TWS 6/Analysis of Student Learning

Students

Pre-Assessment

Post-Assessment

Student 1

100

93

Student 2

81

86

Student 3

75

79

Student 4

80

79

Student 5

85

90

Student 6

40

36

Student 7

80

79

Student 8 (Average Performer)

85

86

Student 9

95

86

Student 10

80

81

Student 11

90

93

Student 12

90

86

Student 13

90

79

Student 14

70

79

Student 15

100

100

Student 16 (Low Performer)

50

57

Student 17

65

50

Student 18 (Above Performer)

100

100

Student 19

90

93

Student 20

65

93

Student 21

95

95

Student 22

70

79

Pre-Assessment

Post-Assessment

Mean

80

82

Median

83

86

Mode

90

79

Range

60

64

Whole Class:
The above chart shows the performance levels of the twenty-two students assessed throughout my
instructional unit on addition and subtraction. The table shows performance based on pre and post
assessments. For the pre assessment students had to solve ten addition and ten subtraction problems.
The data from the pre-assessment indicates that 22.7% of the students had an A, 27.3% of the students
had a B, 18.2% of the students had a C, 13.6% of the students had a D, and 18.2% of the students had a
F. The mean for the pre-assessment data was 80%.
The data from the post-assessment does not demonstrate much growth on the surface. This data
indicates that 31.8% of the students had an A, 22.7% of the students had a B, 31.8% of the students had
a C, 0% of the students had a D,13.7% of the students had an F. The mean for the post-assessment data
was 82%.These results show very little change overall from the pre-assessment results, but if one were to
look more into the formative assessments given throughout the instructional unit the overall results would
appear to be more.
Overall, I was very pleased with the results from the post-assessment. I only had two students fail the
post-assessment, and both of the students who failed the post assessment are in the RTI process for
math.

Individual Data:
I chose three students to analyze my data more in depth, one above average (A), one average (B), and
one below average (C). Students were assessed over a 2 week instructional unit on addition and
subtraction. By analyzing three students on three different levels, I will be assisting all students in future
lessons. I chose to use only the pre-assessment and the post-assessment in my data table, so that the
overall growth was clearer. Students were formatively assessed each day through a variety of different
formative assessments.
Overall analysis of each student chosen:
The above average student, Student A, is a very advanced second grader. This student perform the
same as mid year third grade student in all subjects. He comes from a high socio-economic household,
and receives a lot of support from home. This student excels in every subject.
The average student, Student B, is an English Language Learner. She comes from an average socioeconomic household and receives some support from home. Her parents are available and willing to help
her, but their lack of English prohibits them from fully assisting her with her studies. This students would
be an above average learner if she had the resources available to her at home.
The below average student, Student C, struggles in every subject area. Student C is pulled out for
reading intervention every day, but not for any other subject. Student C also receives Speech Services. In
my opinion, if student C received special services for every subject, a drastic improvement would be
noticed. Student C can verbally explain most things in class, but when it comes to transferring the verbal
skills onto paper, he struggles tremendously.
Overall analysis of student performances:
Student A received 100% on the pre-assessment, and he scored a 100% on the post assessment. Both
scores for this student were above the class average, and his post assessment was one of the highest
scores compared to the other students in the class. This student has continuously demonstrated higher
thinking levels far above the other students in this class. While he is not always actively engaged in
lessons, he is always aware of the content being taught. I believe that this student has fully achieved the
unit objective of understanding and using mental math strategies to add and subtract.
Student B scored 85% on the pre-assessment, and 86% correct on the post-assessment. Although her
pre and post assessments were only one percentage point apart, the student demonstrated a deeper
understanding of addition and subtraction at the end of the unit compared to the beginning of the unit. I
was able to measure her deeper understanding through the formative assessments given throughout the
unit. Most of Student Bs post-assessment errors resulted in careless mistakes. Based on the progress
during the unit and the results of the post-assessment, I believe this student achieved the unit objective of
using mental math strategies to add and subtract.
Student C scored 50% correct on the pre-assessment and 57% correct on the post-assessment. Student
Cs overall growth in this unit did not look like much from the surface, but after digging deeper and
reviewing his growth from his formative assessments, the overall growth appeared to be much larger. It
was very encouraging to see that my low level learner made the greatest improvement from pre to post
even though the overall grade was still failing. Its important to notice the in between growth rather than

just looking at the final ending score. Based on past experience with the student, I know he has trouble
remaining focused on tests. His attention span is short, and he is easily distracted. Often times the results
of his assessments have not matched the knowledge that he has demonstrated through every day
lessons. He can verbally express what he knows, but he struggles with transferring his verbal language
into written language. It is very frustrating for both student and teacher. While able to demonstrate
understanding of the content one on one with teacher using verbal skills. the student is not capable of
applying the skills being taught independently.
Analyzing an above average student, an average student, and a below average student allowed me to
see student growth in several different ways. By analyzing these students, I was better equipped to plan
for future plans because I was able to see certain struggles on each level. By analyzing just these three
students, I was able to help every student in my class better.