Standard 4:

Analysis of Student
Learning

Summary of Individual Performance

Explanation of Assessment Findings
Discussion of Assessment Validity
Conclusion of Subgroup Learning

Analysis of Student Learning

Summary of Individual Performance
Prior to the unit each student was given a pretest to measure their initial understanding.
The same test was given as a posttest to measure their learning outcomes after the unit. Students
could receive up to 100 percent on the test. In Figure 5 below is each individual students pre and
posttest percentage score. Please note student #8 was absent the day of the pretest and does not
have a score for this field. Looking at Figure 5, and comparing the results from the pretest and
the posttest, 18 out of 20 students increased their score after instruction on the topic and two
students score decreased. The lowest score on the pretest was 29% and the highest was 88%.
The class average was 62%. On the posttest the lowest score was 35% and the highest was
100%. The class average was 79%.

Figure 5

Pre/Posttest Data
100

Score by Percentage %

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
90


80


70


60


50


40


30

20


10


0

2
3
H

6 7
9 10 11
13 14 15 16
19 20
8
12
17 18
E, R B
E, R H R
E, R B E, R B
S B

Pretest 47 76 88 53 53 29 53

41 76 59 76 71 59 59 71 53 71 29 29

Posttest 82 100 94 88 88 71 59 94 65 94 76 82 59 71 88 35 94 82 76 76

Analysis of Student Learning

Summary of Individual Performance
Each question is broken down in Figure 6 below. It describes the subject of what the
question is asking and how many points are possible. Since both assessments are the same
students individual pretest scores are highlighted in blue and the posttest scores are highlighted
in red. There were no questions answered correctly by every student on the pretest or posttest.

Figure 6
Student
#

A scientist is
Question 1, 2, 3
(1 point each)

1
2H
3
4
5
6 E, R
7B
8
9 E, R
10 H
11 R
12
13 E, R
14 B
15 E, R
16 B
17
18
19 S
20 B

1
3
3
2
2
2
2
Absent
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
0
2

2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
0
3
3
2
3

The Scientific
Process
Question 4
(3 points)
0
1
1
3
3
3
0
3
1
1
0
0
1
2
Absent
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
0
3
3
1
1
0
3
0
1

Analyzing
Objects
Question 5
(1 point)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
Absent
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1

Sink/ Float
Question 6
(10 points)
6
7
8
6
5
3
5
Absent
4
8
6
8
5
5
6
7
4
7
5
3

10
10
9
9
10
10
6
9
7
9
9
9
5
7
10
6
9
9
7
8

Total Score
17 points
possible
8
13
15
9
9
5
9
Absent
7
13
10
13
12
10
10
12
9
12
5
5

14
17
16
15
15
12
10
16
11
16
13
14
10
12
15
6
16
14
13
13

Analysis of Student Learning

Explanation of Assessment Findings
The class average improvement rate from the pretest to the posttest was 17%. One out of
twenty students scored over 80% on their pretest, and eleven of the twenty students scored over
80% on their posttest. Only two out of twenty students did not improve from their pretest score.
Student #16 was helped greatly during his pretest and the classroom teacher Mrs. S contributes
her support to his unusually high score. Student #13 posttest also does not support his pretest
results. As mentioned in the contextual factors, this ELL student has limited English proficiency
and his data may be the result of guessing.
Referring back to Figure 6, I was able to breakdown the questions to see what prior
knowledge students had, their misconceptions, etc. I found on the pretest only 30 % of students
understood answered all three questions correctly about what a scientist was. The most common
missed question was number 3, True or false, a scientist is always right. This misconception
was later proved after our investigation when we found out our hypothesis was wrong. 65% of
students scored all three questions correctly on the posttest.
The next section of questions required the students to order the scientific process. On the
pretest only 29% of students correctly put the steps in order. The majority of students believed
they did an investigation first; this may be due to the misconception students always think
scientists are in lab coats testing things. After teaching the unit only 47% of students correctly
ordered the scientific process. Looking at the assessments of the other 53%, the majority of
students labeled to ask a question first, fixing their pretest mistake, but switched investigate and
conclusion on the posttest. However, I do not think this question was an accurate measurement
of their learning. I will discuss this more in the validity of the assessment on page five.

Analysis of Student Learning

The greatest gain in knowledge came from the sink/float experiment. On the pretest zero
out of twenty students scored all ten points on this portion of the test; the highest score was eight.
However after two investigations, and as we followed the steps of the scientific process around
this idea, thirteen out of twenty students scored a nine or above; the lowest score was five.

Discussion of Assessment Validity

This assessment was teacher created and it was not researched based. Assessment design
is something I have always wanted to get better at it, and while I hoped to create a strong
assessment to show student learning, I do not think I quite mastered it. I met with Mrs. S and
another professor to discuss what type of questions to ask on the assessment and how I could
make it first grade appropriate. All questions were based on the selected standards of this unit;
except for the first three that correlated to a book read in the lessons and supported the overall
idea of the unit. While the questions were all relevant there were other flaws in the design.
First, these first graders do not have much assessment experience and are still learning
the procedures of how to take a test. On this assessment I had four true/false questions and on the
pretest a majority of the students circled both true and false. This told me they did not understand
how to answer this type of question. I discussed the idea of true and false with them later and on
the posttest fewer students made this mistake. I also asked students to order the scientific process
with steps 1-3. A majority of students put the three boxes in order as they saw them, 1, 2, 3.
Again, this told me they did not understand how to answer the question. I emphasized the order
of the scientific process throughout the unit creating a scientists timeline. We reviewed these
steps during every lesson. While the students scored higher on this section on the posttest I still
do not think it was an accurate measurement of their learning. A lot of students switched

Analysis of Student Learning

conclusion and investigate and I think it was because the conclusion clipart was similar to the
hypothesis clipart used in our timeline. Next time I would use the same clipart for the assessment
and during the lessons. I also think I should have scored this area of the test differently and
weighted it higher to match its importance to the unit.
Lastly, I think the best question was having the students circle what items sink in the
water. First they would need to understand the vocabulary word sink to answer the question
before they circled. On the pretest again, a lot of students circled almost everything. However,
since I took a picture of similar items they used during the unit I think it helped them remember
what they observed after their investigations when taking the posttest. The class scored
significantly higher on this portion and the circling was less random.

Subgroup Analysis
The first sub group I analyzed was gender. Figure 7 shows the average score of both
female and male students on the pretest and posttest. There are nine girls in the class, but only
eight took the pretest averaging 56%. This score was 3% less than the eleven boys who averaged
59%. The highest score on the pretest was a male scoring 88% and the lowest score was 29%
scored by both a female and male. While the girls may have scored lower on the pretest they had
a higher improvement rate of 24% compared to the boys 17%. The highest score in the class on
the posttest was 100% by a female and the lowest score was 35% by a male. No gender was
favored over the other in this unit and both male and females were given equal opportunities.

Analysis of Student Learning

Figure 7

Score by Percentage %

Average Score by Gender

82%

100

76%

59%

56%
50
0
Girls

Boys
Pretest

Posttest

The next subgroup analyzed were the high students in comparison to the class average
(See Figure 8). As I expected, the majority performed well above the class average. On the
pretest two of the three high students scored above the class average of 62%. Student #2 and
Student #10 scored 14% higher than the class, while student #15 scored 3% lower than the class
average. On the posttest all three high students scored above the class average of 79%. Student
#2 scored 21% higher, Student #10 scored 15% higher, and Student #15 scored 9% higher. While
it would have been difficult to differentiate their assessment, these students could receive greater
accommodations in future science units in terms of their product to show learning.

High Students vs Class Average

Figure 8

100
94
88

100
90
80

76

79

70
60

62

Class Avg
High Student #2
High Student #10
High Student #15

59

50
Pretest

Posttest

Analysis of Student Learning

The ELL subgroup was also compared to the class average in Figure 9. As seen in the
chart, only student #13 scored above the pretest class average and only student #15 scored above
the posttest class average. While their scores were not the highest, three of the four ELL students
exceeded the class average improvement rate of 17%. Student #6 improved his pretest score by
45% on the posttest, Student #9 by 24%, and Student #15 by 29%. I believe this success was
largely due to the heavy emphasis on vocabulary. I created actions for words, used them
frequently, and encouraged the students to use them as well. When these words were seen and
heard on the posttest the students could focus on what the question was asking them to do instead
of trying to understand what the words meant.

Figure 9

ELL Students vs Class Average

Posttest, 79
Pretest, 62

Class Average
Student #6 (WIDA 1)
Student #9 (WIDA 1)
Student #13 (WIDA 1)
Student #15 (WIDA 3)
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Score by Percentage %

80

90 100

Analysis of Student Learning

Student #19 is the only student in Mrs. Ss class receiving services from Special
Education. She scored well below the class average of 62% on the pretest only testing at 29%
(See Figure 10). However, her improvement rate on the posttest closed the gap tremendously
with an improvement rate of 47%, only testing 3% below the class average of 79%. Her
accommodations were largely dedicated to keeping her focused, something that can be very
difficult when she cannot always directly be engaged. However, keeping her in close proximity,
involved in questioning, and repeating procedures, helped her pay attention to the content and I
noticed tremendous growth.

Score by Percentage %

Figure 10

Special Education vs Class

Average
100
80
60

Class Average

40

Student #19

20
Pretest

Posttest

The last subgroup I analyzed was behavior students (See Figure 11). Similar to Student
#19, Student #7 received accommodations related to her distraction. These ultimately did not
seem to benefit her score as she only improved her pretest score by 6%. However, I do not think
this was an accurate description of her learning. Student #7 participated frequently throughout
the unit in our discussions and was engaged in all of the activities. Next time her differentiation
may extend further into the assessment portion. Student #14, who has emotional needs, scored
below the class average on both pretest and posttest. Something I did not expect during the unit

Analysis of Student Learning

was she became so comfortable with one student I paired her with for support that she became a
classroom management issue. Ultimately I think this is what affected her learning, not her
emotional needs. Student #16s scores is somewhat of an outlier. He was one of the only two
students to decrease their score from the pretest and dropped 36%. I do believe his pretest data
was skewed due to help and support from Mrs. S. While he worked well within the unit, largely
due to the ability to provide him with one-on-one support from Mrs. S, he did not do well on his
posttest. It was given orally, but unfortunately Student #16 knew little about the scientific
process and only responded correctly to a few questions from the sink/float investigation. Mrs. S
is currently collecting data on him for Special Education; this assessment is going in his file.
Lastly, I saw exceptional growth from student #20 as he was able to improve his pretest score by
47%. Putting him in situations to feel in control, to curve his OCD and anger tendencies, really
kept him calm throughout the unit. Mrs. S and I also implemented another management strategy
with his parents during this time and both seemed to motivate him very well. I believe this
behavior directly correlated with his score.
Figure 11

Behavior Students vs Class Average

Posttest, 79
Pretest, 62

Class Average
Student #7
Student #14
Student #16
Student #20
0

10

20

30

40

50

Axis Title

60

70

80

90

Analysis of Student Learning

Analysis of 3 Students
After analyzing the data by each subgroup, I decided to look further in depth by choosing
three individual students to analyze: Student #2, Student #7, and Student #6.
Student #2 is not labeled gifted and talented, but she reads at a high level and scores well
in all subject areas. On the pretest she scored 76% mislabeling the scientific process and
incorrectly circling which items could sink. However, after the content was taught student #2
made a 24% improvement rate and got the highest score of the class, 100%. She was the only
student to receive a perfect score. Since this student usually scores high in all subjects, this unit
was a little different because she had to work harder than she is used to in order to get this score.
Student #2 was a great asset in helping other students during the investigation and took thought
into the questions I asked her during the lessons. In future science lessons I would plan to
differentiate her product as I felt after teaching she could have extended a little bit farther.
I also analyzed student #7 who is distracted very easily. She made little growth in her
assessments improving only 6%. I do not think this was an accurate representation of her
learning. While giving the posttest I walked around her desk midway through the test and she
had nothing written. I made accommodations within the unit to keep her engaged and within
close proximity to check for accountability, but I did not continue this during the assessment.
This may have contributed tod her score. I have noted this to be a problem in other subject areas
as well, as she is usually grouped in the lowest groups but her scores relate to effort and
attention. In the future I may consider grouping her with higher students to complete an
alternative product in luau of a traditional posttest.

Analysis of Student Learning

Lastly, Student #6 is an ELL student and had one of the highest improvement rates of the
class. On the pretest he scored 29% missing questions across all subjects of the test. I think this
score largely contributed to the inexperience of this kind of test and lack of vocabulary
knowledge. Student #6 has strong personal motivation to do well in school. He always sat at the
front of the rug, asked me questions about the investigation, and although usually quiet, shared
with other students easily in discussion. His engagement throughout the unit made me note
science may be an area of interest and motivation for him. However, looking at his posttest test
results he did not correctly label the scientific process. His large growth came from the sink/float
section as he scored all ten points relating to the investigation.