Assessment Analysis

Graphic representation of student work is a great way to evaluate yourself as a teacher. It gives you the opportunity to see how well you've taught the students by tracking the students' progress through the learning goals and over unit.

The graphic representation of the pre-assessment and post assessment show us many interesting things. A cursory look at the pre-assessment shows that students had the most prior knowledge of learning goal #1 (57%), followed closely by learning goal #2 (55%), and learning goal #3 far behind the first two (41%). It is also evident that the class average is 53%.

After seeing this information, it is pertinent to move to the post assessment information for the unit. Here it is plain to see that 1) students improved on average in every learning goal and the overall average, and 2) the students only met the threshold of 80% on learning goal #1, falling short on learning goal #2, learning goal #3, and overall. On the improvements, students improved from pre-assessment score of 57% on learning goal #1 to 81% on the post assessment score, which is an increase of 24 percentage points, or a 42% scoring increase. Regarding learning goal #2, students improved from the pre-assessment 55% to the post assessment 79%. This was also an increase of 24 percentage points, or a 44% increase in the learning goal. Learning goal #3 had lowest average score. The students improved from 41% on the pre-assessment to 76% on the post assessment, or an increase in 35 percentage points. Learning goal #3 actually had the best overall increase in scoring, with an increase of 85%. So while learning goal #3 was the lowest achieving learning goal, it was also the greatest increasing learning goal. The students increased their percentage overall from the 53% on the pre-assessment to 78% on the post assessment, an increase of 25%, which was an overall improvement of 43%.

During the unit, I tracked the improvement of students who had modified tests as part of their Individualized Educational Program (IEP). As the graph shows regarding learning goal #1, the modified students scored 50% on average on the learning goal, which is 7% less than the overall class average and 10% less than the average of students without an IEP. When looking at the post assessment data for the students with the modified tests, it can be seen that students scored 70% on average on learning goal #1. This score is 11 percentage points less than the class overall and 10% less than the regular students.

There were many ways I could have split up my analysis to draw a comparison of the statistics. Race, gender, and class performance are all acceptable ways to compare statistical analysis. I have chosen to compare students who are to be given modified tests according to their Individualized Educational Program with the students who do not have modified tests or IEPs. The reason that I have decided to compare these two groups is the fact that it will allow me to evaluate myself on my ability to teach material to students who are haven an IEP, as well as evaluate how well the students learn the material in comparison to regular students.

As the graphic representation shows for the subgroup comparison, the modified students did not achieve at the same rate as the regular students. On learning goal #1, modified students scored 50% on the pre-assessment and 70% on the post assessment, which was an increase of 20%. The regular students averaged 60% for the pre-assessment and 80% for the post assessment, which are both 10% higher than the modified students in the respective categories, but having the equal rise in percentage from each assessment. So while they modified did not achievement as highly on this learning goal, they did increase at the same rate. On learning goal #2, the modified students actually outscored the regular students on the pre-assessment, 67% to 51%. But on the post assessment, the regular students outpaced the modified students 83% to 70%. So while the modified students out performed the regular students on the pre-assessment, they did not have the type of improvement the regular students had, nearly staying the same at a 3% increase while the regular students increase 32%. Learning goal #3 is where the modified students struggled the most, scoring only 33% on the pre-assessment and 60$ on the post assessment compared to 43% and 80% respectively for the regular students. This learning goal did see the highest amount of increase though, with the modified students jumping 27 percentage points.

I chose two students who were different from each other to display their work. Student A is quiet kid who is prompt with finishing his work, studies for the tests, and achieves high scores. He is one of the students I believe would strive in a Pre-AP class. He scored a 50% on his pre-assessment and an amazing 101% on his post assessment. The other student I chose is nearly the exact opposite. Student B is a student with a modified IEP who can be loud and boisterous at times, leading to some distractions. He is not the most vigilant at finishing his homework, and his grades are about average. He too scored a 50% on his pre-assessment, and he scored an 86% on his post assessment, which was his highest test score of the semester.

It is important to understand the learning proficiencies of the the two students because it demonstrates that two students who are in need of different types of attention and lesson planning can still both succeed within the same class.

It could be concluded that these two students were able to both learn within the framework of the lesson to succeed in the learning goals. Taking a look at learning goal #1, Student A increased his score from the pre-assessment to post assessment from 50% to 100%, and increase of 50 percentage points. Student B increased his score on learning goal #1 from 25% to 80%, an increase of 55%. This vast improvement from both of the students demonstrates that the lessons for learning goal #1 were successful for all of the students to learn. This could be said for learning goal #2 as well. Student A scored 50% on his pre-assessment and 100% on his post assessment. Student B scored 100% on his pre-assessment and 94% on his post assessment. Now, while Student B's score dropped from pre to post, it can still be said to be a success since a student who had normally scored in the lower percentage in the class was capable of scoring an A on the hardest learning goal of the unit. So it can be summarized that the lessons for learning goal #2 were also successful in teaching the two very different students how to succeed in the learning goal.