students w/ a Disability

Mastery of No LGs Mastery of Some LGs Mastery of All LGs

The chart below shows the three main groupings that the cooperating
teacher uses to structure her lessons. Group one contains all students with
active disabilities, group two are students who are at-level learners in both
math and language arts, and group three contains students who are more
advanced learners in either math or language arts. What stands out to me is
the significant difference between complete mastery of all the Learning
Goals by these three different groups. Less than half of the students with a
disability mastered all of the learning goals, whereas all of the advanced
learners mastered every learning goal. For this reason, I would like to
partner advanced learners with the students with disabilities to see if this
pairing of students benefitted each to master all of the learning goals.

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

12

Additionally, I could see a benefit of having the advanced students prepare

short presentations to teach the class vocabulary terms related to science.
For the students that are removed from the reading and math portion of the
day, I would like to have this group of students with disabilities take one key
concept or learning goal and explain that to a kindergarten student using
simple phrases and words.

Percent of Students Demonstrating Overall Mastery of Learning Goals by Class/Group

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
44.4% 44.4%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% 11.1%
10.0%
0.0%
#1

100.0%
81.8%

18.2%

0.0%

#2

0.0% 0.0%
#3

Mastery of No LGs Mastery of Some LGs Mastery of All LGs

Below is a graph that represents the pre and post-assessment results

for students with a disability and students without any disability. I chose
these two sub-groups because I think it is very important to make sure that
my lessons are reasonable and reaching all levels of learners. All students
should receive quality education and reviewing this data can help me
determine if I am actually meeting the needs of all of my students. I realize
that as an educator, I must always reflect and adapt my instruction, but I

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

13

also have to adapt my instruction in ways that are meaningful and effective.
Reviewing the pre and post-assessment results for these two groups helps
me be accountable by using a systematic method to produce the results that
I would hope my whole class is able to achieve.

Pre/Post Assessment Averages by Disability Status

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

89.1%
75.0%

11.5%

4.4%

Students w/ No Disability
Pre %

Students w/ a Disability
Post %

There are 9 students who have an active disability. Three of these

students receive special education classes and the remaining seven students
receive behavioral monitoring classes. The graph above indicates that the
students without a disability made an increase of 77.6 points from the preassessment to the post-assessment. Although the students with a disability
did not make as large of gains, they still improved an average of 70.6 points.
The following students have an active disability listed. As the graph
demonstrates, A3, A4 and E3 received Meets Progress for this unit, and C4
received a score of Meets with Excellence. These students have behavioral

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

14

issues such as ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Anxiety. C1, A1 and
C2 receive special education classes

Pre/Post-Assessment Scores for All Students

with a Disability
100.0%

95.0%

90.0%
80.0%

75.0%

70.0%
60.0%

65.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

85.0%

65.0%

60.0%

50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

5.0%
0.0%
C1

0.0%
A1

0.0%
C2

0.0%
E1
Pre%

0.0%
A2

10.0%

10.0%

A4

E3

A3

C4

Post%

Individual Students: E1 and D5

The two students that I gathered detailed information for are E1 and
D5. D5 always completes daily tasks and assignments on time and produces
quality results. He is self-motivated and pays attention to detail. E1 has
trouble transitioning from one activity to the next most notably at the end of
the school day. He is often off-task and unprepared for the lesson by not

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

15

having common items (pencils, erasers, etc.). E1 does not take his time
doing his work and does not demonstrate understanding of the concepts by
asking and answering appropriate questions. The following are pictures of
some of the formative assessments that were used for this unit.
The cooperating teacher does not record grades for formative
assessments for science. Therefore, there are no scores indicated on the top
of these assessments. I provided comments and feedback to the students
and offered additional support where comprehension was lacking. Typically,
there was not enough class time to review these assessments on the same
day. So, as a transition between bell-ringer and new material learning time, I
did review these assessments with the with the whole class. The first 10
images are of D5. This students work was accurate, neat and completed in
a timely manner. The next nine images are of E1s work. Frequently there
are omissions, errors, and sloppy work. The only assessment that was
completely accurate is LG 2.1. For this lesson, the students were given a
homework sheet to complete over the weekend. I do feel that the support
that his parents provided for this homework assignment aided in his
accomplishing this task with success.
The cooperating teacher discourages homework on weekends and only
gives assignments for math and reading. However, I do see that with this
student in particular, it may be beneficial to schedule a meeting with his
parents to ask for suggestions and ways to continue to review and cover the
material at home. I am confident that if they were able to assist with short

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

16

homework pages that this student would see better results. Of course, this
may not work with all students and would have to be done in a delicate
manner, but I see a huge difference between the work that is completed
during class time and that which is completed at home, that I cannot see a
downside to providing additional supports to the parents for in the home.
D5 scored the highest score on the post-assessment. He successfully
completed all assignments and demonstrated a true passion for this unit. He
also was able to research the effects of erosion on North Shore, Hawaii and
present a short report on his discoveries a different class. E1 scored the
lowest score for students who were not given any accommodations during
the post-assessment. E1 did meet the criterion to master three out of the
four learning goals on the post assessment, but I am concerned that his
performance during the class time is not at the level that he is capable of
demonstrating.
Student D5s Formative Assessments

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 was able to classify all eight minerals.

17

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

On the back of D5s sheet, he matched the correct mineral to the ones he
was given. He also included a complete sentence to describe his thought
process.

18

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 selected one mineral and gave a detailed description of all of its

properties.

19

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 correctly completed the table on how rocks are formed.

20

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 filled in a three column chart to include all three ways rocks are formed.

21

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

22

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 created a cartoon that indicates wind, water and glacier erosion. The
pictures are clear representations of the type of erosion and the sentences
that he included are accurate.

23

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 created a graph to show erosion with chalk. He labeled both axis and
highlighted the points on his line graph.

24

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 correctly matched the terms with the pictures.

25

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

D5 indicated all three different types of plate movement.

26

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

27

D5 wrote a very detailed description of plate movement and how that affects
the Earths Surface.

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

28

Student E1s Formative Assessments

E1 did not complete the chart. Additionally, he did not identify three
properties of minerals. On the side he wrote an analysis of the minerals, but
failed to correctly match any mineral.

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

E1 did not complete this report. The information in the report was not
accurate.

29

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

This is the take-home assignment that E1 completed. Although there are

some spelling errors, he was able to determine the three ways rocks are
formed.

30

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

E1 did not use complete sentences to identify the three types of rocks. He
also gave partially complete answers.

31

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

32

E1 selected wind and water erosion, but failed to provide clear graphics to
indicate how this type of erosion effects landforms. Additionally, there are no
sentences written that indicate understanding of this type of erosion.

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

On this graph, E1 did not label his axis. So, Im unable to see exactly what
he needs help with on this lab. Had he been looking at the chalk and its

33

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

34

erosion pattern, the graph would descend, had he been looking at the rocks,
the graph would be in a straight line.

It appears to me that E1 did not take his time to complete this activity. His
answers are in alphabetical order which means that he did not correctly
match any of the items for volcanoes.

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

E1 was able to identify half of the types of plate movement.

35

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

E1 was able to identify how plates move but did not indicate what type of
destructive force was created by that type of plate movement.

36

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

37

Summarized Reflection
There are two main differences between how I presented these
learning goals and how my cooperating teacher has indicated that she and
the other fourth grade teachers present learning goals for science. First, the
fourth grade team never presents a pre-assessment before beginning a
lesson and second, none of the fourth grade teachers would ever spend as
much time on the learning goals. Typically, two learning goals are covered in
one lesson, whereas I gave each learning goal at least two lessons to cover
the materials. I am interested in determining if the approach that I have
learned at the University of Phoenix results in higher demonstration of
mastery of learning goals, but for that I may have to wait until I get my own
classroom. I say this because after I saw the scores of the pre-assessment, I
was concerned that I would not be able to effectively communicate the
learning goals to the students. The pre-assessment scores did push me to
emphasize certain vocabulary terms and other content that I knew would be
important for mastering the learning goals.
Overall, I think that the students scored very well on their post
assessment. Most of the students seemed to enjoy the lab activities that I
selected to cover the content. The feedback from the formative assessments
was very useful in helping me know how much time to give on reviews of
some material. I do think that in the future I will plan on allotting an extra

TEACHER WORK SAMPLE

38

day after the post-assessment to help any student who still may have issues
with the learning goals.