Analysis of Student Learning

The following tables are a graphical display of the levels of understanding of each of my
students for all pre, formative, and summative assessments in regards to each of my four
learning goals. The following key explains the tables to follow:

The assignment was not turned in.

Absent The student was absent, and did not turn in

the assignment.

1 The student showed little understanding of

the learning goal.

2 The student showed partial understanding of

the learning goal.

3 The student showed satisfactory or better

understanding of the learning goal.

Learning Goal 1
Student Pre GD (L1) GO (L1) GD (L2) MTPA Review Test TCP
s (L2) Packet
(L4)

1 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 2

2 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 2

3 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 2

4 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 2

5 Absent 1 2 2 1 3 1 2

6 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

7 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 Absent

8 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1

9 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 2

10 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 3

11 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 3

12 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 1
13 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2

14 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3

15 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 3

16 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 3

17 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

18 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

19 Absent 2 2 2 2 3 Absent 3

20 1 3 3 2 2 2 Absent 3

21 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 3

22 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

23 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

Learning Goal 2

Student Pre CTH CD Test TCP

1 1 2 1 1 2

2 1 3 2 2 2

3 1 3 2 1 2

4 1 3 2 1 2

5 Absent 2 1 1 2

6 3 2 3 3 3

7 1 3 2 3 Absent

8 1 1 3 3 1

9 1 1 2 3 2

10 1 2 3 2 3

11 1 2 2 1 3

12 1 3 1 2 1
13 1 3 3 3 2

14 1 2 3 3 3

15 1 3 2 2 3

16 1 3 3 1 3

17 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

18 1 2 3 3 3

19 Absent 1 3 Absent 3

20 1 2 3 Absent 3

21 1 1 1 2 3

22 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

23 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

Learning Goal 3

Students Pre CD (L5) T-Chart (L5) Test

1 1 2 3 1

2 1 2 3 2

3 1 1 3 2

4 1 3 3 3

5 Absent 2 3 2

6 2 1 3 3

7 1 1 2 2

8 1 2 2 2

9 1 2 3 2

10 1 3 2 1

11 1 2 3 3

12 1 3 3 3
13 1 2 3 3

14 1 2 3 2

15 1 2 2 3

16 1 2 2 2

17 Absent Absent Absent Absent

18 1 2 3 3

19 Absent 2 3 Absent

20 1 2 3 Absent

21 1 2 2 1

22 Absent Absent Absent Absent

23 Absent Absent Absent Absent

Learning Goal 4

Students Pre Review PDA (L6) CD (L6) Test

Packet (L4)

1 1 3 3 3 3

2 2 3 2 3 3

3 1 3 3 3 2

4 1 3 3 2 1

5 Absent 3 3 3 2

6 3 3 2 3 1

7 1 3 2 3 2

8 2 3 3 3 3

9 1 3 3 3 3

10 1 3 3 3 2

11 1 3 3 2 3
 12 2 3 3 2 2

13 3 2 3 2 2

14 1 3 2 2 3

15 1 2 2 3 2

16 1 2 2 3 2

17 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

18 2 3 2 3 3

19 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

20 1 3 2 2 1

21 1 2 2 2 2

22 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

23 Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

By the end of the unit, learning goals one and two were the most well understood, with
ten students showing satisfactory understanding for both goals. Seven students showed
satisfactory understanding for learning goal three, and only six students showed satisfactory
understanding of learning goal four. The results from this are honestly quite unexpected for me.
If I had been made to guess before recording all this information, which learning goals I would
have thought to be the most well understood, I would have assumed that goals one and four
would be the most well known. I know that most of my students are taking this class for a
second and for some even a third time, so I expected them to understand how to perform basic
manipulation of algebra in shapes, ie goal four. Also, goal one which was to classify triangles
correctly, since it seems fairly common knowledge to me that most people know what some of
the kinds of triangles are already.
I think the reason that the first two goals were the most well understood could be
attributed to large amounts of practice that we have done in class. I think that our class has
made a point of classifying all triangles we see, which makes it easier to solve problems and
analyze the questions presented to us in most problems. Thus the class has had lots and lots of
practice working with classifying triangles, as we are required to know what the triangles mean
in any problem we do involving triangles. For the second goal, I think perhaps it is because the
students were able to successfuly recall prior knowledge, as we didnt do an exceptionally large
amount of practice or review in this particular area.
For goals three and four, I understand that lack of practice may have played a large part
in the lack of understanding here. Mostly, because the concepts of special segments and
theorems are not required pieces in every problem involving triangles like classifying triangles
would be. I think that it was simply not as well practiced by the students.
I have had a tough time coming up with an acceptable means of feedback for my
students. I prefer talking with my students, which has been beneficial, because I came to realize
that most of my students enjoy this mode of feedback also. Furthermore, I think it matches my
teaching style the best, as I do enjoy getting to know my students and talking with them through,
however it also means that I have little in the way of written feedback. I chose to keep my
mentors way of grading and passing back homework, as it was what the students had grown
accustomed to, and it actually influenced how our RAM time period operated, and I didnt wish
to create huge change for the students. The way that grading works in our classes is that
homework was graded purely on whether or not it was finished and passed in on time. We
simply checked off if it was done or not. I tried to implement at least one change to this
schedule, which was to try and go over homework the next day, as I was aware that students
were not getting appropriate feedback on their homework, effectively ruining the effectiveness of
the practice work. That being said, it did not work at all, and so we simply did not continue with
this, and instead just went back to what was being done in the classroom before I was
introduced into the equation.