~1~

Standard IV: Analysis of Students Learning:

I taught a unit on symbols and citizenship to Mrs. Rs Kindergarten class at XYZ Elementary School. Before teaching the unit, I used a pre-assessment to determine the readiness of the students. The pre-assessment was given on February 26, 2014 at the beginning of class right after the students completed their seat work. The pre-assessment had three parts, the first part of the assessment required the students to write a sentence about why they are a good citizen and was worth 20 points. For the second and third part of the assessment, the students were asked to circle the Utah and United States symbols, these sections were worth 15 points each. The three parts of the assessment were combined for a total of 50 point possible. The students were given a post assessment after the unit was taught to measure growth. The post assessment consisted of the very same questions as the preassessment and was given on February 28, 2014 and March 4, 2014.

~2~

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Student Performance
Above the black line is considered passing.

Pre-assessment Post-assessment Assessment not valid

Student 9

Student 1

Student 2

Student 3

Student 4

Student 5

Student 6

Student 7

Student 8

Student 10

Student 11

Student 12

Student 13

Student 14

Student 15

Student 16

Student 17

Figure A1 Figure A1 shows the scores each student received on the pre-assessment and these results are highlighted in blue. These scores are compared to the post-assessment scores which are highlighted in red. An acceptable score on this assessment would be 70% or above. As you can see from figure A1, none of the students passed the pre-assessment with a score of 70% or above. The students performed significantly better on the post-assessment with 15 of the students, or 96% of the class passing the post assessment with a score of 80% or above. The three students who did not pass were student 2, student 8, and student 18. Student 2 was unable to take all of the assessment because of speech testing and student 8 was not able to take all of the assessment because he was absent. Their results are not valid for the purpose of

Student 18

~3~
this teacher work sample. Student 18 was the only student who did not pass the postassessment, she represents 6% of the class.

Summary of Individual Performance on Various Assessments:

To analyze the effectiveness of my unit plan lessons, I evaluated the assessment results of three different students who are on different learning levels. I analyzed student 4 who is below level, student 16 who is on level and student 12 who is an above level HAL student. Each student was given a pre and post assessment and formative assessments were done throughout the entire unit.

Below grade level: Student 4 Student 4 is a male student who is below grade level in both reading and math. He is a twin and relies heavily on his twin sister (student 5) to help him during class with assignments and task he finds difficult to perform. Student 4s twin sister will often whisper answers in his ear and he often seeks her out when he is struggling. I have the students read their sight words when they are in line to go to recess and if she is behind him, she will whisper the words in his ear. For this reason, student 4 and student 5 are assigned to sit at separate tables. During the writing portion of the pre-test, student 4 was struggling to write why he was a good citizen. He did not know the meaning of the word citizen and would usually need support and scaffolding before he is able to write. His twin sister got out of her seat, walked over to his table and tried to help him. I asked her to find her seat and whispered to student 4 that he just needed try and

~4~
do his best and I just wanted to see what he knows. I also reassured him that he would learn a whole bunch of stuff over the next few days to help him when he had to write about it again. He wrote three sight words on this portion of the pre-test; the, I & can. When I asked him what he wrote, he said, I dont know (See appendix C). Student 4 was not as insecure with the other two parts of the assessment where he just had to circle the Utah and national symbols. The writing portion was frustrating for him and the other low level students.

Low Level Student 4

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 47% Student 4 Class Average 30% Class Average Student 4 Pre-test Post-test

96%

92%

Figure A2 Figure A2 shows the results student 4 received on the pre and post-test compared to the class average. Student 4 received a lower score on the pre-test compared to the class average. He scored 30% on the pre-test compared to the 47% average of the entire class. However, student 4 scored higher than the class average on the post-test scoring a 96%

~5~
compared to the 92% average of the class. Student 4 only lost two points on the writing portion of the post-assessment because he did not have spaces in between his words. On Grade Level: Student 16 Student 16 is a male student who is on grade level in both reading and math. He is not identified as having any exceptionality. He is a good student and stays on task during lessons and when given assignments that are interesting. He is talkative but not any more than the dynamics of the whole class. This class is often the only class on the playground during recess time so they bond and have formed tight friendships.

On Level Student 16
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Pre-test Post-test Class Average 66% 100% 92%

47%

Student 16 Class Average

Student 16

Figure A3 Figure A3 shows the results student 16 received on the pre and post-test compared to the class average. Student 16 received a higher score on the pre-test compared to the class average. He scored 66% on the pre-test compared to the 47% average of the entire class.

~6~
Student 16 also scored higher than the class average on the post-test scoring a 100% compared to the 92% average of the class. Student 16 did not receive any point deductions on the writing portion of the pre or post-test. However, his writing did not improve/change. He understood what being a good citizen was before the lesson began and maintained this belief throughout the lesson (See Appendix C). Above Grade Level: Student 12 Student 12 is a male student who is considered a high ability learner (HAL) and is above level in both reading and language arts. He scored a 20 on the Development Reading Assessment (DRA), which puts him on the same reading level as a student in the beginning/middle of 2nd grade. He scored a 10 on the MyMath Benchmark math assessment. The MyMath assessment does not identify HAL students but based on his ability, he has been identified by Mrs. R as being a HAL student. Student 12 is always the first student to respond to higher order thinking type questions, however, he does not always raise his hand. He is excited to learn and gets along well with the other students in his class. He is very bright and in touch with his feelings. He is very introspective and comes up with thoughtful answers.

~7~

Above Level Student 12

100% 80% 60% 40% 56% 47% Student 12 Class Average 100% 92%

20%
0% Pre-test Post-test

Class Average

Student 12

Figure A4 Figure A4 shows the results student 12 received on the pre and post-test compared to the class average. Student 12 received a slightly higher score on the pre-test compared to the class average. He scored 56% on the pre-test compared to the 47% average of the entire class. Student 4 also scored higher than the class average on the post-test scoring a 100% compared to the 92% average of the class.

~8~ Explanation of Pre-assessment and Post-assessment Findings: Individual Student Growth Pre-Test Post-Test
56% 20% 20% 30% 38% 46% 40% 10% 52% 50% 60% 56% 62% 52% 66% 66% 50% 10% 47% 100% 30% 86% 96% 88% 100% 80% 30% 96% 96% 100% 100% 96% 86% 100% 100% 100% 60% 93%

Student
Student 1 Student 2 IEP, Celiac Student 3 IEP Speech Student 4 Low Twin Student 5 Twin Student 6 Student 7 below Student 8 Behavior
Asthma, below

Growth
44% 10% 66% 66% 50% 54% 40% 20% 44% 46% 40% 44% 34% 34% 34% 34% 50% 50% 46%

Student 9 Student 10 Student 11 Student 12 Above

HAL

Student 13 Student 14 Student 15 HAL Student 16 On Student 17 below Student 18 below Whole Class Average Figure A5

Figure A5 shows the growth each individual student in the class made when you compare the pre-assessment to the post-assessment. The students highlighted in yellow are the three students whose performances were evaluated for the purpose of this teacher work sample. Again, student 2 and student 8 are not included because their assessments could not be evaluated because of absences from the classroom.

~9~
As the table in figure A5 illustrates, all of the students showed improvement from the pre-assessment to the post assessment. The class average on the pre-assessment was 47% and the class average on the post-assessment was 93%, which made the class growth 46%. Student 3 and student 2, showed the most growth by improving 66%. However, their pre-assessment scores were among the two lowest. Student 13, 14, 15, and 16 showed the least amount of growth, only improving by 34%. Their scores were among the highest scores recorded on the pre-assessment. After gathering and analyzing the data in figure A5 my only concern is with student 18. She is one of the students identified as being below level in figure 5 on the exceptionalities graph. She showed a 50% growth on the post-assessment, which was higher than the class average, but still failed to pass with a 70% acceptable score. She needed to show substantial improvement in order to pass the post-assessment and accommodations and modifications should have been made specifically for her.

Discussion of the Reliability and Validity of the Assessments

The pre and post-assessments given at the beginning and end of this unit plan were reliable and consistent. No matter what time a day the students were given the assessment or in which classroom they were given the assessment, the assessment itself remained consistent. The students were read the questions and the expectations for the writing portion were explained and were consistent with the expectations they have every day when they write in their journals (See rubric for writing portion, appendix B). To measure the validity of the assessment, I considered three types of validity; content, construct and criterion. These are explained in the chart below:

~ 10 ~
Type of Validity Content Definition The content of the assessment matches the instructional objectives and aligns with the Utah State Core. Supporting Evidence The objectives that were supported by the assessment and aligned with the Utah State Core were the Kindergarten Social Studies Objective 3, b: Recognize state and national symbols and Objective 3, f: Identify the rules and etiquette of citizenship. The students were asked to circle the state and national symbols. The students were also asked to write a sentence about how they feel they are a good citizen (See appendix B). The big idea of the unit was to understand citizenship and recognize how symbols and songs unite people. The big idea aligned with the Utah State Core Social Studies Standard 2 objective 3: Investigate and explain how symbols and songs unite families and classmates. The big idea of the unit was not supported by the content of the pre and post assessment. The big idea of the unit plan and the objectives that support the core objectives were measured through formative assessments throughout the lessons. The construct validity of the pre and post assessment was weak. The assessment only showed proficiency in the following areas of importance outlined in the unit plan under what the students are expected to know. The Utah state symbols. The national symbols. The rules and etiquette of good citizenship. The following areas were not measured by the assessment and make the construct validity weak. Why symbols and songs are important. The importance and meaning of the pledge of Allegiance. How unity with classmates makes the classroom stronger. However, once again these objectives were measured during formative assessments done throughout the lessons. The pre and post assessments were valid when measuring criterion because I designed the assessment in a similar fashion to the benchmark tests they have taken previously and will take in the future. These consist mainly of circle the correct answer questions and are simple. The students also have had practice answering questions that are similar to the one asked on the writing portion of the assessments. They are

Construct

The assessment actually measures what it is intended to measure and the score or outcome on the assessment shows proficiency in the intended objectives?

Criterion

The assessment correlates with other assessments the students have taken or will take in the future?

~ 11 ~
asked a question and then show their understanding by writing a sentence. They have practiced grading their own writing using the same criterion as the rubric designed for the writing portion of this assessment (See appendix B).

In conclusion, if the pre and post assessments were the only assessments used to determine the students proficiency of all the objectives stated in the unit plan and lesson plans then there would be concern of the validity of these assessments. The assessments were weak in content and construct validity. If you were to only look at the assessment results you would not get a sense of what the students actually learned throughout the unit and you would likely make the assumption that the Utah State Core objectives were not met during this unit plan. The success of the students learning of the objectives was measured with the pre and postassessment but also in a great deal during formative assessments that were done throughout the lesson (See Appendix B).

~ 12 ~ Informed Conclusions Concerning Each Subgroup: Gender Average Pre-Post Test

100%

90%
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pre-test 49% 47% 44%

94%

91%

92%

Male Female Class Average

Post-test

Figure A6 Figure A6 shows the pre and post assessments results of the students disaggregated by gender. The male students averaged 49% on the pre-test and 94% on the post test for an improvement of 45%. The female students averaged 44% on the pre-test and 91% on the post test for an improvement of 47%. The male and female students showed considerable and similar growth and improvement from the pre-test to the post-test.

~ 13 ~ Assessment Results Based on Enicity

120% 100% 92% 92%

100%

80% 66%

Caucasian Hispanic 47% Indian Class Average 30%

60%
42%

40%

20% 10% 0% Pre-test Post-test

Figure A7 Figure A7 shows the pre and post assessments results of the students disaggregated by ethnicity. The Caucasian students averaged 42% on the pre-test and 92% on the post-test for a growth of 50%. The Hispanic student score 10% on the pre-test and 30% on the post-test for a growth of 20%. However, this student was absent for two days during the unit and only took one portion of the assessment. His assessment results are invalid for the purpose of this teacher work sample. The Indian student scored 66% on the pre-test and 100% on the posttest for a growth of 34%. As figure A7 illustrates, all of the students made considerable growth when comparing the two assessments and all of the students passed the post-test.

~ 14 ~ Exceptional Students Pre-Post Test Average

120% 100% 92% 80% 92% 84% IEP HAL

100%

80% 61% 47% 40% 20% 34% 32%

60%

Twins Below Level

Class Average

20%

0% Pre-test Post-test

Figure A8 Figure A8 shows the pre and post assessments results of the students disaggregated by exceptionalities. The students who are on an IEP for speech scored an average of 20% on the pre-test and scored an average of 80% on the post-test, for an improvement of 60%. This group of students scored the lowest average on the pre-test and the lowest average on the post-test, but stilled showed a remarkable growth of 60%. Of all of the students assessed throughout the unit, this group of students averaged the highest percentage of growth. The HAL students scored an average of 61% on the pre-test, which was the highest average score for the pre-test of all of the exceptionalities identified. The HAL students also averaged 100% on the post test for an improvement of 39%. The students who are twins averaged a score of 34% on the pretest and 92% on the post-test for an improvement of 58%. The below level students scored an

~ 15 ~
average of 32% on the pre-test and 84% on the post test for an improvement of 52%. However, one of these students (student 18) did not pass the post-assessment.

Assessment Results Based on Socio-Economic Status

120%

100% 85% 80%

96%

Free or Reduced Lunch 60% 55% Full Price Lunch

40%

34%

20%

0% Pre-test Post-test

Figure A9 Figure A9 shows the pre and post assessments results of the students disaggregated by socio-economic status, or whether or not they qualify for free or reduced lunch. The students who receive free or reduced lunch scored an average of 34% on the pre-test and 85% on the post-test for an improvement of 51%. The students who do not receive free or reduced lunch score an average of 55% on the pre-test and 96% on the post-test for an improvement of 41%.