Step Template

Student Teaching Evaluation of Performance (STEP)
Linda Blakley
Grand Canyon University: ECH-485
March 11, 2018-April 8, 2018
© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 1 of 41

Table of Contents
Standard 1- Contextual Factors - Knowing Your School and Community
Standard 2 - Writing Standards-Based Objectives and the Learning Goal
Standard 3 - Assessment and Data Literacy
Standard 4 - Unit and Lesson Planning
Standard 5 - Implementation of Instructional Unit
Standard 6 - Analysis of Student Learning
Standard 7 - Reflecting on Instruction to Improve Student Progress

STEP Standard 1 - Contextual Factors: Knowing Your School and
Community
Part I: Community, District, School, and Classroom Factors

A. Geographic Location
Temple Hills is located in the state of Maryland and county of Prince George’s. This
community is a suburban area that is eleven road miles from the nation’s capital’s southeast line
(Distance Between Cities, 2018). The population in 2010 was 7,852 with 45% being male and
55% being female and the largest percentage of the population, 8.6%, being between age 25 and
29 (United States Census Bureau, n.d. a). Housing in this area is a mix of apartment buildings
and single-family homes (Google, 2018). The median home cost in this area is $229,500, 31%
higher than the national average, or $1,276 rental price, 39% higher than the national average
(AreaVibes, Inc., n.d.). The median income for all of Temple Hills, Maryland is estimated at
$64,399 with an overall poverty rate of 15.2%, which represents an area larger than the district
for the school (Data USA, n.d. a). This location, although near the nation’s capital and Northern
Virginia, appears to have a large population for the location’s size and housing prices higher than
the rest of the nation and a population living under the poverty line, with a young population.
The population of Temple Hills, Maryland demonstrates a diversity in family
demographics. Fifty-seven and seven-tenths of a percent of the households in this area are family
households with 21.8% having a primary male householder and 35.9% having a female
householder (United States Census Bureau, n.d.a). Of the 1,883 families living in this area,
63.8% have children in the household who are related while 55.5% of the families only have
their own children living in the household (United States Census Bureau, n.d. a). Additionally, it
should be noted that of the 1,883 families in this location, 758 were husband and wife families,
who have a lower percentage of related children living with them (52.9 versus 73.6) while 923
are females without husbands had the larger percentage of related children living in the
household (United States Census Bureau, n.d. a). Finally, the data shows that both groups of
households contain the most children aged six to seventeen (25.9% and 37.8% respectively)
while the husband and wife families’ next largest grouping is under six and six to seventeen
(10.9%) and the households without husband presence had a second grouping of under six years
old (15.9%) that were most prominent (United States Census Bureau, n.d. a). This geographic
area appears to have a dense population of primarily African Americans with many families,
mostly females without husbands, have related children living with them.
Little racial diversity is represented in this community. This area seems to associate
themselves primarily with one race (97.5% of the population), with 86.9% of the population
stating African American, 5.6% Caucasian, 0.4% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.2% Asian
(the largest percentage is 0.9% Filipino), 0.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and
3.2% associated with another race (United States Census Bureau, n.d. a). Additionally, the
population of this area also includes those who associate with Hispanic or Latino, which is 6.2%
of the population, of which 1.5% relates to Mexican while 3.9% claims other Hispanic or Latino
background, including 1.3% Salvadorian and 0.5% each Guatemalan and Honduran (United
States Census Bureau, n.d. b). The remaining 2.1% claim either Puerto Rican or Cuban heritage

(United States Census Bureau, n.d. b). The census is not clear about the immigration status of
any of the participants, however. Thus, the primary races found in this community are African
American and Hispanic or Latino. Although the population of this community is primarily
African American, consideration of the different cultures and English Language Learners of the
Hispanic or Latino citizens is important.
B. District Demographics
Prince George’s County is the county in Maryland directly to the right of the lines of the
diamond-shaped Washington DC. Many of the residents of this area may work in Washington
DC or neighboring Northern Virginia, especially if they possess a college or career degree.
Formed in 1696, this district of nearly 500 square miles is also only 37 miles southeast of the
state capital, Baltimore (Prince George’s County Maryland Government, n.d.). This area has a
population of 863,420 comprised of 48% male residents with a median age of 32.8 years as well
as 52% female residents with a median age of 36.8 years (United States Census Bureau, n.d. c).
The racial composition of the district includes 19.2% Caucasian, 64.5% African American, 4.1%
Asian (1.2% of those is the largest group: Filipino), as well as 3.2% associating themselves as
biracial, including 0.7% Caucasian and African American (United States Census Bureau, n.d. c).
Individuals identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino comprise 14.9% of the county’s
population, with the two largest groups being Salvadoran (5.5%) and Mexican (2.8%) (United
States Census Bureau, n.d. c). The estimated median income in this district is $76,741 with a
median property value of $272,200, as well as a poverty rate of 9.3% (Data USA, n.d. b). This
district appears to be more affluent than the local area although the resident population is like the
representation within the local area.
This school district is among the nation’s twenty-five largest districts nationwide and
second largest in Maryland with 209 educational centers, 128,937 students and almost 19,000
employees (Prince George’s County Public Schools, 2016). Within the student population, Black
or African American comprise 61.4%, Hispanic or Latino are 29.6%, White is 4.2%, Asian
comprises 2.8%, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander is 0.2%, while 1.5% of the
population claims association with two or more races (Prince George’s County Public Schools,
2016). The school district is more diverse than the population represented in Temple Hills,
Maryland.
Within the school system, according to the district’s Facts and Figures (Prince George’s
County Public Schools, 2016), there are also special educational considerations. English
Language Learners number 20,345 or 15.8% of the student population. These students come
from 147 different countries and speak 156 different languages (Prince George’s County Public
Schools, n.d.). Special education students comprise 14,355 or 11.1% of the students. Finally,
students receiving free and reduced meals number 82,242 or 63.8% of the student population
district-wide. This indicates over half the students in this district are low-income, culturally
diverse, and the district accommodates a significant number of special needs students.
C. School Demographics
Samuel Chase Elementary is an elementary school with pre-kindergarten through fifth-
grade students in Temple Hills, Maryland. It is not the only elementary school in this locale.
There are 338 students, of which 268 are Black or African American and 59 are Hispanic or
Latino with the remaining eleven students associating themselves with another race or two or

more races in a small enough number it is not displayed (Maryland State Department of
Education, n.d.). Within this population, 40.9% have Limited English Proficiency, 34.4% are
included in the Special Education figures and 43.2% for Title I (Maryland State Department of
Education, n.d.). The figure for Special Education includes students with IEPs in inclusive
classrooms and those in CRI (Community Referenced Instruction) for students with severe
learning disabilities, such as those with autism or Down’s Syndrome of which there is one
primary class and one intermediate class in the school. It should also be noted that 75.3% of the
students receive free lunch and 9.3% Receive reduced-price lunch, which is why the school
applied for a grant for free meals for all students (Nicholas Ohlson, principal, February 20, 2018,
personal communication). This low-income Title I school is primarily African American with
17% Hispanic while more than half have Limited English Proficiency or special needs requiring
additional support services.

STEP Standard 1 - Contextual Factors: Knowing Your School and
Community
Part II: Demographic, Environment, and Academic Factors

A. Student Demographic Factors
The kindergarten class is one of three classes in Samuel Chase Elementary. There are
seventeen students within the class, of which eleven are females and six are males. Fifteen of the
students are African American while one female is Caucasian, and one male is Hispanic. This
kindergarten class is typical when compared to the other two classes in size, except one class has
two more Hispanic males and one fewer female.
B. Environmental Factors
This class is comprised of students with different family dynamics and home status. This
class of students included eleven students who attended Pre-Kindergarten at Samuel Chase and
six who had not attended in the previous year. Eight of the current students live in single-parent
homes while nine have both parents living in the same house. One student is currently homeless
and rides a bus with four other homeless students, including her two sisters, and CRI students
while her classmates do not recognize that this bus has those riders. Several of the students have
siblings at the school. One student, the Caucasian female, has a brother who is identified as
Gifted and the remaining siblings of other students are not identified as such. Two of the
students, through everyday conversation, have revealed that they have relatives living with them
or they live with other relatives; ages nor relationships were stated. Currently, while the
cooperating teacher tried contacting one parent, it was noted that all phone numbers associated
with the student’s file were disconnected. It should also be noted that due to the grant for which
the school applied, there is no information available about the FARMS status of any of the
students. This class appears typical when compared to other classes I have encountered in this
school during long-term substitute assignments.
C. Student Academic Factors

Behavior
Student Subgroup ELL IEP Section Gifted Other or
504 Services Cognitive
(Explain) Needs
Receiving
No
Services
Boys 1 0 0 0 1 0
Girls 0 0 0 0 3 0

Instructional Accommodations This These
and Modifications student students
(Describe any instructional meets with receive
accommodations and modifications the ESOL services
regularly used to meet the needs of Teacher to support
students in each subgroup.) who social/em
focuses on otional
alphabet developm
recognitio ent from
n, the Early
phonemes Learning
associated Center in
with the the
letters and school.
simple These
phonics. students
This receive
student additional
receives support in
the same making
accommod social
ations that decisions,
are positive
traditionall reinforce
y provided ment for
to ELL avoiding
students. emotional
reactions,
and
reminders
/notes
from
friends.
One student, who did not attend pre-kindergarten at Samuel Chase last year, does exceedingly
well in math consistently all year. When she took the Math Student Learning Objectives
Assessment (SLO—teacher’s efficacy assessment), she scored a perfect 100% correct even
though not all the topics on the assessment had been taught so far this school year.

Student Reading Data:
Studen
t January
What
kinds of
miscues Informationa Plan to
Sight DRA Self did the l vs address
Lette Word Leve Fluenc Comprehensio Correctio student Narrative student
Initials r ID s l y n n Rate make? Text needs?
Unable to Exposure
read next to higher-
R.B. 50 28 3 100% 20 0:0 level text Narrative level text
Reading
higher-
L.C. 52 23 2 94% N/A 0:2 Semantic Narrative level text
Unable to Exposure
read next to higher-
C-B.C. 54 30 3 100% 19 0:0 level text Narrative level text
Exposure
Unable to to higher-
C.C. 54 34 4 94% 20 1:3 read "she" Narrative level text
Exposure
to higher-
M.G. 54 31 4 98% 22 1:1 Semantic Narrative level text
Continuou
s exposure
to English
Lack of and
S.G-M. English reading
(ELL vocabular higher-
student) 48 22 2 94% N/A 1:2 y Narrative level text
Making
Grapho- meaning
N.H. 54 34 3 96% 18 0:2 phonic Narrative of the text
Slowing
down
Grapho- while
P.J. 54 35 4 94% 20 1:3 phonic Narrative reading
Sliding her
finger
while
reading a
M.K. 54 33 4 96% 21 3:2 Semantic Narrative word
Making
Grapho- meaning
S.L. 53 25 3 96% 18 0:2 phonic Narrative of the text
Exposure
to higher-
Z.L. 54 38(K) 6 95% 21 1:4 Semantic Narrative level text
Unable to
read next Exposure
level of to higher -
A.M. 53 29 3 100% 20 0:0 text Narrative level text

Making
Grapho- meaning
L.M. 54 39 (K) 6 96% 20 0:3 phonic Narrative of the text
Unable to Exposure
read the to higher-
J.R. 53 24 2 97% N/A 2:1 next level Narrative level text
Various
reading
Unable to strategies
read the when
K.R. 54 33 4 100% 20 0:0 next level Narrative stuck
Making
meaning
of the text.
Checking
her
J.W. 54 34 4 94% 18 0:3 Narrative guesses.
R.H.
new
student 47 16
S.D.
new
student
**There are 54 letters in the assessment and 39 Kindergarten sight words that are expected to be
mastered by the conclusion of kindergarten. The expected reading level, assessed by
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), at the conclusion of the kindergarten year according
to the district is 4 and according to the principal’s expectations is 8. This assessment data was
collected by the cooperating teacher.
*Analysis: 3 students are at a DRA level of 2 and the new student appears to have the same
score; 5 students have a DRA level of 3; 6 students have a DRA level of 4 (meeting the district’s
end of year expectations); 2 students have a DRA level of 6.
A clear understanding of the dynamics within the school district, local area, school, and
classroom are important for any teacher. Since this is a Title I school, the understanding of the
limitations on the students’ families to support their scholars is imperative. Many parents may be
working multiple jobs to support the family or there may be a number of students requiring a
single parent’s attention at the same time. The family may not have the financial resources to
provide the student the required educational materials, educational supports, technology for use
at home, or even adequate food to prevent hunger’s distraction. For this reason, it is important to
understand the family dynamics to understand what could be affecting the student’s learning.
This affects the planning and expectations for the completion of activities outside the school day,
such as projects and homework. Consideration to have enough materials to send home with the
student, such as poster board, crayons, or journals must be accounted for in the planning phase
such that required materials may be obtained for those students who have no access at home.
Further, planning for providing after-school support services, such as tutoring, shall be based on
the information provided about the student’s academic level and support at home. Understanding
the community, academic supports in the community, and socioeconomic family status for
students is key to ensuring their individual success within the learning environment and the
opportunity for further support as needed.

It is also important to note that I am a Caucasian female in a largely African American
and Hispanic community. This means I need to fully understand the culture of the students and
how that affects their background knowledge. I must meet them where they are in their
background knowledge, per the Zone of Proximal Development, and help them learn to the point
at which they are expected to arrive. Additionally, it must be considered that cultural differences
can affect student’s understanding, comfort level, avoidance of upset, and the ability to properly
connect with parents. Thus, awareness of the differences in culture is imperative in order to
effectively plan and connect with the students and parents.
The student in this class who is an English Language Learner (ELL) already receives
pull-out services with the other kindergarten ELL students from the English for Speakers of
Other Languages (ESOL) teacher. This service occurs during math instructional time, which
impacts his math skills and standards mastery. During reading it was observed that he struggles
with clear enunciation in English and receives additional instruction in mouth formation to
produce certain sounds during small group instruction as the issues arise. Thus, consideration of
time in small group planning with his group should include time for this as needed.
Consideration during the planning of visual supports, vocabulary cards, or examples of work
should be included in the planning time. I would consider planning using Universal Design for
Learning principals to provide the best possible support.
Four young kindergarteners in this class receive pull-out services to encourage social-
emotional development. The three girls are the youngest in the class and get upset easily. One
frequently sucks her thumb for comfort but will respond when told to remove the thumb from her
hand and get hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of germs. The other girl lacks self-confidence
during reading and when questioned she gets very quiet, even refusing to read familiar reads in
small group instruction. She tears up when this happens and needs to remove herself for two or
so minutes to calm down and clean her face. She needs frequent verbal positive reinforcement
like the other young lady. The third girl appears to enjoy being the center of attention, but will
also get upset when she does not get the attention she wants from either the teacher or her
classmates and will state she does not want to be the friend of the classmate, frown upon the
adult, stick her tongue out to the classmates, or try to physically remove things from their hands
as if it belongs to her, even if it is community property. The boy who receives services also gets
upset when he does not get his way. For example, on Friday, he was upset when he was told that
the math center at which he wanted to play, was closed as it was full. He walked around that area
crying, not sobbing, until he found something else that caught his attention. These four young
kindergarteners are receiving services to promote social/emotional development and an
understanding of how to provide support during instruction to prevent emotional issues or social
situations increases instructional time and efficacy.
Knowledge of a student’s reading abilities and levels, as assessed by the cooperating
teacher in the table above, is imperative to deliver quality instruction and practice opportunities
within the reading block. Differentiation is possible through the inclusion of this data such that
the selection of the appropriate level text and supports to fit students’ needs, selection of
appropriate level writing activities, as well as even finding the sight words that are yet to be
mastered by a particular group of students in the Morning Message during whole group
instruction. Additionally, knowledge of what kept a child from progressing to the next level
allows the educator to help provide the strategies and resources necessary to overcome any
difficulties preventing progression to the next level text. Thus, understanding a student’s reading
abilities is crucial for effective planning and instruction.

STEP Standard 2 - Writing Standards-Based Objectives and the Learning
Goal
Unit Topic: Measurement
Unit Title: Which object is bigger or holds more? Which object is smaller or holds less?
National or State Academic Content Standards

Common Core Math Standards for Kindergarten
1. CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.MD.A.2
Directly compare two objects with a measurable attribute in common, to see which object
has "more of"/"less of" the attribute, and describe the difference. For example, directly
compare the heights of two children and describe one child as taller/shorter.
(source: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/K/MD/)
Learning Goal
Students will be able to examine a set of objects, analyze their attributes, and determine which is
greater or less based on a measurable attribute.
Measurable Objectives
Unit: Students will analyze the attributes of given objects or given visual representations of
objects to compare their length, volume/capacity, and weight correctly with 80% accuracy.

STEP Standard 3 - Assessment and Data Literacy
Pre-Assessment - Copy and paste the pre-assessment you plan to use to assess the students’
knowledge of the topic prior to implementing the unit lessons. Include the scoring criteria used to
determine whether the student Exceeds, Meets, Approaches, or Falls Far Below the learning goal
and measurable objectives.
Name _________________________________________________ Date ________________________

Measurement Pre-Assessment
1. Draw and label an object that has more height than you.
2. Draw and label an object that has less capacity than a gallon of milk.
3. Which object has a greater length? Circle your answer.

4. Circle the objects that are longer or underline both objects if they have the same length.
5a. Your mom is making a cake for a very large birthday party. Which cake should she make?
A. B. C.
Answer: ________________
5b. Explain why you chose this answer.
Answer key:
1. Object must be clearly taller than the student: truck, car, building, etc. (16.66 points)

2. Object must clearly be able to hold an amount of liquid less than a gallon: a cup, a skillet,
a glass, etc. (16.66 points)
3. The car (16.66 points)
4. Underline both erasers as they are the same length. (16.66 points)
5. The first cake should be circled. (16.66 points)
6. The first cake is taller and would have greater capacity of cake. Looking for vocabulary
(16.66 points)
Scoring Criteria:
This assessment is scored with sixteen and 66 hundredths points for each question. Key
vocabulary was used in questions, which will be addressed during instruction. For the questions
requiring students to explain their reason for selecting their choice involves the use of vocabulary
(heavy, heavier, light, lighter, not as heavy, taller). The students were given the opportunity to
write their own responses and if they seemed to be struggling, they orally stated it to me or the
cooperating teacher for us to record. The issues with writing were not considered to be a
hinderance for these questions.
Data Analysis/Categorization Criteria:

 Students who exceed expectations shall score 100% which means all the student
responses are correct.
 Students who meet expectations shall score 83% or have five of the six responses
correct. The Measurable Objectives clearly state expectations of 80% proficiency.
 Students who are approaching proficiency shall score 50% to 67% which means three
to four of their responses are correct. Approaching proficiency is considered a score
between 50% and 79%.
 Students who are falling far below scored 0% to 33%, meaning zero to two of their
response are correct. Falling far below meeting expectations includes scores between
0% and 49%. These students will have the most to learn in order to meet expectations
by the conclusion of the unit.
Pre-Assessment Data: Whole Class -
Number of Students
Exceeds (90% to 100%) 0
Meets (80% to 89%) 0
Approaches (50% to 79%) 9

Falls Far Below (0% to 49%)
(2 Students were absent and are excluded from 6
this data as a result.)
Individual Student Pre-Assessment Data
(X indicates a question is answered correctly.)

Student #1 #2 #3 #4 #5a #5b Student
Initials More Less Greater Identify Identify Explain Score
height capacity length same tall cake choice of
length for large cakes
party
R.B. X 17%
L.C. X X 33%
C-B.C. X X 17%
C.C. X X X X 67%
M.G. X X X 50%
S.G-M. With
(ELL ESOL
student) teacher
N.H. 0%
P.J. X X X 50%
M.K. X X X 50%
S.L. Absent
Z.L. X X X X 67%
A.M. Absent
L.N. X X 33%
J.R. X X X 50%
K.R. X X X 50%
J.W. X X X 50%
R.H. X X X X 67%
(new
student)
S.D. X X X 50%
(new
student)
11/15 2/15 9/15 5/15 13/15 0/15 Average
73% 13% 60% 33% 87% 0% Student
Score
Totals 43.4%
Students in the social-emotional support group, a subgroup of these
students
Pre-Assessment Analysis: Whole Class
After observation of the district’s Unit 6 pre-assessment and the overall student
understanding of direct comparison of objects, it was decided that the focus for the instruction
should be increasing vocabulary and its understanding to ensure direct comparison of objects
would be more attainable and understandable. The vocabulary focus is also to prepare the
students for first grade in which measurement includes indirect measurement using non-standard
units, such as cubes or other objects. Thus, the changes I am implementing in my unit plan
include the following:
Unit Topic: Measurement
Unit Title: Measurement Vocabulary and Direct Comparison
National or State Academic Content Standard

Common Core Math Standards for Kindergarten

1. CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.K.MD.A.2
Directly compare two objects with a measurable attribute in common, to see which object
has "more of"/"less of" the attribute, and describe the difference. For example, directly
compare the heights of two children and describe one child as taller/shorter.
(source: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/K/MD/)
Learning Goal
Students will be able to examine a set of objects, use their knowledge of measurement
vocabulary, and determine which is more or less based on a measurable attribute, such as height,
length, width, weight, and capacity.
Measurable Objective
Students will directly compare given objects or given visual representations of objects to identify
the object with more or less of a specified measurable attribute, such as height, length, or
capacity, as well as use related vocabulary to explain their understanding of the measurable
attribute with 80% accuracy.
The data obtained from a pre-assessment informs instruction and further assessment. The
data I observed in the district’s unit assessment indicated the students had a general ability to
compare objects or images of objects but were struggling with some of the vocabulary used in
the determination of the more or less of a measurable attribute. The determination was made that
the five-day mini-unit on measurement must focus on vocabulary and the application of
vocabulary in determining the correct answer to these types of questions. Thus, the focus of the
instruction and pre-assessment, as well as the post-assessment, were changed from just by this
data to which I was privy.
The pre-assessment that I developed involves more vocabulary than the district’s pre-
assessment. The pre-assessment above includes the names of measurable attributes as well as
associated vocabulary (taller, wider, etc.). The assessment did indicate that the students were not
proficient in vocabulary that helped them understand how to compare the objects or images of
objects. It is not clear if the use of images instead of realia affected the responses. Therefore, the
use of realia and images shall be used in the delivery of instruction to enable students to
associate real objects with the images and gain an understanding of size for comparisons. The
pre-assessment data informed me that the focus must be on vocabulary and its use in direct
comparisons and the use of realia could support the understanding of the size of objects in visual
images.

Post-Assessment – Copy and paste the post-assessment you plan to use to assess the students’
knowledge of the topic after implementing the unit lessons. The post-assessment can be the same as the
pre-assessment, a modified version, or something comparable that measures the same concepts. Include
the scoring criteria used to determine whether the student Exceeds, Meets, Approaches, or Falls Far
Below the learning goal and measurable objectives.
Name ________________________________________________ Date ________________________

Measurement Assessment
1. Draw and label an object that has more height than you.
2. Draw and label an object that has less capacity than a gallon of milk.
3. Which object has a greater length? Circle your answer.

4. Circle the objects that are longer or underline both objects if they have the same length.
5a. Your mom is making a cake for a very large birthday party. Which cake should she make?
A. B. C.
Answer: ________________
5b. Explain why you chose this answer.
Answer key:

1. The object must be clearly taller than the student: truck, car, building, etc. (16.66 points)
2. The object must clearly be able to hold an amount of liquid less than a gallon: a cup, a skillet, a
glass, etc. (16.66 points)
3. The car (16.66 points)
4. Underline both erasers as they are the same length. (16.66 points)
5a. The first cake should be circled. (16.66 points)
5b. The first cake is taller and would have more pieces. Looking for vocabulary (16.66 points)
Scoring Criteria:
This assessment is scored with ten points for each question or portion of a question. The key
vocabulary was used in questions, which will be addressed during instruction. For the questions
requiring students to explain their reason for selecting their choice involves the use of vocabulary (heavy,
heavier, light, lighter, not as heavy, taller). The students were given the opportunity to write their own
responses and if they seemed to be struggling, they orally stated it to me or the cooperating teacher for us
to record. The issues with writing were not considered to be a hindrance for these questions.
Data Analysis/Categorization Criteria:

 Students who exceed expectations shall score 100% which means all six of their responses are
correct.
 Students who meet expectations shall score 83% or have five of the six responses correct. The
Measurable Objectives clearly state expectations of 80% proficiency.
 Students who are approaching proficiency shall score 50% to 67% which means three to four
of their responses are correct. Approaching proficiency is defined as 50% to 79%With
effective instruction, there should be no students at this level of proficiency.
 Students who are falling far below scored 0% to 49%, meaning zero to two of their response
are correct. There should be no students with these scores with effective instruction.

STEP Standard 4 - Unit and Lesson Planning
Note: When implementing the unit of study, you will be choosing one of these activities to video record, review, and reflect on your teaching later
in the STEP process,
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Title of Intro to Measurement Length Capacity Review for Assessment Assessment
Lesson or &
Activity Height
Standards Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:
and CCSS.MATH.CONT CCSS.MATH.CONTE CCSS.MATH.CONTE CCSS.MATH.CONTE CCSS.MATH.CONTE
Objectives ENT.K.MD.A.2 NT.K.MD.A.2 NT.K.MD.A.2 NT.K.MD.A.2 NT.K.MD.A.2
What do Directly compare Directly compare two Directly compare two Directly compare two Directly compare two
students two objects with a objects with a objects with a objects with a objects with a
need to measurable attribute measurable attribute in measurable attribute in measurable attribute in measurable attribute in
know and be in common, to see common, to see which common, to see which common, to see which common, to see which
able to do which object has object has "more object has "more object has "more object has "more
for each day "more of"/"less of" of"/"less of" the of"/"less of" the of"/"less of" the of"/"less of" the
of the unit? the attribute, and attribute, and describe attribute, and describe attribute, and describe attribute, and describe
describe the the difference. For the difference. For the difference. For the difference. For
difference. For example, directly example, directly example, directly example, directly
example, directly compare the heights of compare the heights of compare the heights of compare the heights of
compare the heights two children and two children and two children and two children and
of two children and describe one child as describe one child as describe one child as describe one child as
describe one child as taller/shorter. taller/shorter. taller/shorter. taller/shorter.
taller/shorter. (source: (source: (source: (source:
(source: http://www.corestandar http://www.corestandar http://www.corestandar http://www.corestandar
http://www.corestand ds.org/Math/Content/K/ ds.org/Math/Content/K/ ds.org/Math/Content/K/ ds.org/Math/Content/K/
ards.org/Math/Conte MD/) MD/) MD/) MD/)
nt/K/MD/)
Objective: Students will Objective: Students will Objective: Students will Objective: Students will
Objective: Students directly compare the directly compare the directly compare the directly compare the
will directly compare length of two objects to capacity of various height/length/capacity height/length/capacity
the height of two identify one as longer or objects to determine of two objects to of two objects to
individuals or objects shorter with 4 correct which has greater identify one as identify one as
to identify one as capacity or lesser taller/shorter, taller/shorter,

taller or shorter with identifications out of 5 capacity with 4 correct longer/shorter, and longer/shorter,
4 correct sets of objects. identifications out of 5 greater capacity/lesser wider/narrower, and
identifications out of sets of objects. capacity with at least 8 greater capacity/lesser
5 sets of objects. correct identifications capacity with at least 4
out of 10 sets of objects correct identifications
out of 5 sets of objects.
Students will use the
appropriate vocabulary
to explain their choice
for the comparison of
objects based on height,
length, or capacity.
Academic Measurement/Measu Measurement/Measure Measurement/Measure Measurement/Measure Measurement/Measure

Language re Length Capacity Capacity Capacity
and Height Shorter Greater Capacity Height Height
Vocabulary Taller Longer Lesser Capacity Length Length
What Shorter Compare Compare Taller Taller
academic Compare Shorter Shorter
language Longer Longer
will you Greater capacity Greater capacity
emphasize Lesser capacity Lesser capacity
and teach Compare Compare
each day
during this
unit?
Summary Whole Group Whole Group Whole Group Small Group Small Group
of Instruction: Instruction: Instruction: Instruction: Instruction:
Instruction 1. Background 1. Background 1. Background 1. Background 1. Background
and knowledge: knowledge: Bring knowledge: Bring knowledge: Bring knowledge: The
Activities Bring students to students to the students to the students to the teacher shall bring
for the the carpet. Ask carpet. Ask students carpet. Ask students small group table in small groups of
Lesson students if they if they ever picked if they have ever small groups as students to the
How will remember when up a crayon that had drunk one cup of a designated by the small group table as
the they were lined been broken and beverage and were cooperating teacher designated by the
instruction up for the class then looked at a still thirsty. Ask as she is delivering cooperating teacher

and picture. The friend’s crayon to them if they could a lesson to another as she is delivering
activities shorter students find it looks like it not have a second group on the carpet. a lesson to another
flow? were in the front has not been broken cup of drink. What Ask students, with group on the carpet.
Consider of the line and or used. The crayon if the cup they had guidance as needed, The teacher
how the the taller that had been gotten held more to show the hand reminds the
students will students were in broken looked drink? (Teacher signals for taller, students that they
efficiently the back. This shorter than the uses realia to shorter, longer, have been working
transition day, Ms. Lawson newer or less used demonstrate the shorter, greater on measurement
from one to and I measured crayon. (Teacher difference in cup capacity, and lesser with her. She
the next. you all by uses realia to sizes.) capacity. Students reminds students of
comparing how demonstrate the 2. YouTube Video: should repeat the height, length, and
tall you looked. difference.) Cartoons for Kids: same hand gestures capacity. The
Measurement is 2. YouTube Video: Math-Capacity for the teacher used teacher and students
the comparison Kermit and Grover Children during instruction. repeat the hand
of two people or show short and long https://www.youtu The teacher gestures for all the
objects. (Repeat: https://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=V reminds students vocabulary used in
Measurement is be.com/watch?v=t pRa5OY-Q-k what length, height, the unit.
the comparison MBaWfdFNKc 3. Ask students if the and capacity mean 2. Assessment: The
of two people or 3. Did you see how containers of milk, as well as how to teacher tells the
objects. Have Grover held the first juice, and water measure each. students that it is
students repeat ladder with only were the same. 2. Use of realia: The now time for them
the sentence. ) one arm? It had They should teacher guides the to show how much
2. YouTube Video: only three steps on indicate they are students in they learned.
Frog Street Short it. The second not. Ask how they comparing the Dividers between
or Tall ladder took two compared the length of pencils, students are set up
https://www.yout Grovers to carry it amount of liquid the the height of and the students
ube.com/watch?v and had many more containers held. students in the receive pencils with
=Gy2C1wtJJsg& steps. The first They should be able group, and the erasers. The teacher
t=23s ladder was short to say the liquid capacity of cups. If hands students a
3. Let’s check two (use hand gesture) was poured into students struggle copy of the post-
students to see and the second other containers with meanings, pull assessment, which
who is taller. ladder was long that were identical. out the paper copies is identical to the
Line 2 students (use gesture). We Tell students that of the anchor charts pre-assessment and
up and compare just compared their the containers that and review them. asks the students to
their size using lengths. Measuring held more liquid 3. The teacher then put their names on
taller or shorter. length means were a higher (hand gives students a the papers.

Students, with looking at things gesture) capacity. group of realia 3. The teacher reads
guidance, should moving across a flat This was the water. objects: erasers, each assessment
understand that surface, or The juice had less pencils, containers, question to the
shorter means horizontally (hand (hand gesture) chairs, etc. as found students and
closer to the gesture) to see capacity. Instruct in the classroom for provides them
ground/floor and which is longer and students that the students to ample time to
taller is farther which is shorter measuring capacity explore and develop their
from the (students should means figuring out compare responses. If a
ground/floor. repeat this which container collaboratively. The student has trouble
Tell the students statement). ). holds more or less students use the labeling their
we just checked Students shall of a liquid or solid. turn-and-talk pictures clearly, the
the height or how always repeat the (Students should strategy for teacher asks the
tall the students vocabulary words repeat this communicating. student orally for
are to see who after the teacher’s statement). Students 4. After the students their response and
was taller and use of the word. shall always repeat demonstrate an labels the image for
shorter. 4. Refer to the anchor the vocabulary understanding of the student.
Measuring height chart displayed on words after the the comparison of 4. The teacher
means the Smart Board teacher’s use of the the realia, the completes the
comparing things and embedded in word. students receive assessment with
vertically (hand the Smart Notebook 4. Refer to the anchor pictures of objects one group of
gesture moving presentation. chart displayed on and the teacher students and then
up from the floor 5. Introduce students the Smart Board guides them receives another
or ground). to measuring length and embedded in through the group from the
Students shall means looking at the Smart Notebook comparisons based cooperating teacher.
always repeat the how long it is presentation. on length, height, The teacher
vocabulary sideways or from 5. Using realia and and capacity. completes steps 1-3
words after the one end to another two gallon-size 5. The teacher with each group of
teacher’s use of end. Teacher containers model frequently asks the students, over two
the word. informs students how to get water in students why they days if needed, until
4. Refer to the that to properly the two pieces of selected the object all students have
anchor chart compare the lengths realia. Let students they selected when been assessed.
displayed on the of objects, their look at these items asked to compare
Smart Board and ends must be at the with liquid in them. objects. The teacher
embedded in the same starting point. “Can we compare guides the students
Smart Notebook The teacher models their capacity? No, in orally using the
presentation. using a yardstick. because they are not related vocabulary

5. Now, let’s 6. Teacher and the same size.” to explain their
compare two students compare Pour the liquid into choices. The focus
objects in the two more objects a different gallon- is not on one
classroom. Select until students show size container. “Can method of
the teacher’s some understanding we compare the measurement but on
chair at the of how to use the liquid that was in all methods. This is
carpeted area and same endpoint to the other containers key as it is one
a student chair. compare length. now that we poured question on the
Which is has 7. Collaborative them out? Yes, assessment.
more height? Work: The teacher because the 6. The teacher repeats
Does this mean it invites students to containers are the these steps as
is taller? Which find their partner same now.” needed with the
has less height? and compare two Compare the different small
Is it also shorter? objects in the amount of liquid in groups of students
How can you classroom that are the gallon-size until all students
tell? not objects they containers to have received some
6. Tell students that compared with the determine which time to review the
when you think teacher. The teacher had more and less three concepts
about how tall observes students in capacity. covered in
something is, formative 6. Teacher and measurement.
you are assessment. students compare
measuring it by 8. Students return to two more
comparing it to the carpet to share containers on the
another object. with their peers balance until
7. Collaborative their observations. students show some
Work: Students Students then understanding of
are given three observe two rulers how to compare
minutes to as having the same liquids by pouring
compare the length and two them into the same
height of two other objects from size containers.
objects in the the classroom with 7. Collaborative
classroom. the same length. Work: The teacher
Students talk to The teacher asks invites students to
each other in which is longer and find their partner
their which is shorter. and compare two
comparisons. Students should objects in the

The teacher will indicate they classroom that are
observe for understand these not objects they
formative objects have the compared with the
assessment. same length. The teacher. The teacher
8. Students return teacher states that observes students in
to the carpet and they have an equal formative
share with their length. assessment.
peers their 9. The teacher 8. Students return to
observations. prepares to use the carpet to share
They then Smart Notebook with their peers
observe two presentation in their observations.
objects that are which students Students then
the same height. identify (in the observe two
Teacher asks same methods containers having
which is taller. shown in the the same capacity
Students should pre/post and pouring the
indicate they are assessment) objects liquid into the two
the same. that are longer or gallon-size
Teacher restates shorter. Students containers.
that they have shall turn-and-talk Students should
the same height. about their indicate they
9. The teacher responses to each understand these
prepares to use question. objects have the
Smart Notebook 10. Collaborative same capacity. The
presentation in practice: Two-sided teacher states that
which students worksheet in which they have an equal
identify (in the students identify capacity.
same methods longer objects as 9. The teacher
shown in the well as draw and prepares to use
pre/post label something Smart Notebook
assessment) shorter than an presentation in
objects that are alligator on one which students
taller or shorter. side. On the other identify (in the
Students shall side, Students same methods
turn-and-talk determine which of shown in the
about their the partner’s name pre/post

responses to each is longer, and two assessment) objects
question. application that have greater or
10. Collaborative problems. lesser capacity.
practice: Two- Students shall turn-
sided worksheet and-talk about their
in which students responses to each
identify taller question.
objects, animals, 10. Collaborative
or people as well practice: Two-sided
as draw and label worksheet in which
something students identify
shorter than a objects with a
child on one side. greater capacity and
On the other side, draw and label
Students something with less
determine which capacity than a
of the partners is glass of water on
taller, and two the other side of the
application same page. The
problems. back of the two-
sided worksheet
and three
application word
problems.
Differentiat ELL student- use of ELL student- use of ELL student- use of ELL student- use of ELL student- their use
ion hand gestures to hand gestures to hand gestures to hand gestures to of hand gestures to
What are the indicate height; indicate length; indicate capacity; indicate height, length, indicate height, length,
adaptations references back to references back to the references back to the and capacity; references and capacity.
or the anchor chart as anchor chart as needed. anchor chart as needed. back to the anchor chart
modification needed. as needed. Students in the group
s to the Students in the group Students in the group who scored far below
instruction/a Students in the group who scored far below who scored far below Students in the group approaching the
ctivities as who scored far below approaching the approaching the who scored far below learning
determined approaching the learning learning approaching the goal/expectations on the
by the learning goal/expectations on the goal/expectations on the learning pre-assessment shall
student goal/expectations on pre-assessment shall pre-assessment shall goal/expectations on the have more time in

factors or the pre-assessment have more teacher-led have more teacher-led pre-assessment shall which to receive the
individual shall have more comparisons including comparisons including have more teacher-led administration of the
learning? teacher-led comparing pencils, comparing various size comparisons including assessment as needed
comparisons crayons, markers, etc. containers, etc. This comparing realia and since some may be
including comparing This group shall also group shall also have images as needed. slower learners and
chairs, books, have more instructional more instructional time slower performers.
students, etc. This time on the carpet as on the carpet as needed. Multiple learning styles:
group shall also have needed. visuals paper copies of
more instructional Multiple learning styles: the anchor charts used
time on the carpet as Multiple learning styles: visuals using projected in the Smart Notebook
needed. visuals using projected anchor chart and Smart software presentation,
anchor chart and Smart Notebook software kinesthetic learners
Multiple learning Notebook software presentation, kinesthetic benefit from moving
styles: visuals using presentation, kinesthetic learners benefit from and comparing
projected anchor learners benefit from moving around classroom objects, and
chart and Smart moving around comparing classroom auditory benefit from
Notebook software comparing classroom objects, and auditory the repetition of
presentation, objects, and auditory benefit from repeating vocabulary words
kinesthetic learners benefit from the vocabulary words during comparisons.
benefit from moving YouTube video as well during comparisons.
around comparing as repeating vocabulary Students who are
classroom objects, words during Students who are struggling can either be
and auditory benefit comparisons. struggling can either be partnered with someone
from the song in the partnered with someone who demonstrates an
YouTube video as Students who are who demonstrates an understanding or
well as repeating struggling can either be understanding or receives one-on-
vocabulary words partnered with someone receives one-on- one/small group support
during comparisons. who demonstrates an one/small group support from the teacher.
understanding or from the teacher,
Students who are receives one-on- including support on the
struggling can either one/small group support worksheets.
be partnered with from the teacher,
someone who including support on the
demonstrates an worksheets.
understanding or
receives one-on-

one/small group
support from the
teacher, including
support on the
worksheets.
Required  REALIA: Two  REALIA: Objects  REALIA: Objects  REALIA: Objects  Dividers to be
Materials, students of from the classroom from the classroom from the classroom placed between
Handouts, different heights, of various lengths, of various of various lengths, students during the
Text, Two chairs of including crayons capacities, two heights, and assessment
Slides, and different heights,  Yardstick and rulers gallon-size capacities including  Student pencils,
Technology Different objects  Computer, speaker, containers, two some that were seen erasers
from the projector, and large bins of water, in previous lessons  Teacher pen for
classroom with Smart Board; a small glass  A paper copy of the labeling when
different heights access to the fishbowl, a glass of Anchor chart in students are unable
 Computer, internet water (for Smart Notebook to do so
speaker,  Anchor chart in comparison in step software  Copies of the post-
projector, and Smart Notebook 10), two different presentation assessment
Smart Board; software size cups, etc.  Images of different
access to the presentation  Computer, speaker, objects to compare
internet  Smart Notebook projector, and based on height,
 Anchor chart in software Smart Board; length, and
Smart Notebook presentation access to the capacity.
software  Two-sided internet
presentation worksheet  Anchor chart in
 Smart Notebook  Student pencils, Smart Notebook
software erasers software
presentation  Teacher pen for presentation
 Two-sided labeling when  Smart Notebook
worksheet students are unable software
 Student pencils, to do so presentation
erasers  Two-sided
 Teacher pen for worksheet
labeling when  Student pencils,
students are erasers
unable to do so  Teacher pen for
labeling when

students are unable
to do so
Instruction  Background  Background  Background  Background  Background
al and knowledge knowledge portion knowledge portion knowledge portion knowledge portion
Engagemen portion involves involves recalling involves recalling a involves recalling a involves recalling a
t Strategies recalling a recent an event that likely recent event: recent event: use of recent event:
What event: lining up happened as drinking a cup of hand gestures for learning about
strategies for the class students at a table water that left them vocabulary height, length, and
are you picture share crayons still thirsty  Use of realia and capacity.
going to use  YouTube video:  YouTube video:  YouTube video: images  One-on-one
with your Frog Street Short Kermit and Grover Cartoons for Kids:  Collaborative effort question repetition
students to or Tall show short and long Math-Capacity for to compare two for students who
keep them https://www.yout https://www.youtu Children objects in the set of need it as well as
engaged ube.com/watch?v be.com/watch?v=t https://www.youtu realia or pictures. eye-to-eye contact
throughout =Gy2C1wtJJsg& MBaWfdFNKc be.com/watch?v=V  Turn-and-talk with the students.
the unit of t=23s  Collaborative effort pRa5OY-Q-k collaborative talk  The teacher will be
study?  Collaborative to compare two  strategy able to reach the
effort to compare objects in the  Collaborative effort students’ papers
two objects in classroom to compare two and tap on them as
the classroom  Use of technology objects in the needed to refocus
 Use of in which students classroom them.
technology in compare the length  Use of technology
which students  Turn-and-talk in which students
compare height. collaborative talk compare the length
 Turn-and-talk strategy  Turn-and-talk
collaborative talk collaborative talk
strategy strategy
Formative Teacher observations Teacher observations of Teacher observations of Teacher observations of Teacher observations of
Assessment of collaborative collaborative efforts to collaborative efforts to collaborative efforts to student responses to the
s efforts to determine determine which two determine which two determine which two assessment questions as
How are which of two classroom objects classroom objects classroom objects they are written by the
you going to classroom objects selected by students are selected by students are selected by students is students. The teacher
measure the selected by students longer or shorter. greater capacity or longer, shorter, taller, may determine if the
learning of is taller or shorter. lesser capacity. shorter, greater question needs to be
your

students Teacher observations Teacher observations of Teacher observations of capacity, or lesser repeated due to these
throughout of turn-and-talk turn-and-talk responses turn-and-talk responses capacity. formative assessments.
the lesson? responses to Smart to Smart-Board to Smart-Board
Board presentation presentation presentation Teacher observations of
turn-and-talk responses
Student responses on Student responses on Student responses on to use of images and
the two-sided the two-sided worksheet the two-sided worksheet realia.
worksheet
Summative, The summative post-assessment will be given after a short review, day 4, on day 5. The students should be more familiar with
Post- the test question types (designed after the district’s Unit 6 assessment) as well as the content again. The copy of this assessment
Assessment is located above in the section about pre-assessment. The goal is that students will score 80% or more, such as 83% by answering
What post- five out of six questions correctly or 100% with six out of six questions answered correctly.
assessment
will
measure the
learning
progress?
Note: This
can be the
same as the
pre-
assessment
or a
modified
version of it.

STEP Standard 5 - Implementation of Instructional Unit
Implement the unit you have designed including the pre-assessment, all lesson activities,
correlating formative assessments, and summative post-assessment. Choose one of the activities
to video record, review, and reflect on your teaching. Have your cooperating teacher/mentor
review the recording and provide feedback, if possible.
Video Recording Link: The video is in my OneDrive and shared, as well as uploaded to
YouTube at https://youtu.be/pQrMGkvo0BI.
Summary of Unit Implementation:

This mini-unit on measurement began with lessons on height and length. The next two
planned lessons, width and weight, were not implemented in an agreement between myself and
my cooperating teacher as the result of two inclement weather days and the resulting school
closures. The idea of omitting these lessons originated from the lack of questions on the district’s
unit assessment and the fact that there is still one large topic that the students must learn about
using double tens frames and the associated addition prior to the administration of the district’s
unit post-assessment. However, there are numerous assessment questions about capacity, which
inspired me to continue to teach this lesson, which was designed for Friday and delivered on
Friday.
Each of the three days of instruction in this mini-unit followed a distinct pattern: background
knowledge, video, examination of the anchor chart, collaboration/turn-and-talk opportunities
while exploring ideas and comparing realia, use of technology to compare images of items that
are familiar to the students, and collaborative practice. Most of the learning was very guided with
multiple formative assessment observational opportunities. Student collaborative practice of the
skill was observed, and any misconceptions were addressed, with assistance in reasoning or use
of realia to encourage the correct comparisons.
Summary of Student Learning:

Through formative observations, it has been clear that the students progressed through
these lessons. height and length offered little difficulty for the students, perhaps since they are
concrete concepts that are easy to compare. Capacity, however, is more abstract and requires
observation of multiple attributes of an object (height, width, etc.) in determining how much an
object can hold. Students truly seemed to enjoy the lesson due to the use of realia, but some
struggled with noting which object had produced more water in the large measuring cup (gallon-
sized) and then transferring this idea to images on paper. Specifically, it is observed in the video
that three students significantly struggled. One girl struggled during the whole group lesson with
identifying which container had more water. Two individuals, a boy and a girl, as observed in the
video, required guidance to determine which object to draw that had less capacity than a glass of
water. This abstract concept requires either the use of realia for comparison or more opportunity
to explore this concept for some students due to an obvious lack of mastery.

Additionally, it should be noted that the recorded video involved only half of the students
present that day due to two factors: several students had not returned the video recording
permission slip and quite a few students who had returned the slip were absent that day. Thus,
this provided me more time to focus on the learning of the eight students. Unfortunately, I will
admit that this lesson was not as successful as I had intended, perhaps because I was unable to
call to the attention of the students all the other attributes of various objects (due to a lack of
instruction in width) or perhaps the students require more time to practice this content to ensure they
are all proficient in comparing items for capacity. I actually had to administer this lesson to the
other group in a modified format due to a lack of time. The cooperating teacher began teaching
the next week using double tens frames to ensure she was not behind in her district-assigned unit
assessment. I was able to pull some small groups as the cooperating teacher allowed for review
prior to assessment, which was administered in small groups. Prior to administration, the post-
assessment was corrected to only reflect the topics taught: height, length, and capacity. For
proper analysis, the data for the topics not taught were ignored in the pre-assessment data. It
appeared that small group assessment administration may have benefited some students
significantly as a child with the second-lowest score on the pre-assessment actually earned a
perfect score. Additionally, each student who took an assessment demonstrated growth and met
the measurable learning objective by earning an 80% or greater on the post-assessment.
Reflection of Video Recording:

During the observation of the video recording, I observed that there were several factors
that bothered me. First, this recording did not include all the students within the class as several
did not return the GCU permission for video recording permission slips. These students were
placed on computers to complete time for Waterford and iStation, applications that are
traditionally used within the school for remediation and intervention services. These students
continued to speak (including reading aloud), make noises, and engage with the applications as
they wore headphones and were not interacting with others but were fully engaged in their own
learning and activities. This distorted the audio quality of the recorded video as the camera was
closer to the students on computers enabling the visual recording of all students on the carpeted
area for the whole group lesson. Therefore, some students who have quiet voices were difficult
to understand and to compensate, I frequently restated their comments or responses. Perhaps a
future recording will have less background noise.
A second frustration I encountered while viewing the recording is that students were
physically moving and appearing less engaged than would be preferred. Students in this
classroom are not assigned physical spaces, or “blocks”, on the carpet in which to routinely sit.
They are encouraged to sit where they can remain focused and may be moved if there are
distractions. In observing the students, many were not sitting still with their legs crossed. I
cannot be certain if the knowledge of video recording encouraged some movement, if the
inclusion of containers of water within their view was something that was a distraction, or if it
was the change in groupings due to the number of video recording permission slips that were not
returned. Obviously, changes in routine or objects within the classroom environment may serve
as distractions.

A third annoying observation during the lesson is the manner in which the technology did
not work perfectly. I actually love the idea of the use of a smart board in learning. The practical
application of content ideas, which was using photographs or clipart images as the students
would encounter in assessments, can encourage meaningful practice opportunities while
maintaining student engagement. I will admit that I received support from district personnel who
provided me the software that works with the InterWrite board observed in the video recording,
but we were unable to get the board to align with the computer, so lines were properly placed
which resulted in some student struggle, even though they enjoyed the use of the board.
My cooperating teacher and I observed that the lesson was also quite long. She suggested
shortening the time I spent with the anchor chart discussing capacity and fewer
pictures/questions in the presentation. Since I was quite focused on delivering the best lesson
possible, timing became an issue. I was unable to deliver the same lesson to the other group of
eight students the same day. This resulted in delivering the lesson to these students the following
Monday while the group of students observed in the video used the computers to further their
learning. It appears that this lesson could have been split over more than one day or shortened as
the students seem to have generally understood. More focus time could have been spent on
focusing on one-to-one learning during the collaborative practice activity. It can be noted that
most students demonstrated an understanding and those who did not understand benefited from
the use of realia, as well as some future review time in a small group setting, which occurred the
next week.
Otherwise, I will admit that the students seemed to enjoy their use of realia. Student
engagement seemed highest at this point as the students were using their own hands touching
realia and comparing the amounts of water placed in the gallon-sized containers. Although this
lesson was not quite as ideal as I had envisioned, the students did seem to walk away with the
general understanding of capacity, with some students still struggling with an abstract concept,
when they had not ever been exposed to this concept in an educational setting.

STEP Standard 6 - Analysis of Student Learning
Post-Test Data: Whole Class - Once you have assessed your students’ learning on the topic, collect and
analyze the post-test data to determine the effectiveness of your instruction and assessment.
Number of Students Number of Students
Pre-Test Post-Test
Exceeds
(90% to 100%) 0 8
Meets
(80% to 89%) 0 9
Approaches
(50% to 79%) 9 0
Falls Far Below

(0% to 49%) 6 0
Individual Student pre-assessment and post-assessment data is available on page 38 of this

document. It should also be noted that one student was absent during the post-assessment dates
while others were absent from class during the pre-assessment were present. The students present
for the post-assessment are included in the count above but none of these students can truly be
counted during the analysis of score increase or decrease.
Post-Test Analysis: Whole Class
Based on student scores on the post-assessment either meeting or exceeding expectations, it

can be concluded that students did attain an understanding of comparing objects and images of
objects based on height, weight, and capacity. In fact, the student who scored second lowest on
the pre-assessment, L.C., became proficient in her understanding and scored a perfect score on
the assessment. While examining the individual student data, reflecting upon which questions
were answered correctly and incorrectly, it is noted that all of the seventeen students were able to
draw and label or orally label an object with greater height than they had, identify the tallest cake
as the best choice for a large party, and use vocabulary to indicate why they chose the tallest cake
for the party. One student struggled with identifying, drawing, and labeling a container with less
capacity than a gallon of milk. The student, A.M., who missed this question named a sink and
was absent during the lesson on capacity. Three students, R.B., S.G.M., and J.W., incorrectly
responded to the question about the erasers of equal length. The first two students were absent
during this lesson as R.B. was absent from school and S.G.M. was with the ESOL teacher. J.W.’s
incorrect response cannot be explained as she is one of the students who excels in math with the
cooperating teacher. Finally, the question that was most challenging was the question of greater
length involving the bathtub and vehicle. Perhaps many of these students were confused by the
pictures and did not associate it with realia or they have little experience with a car since many of
the students are from low-income homes and walk to school. Despite this, the final scores on the
post-assessment document learning and when compared to the pre-assessment results, there is a
definite increase in the number of correct responses to each question.

One can conclude that the instruction I delivered was effective as the student scores
significantly increased and met the expectation detailed in the learning objective for the mini-unit.
It appears that many students benefited from the hands-on learning activities that were built into
the lesson plans as they were able to associate the images of the objects in some questions with
realia used during the lessons. I saw smiles on several students faces and even one whispered that
they remembered the object during the reading of the assessment. It may be further noted that I
saw a student using the same hand gestures that I used during instruction while processing the
question during the assessment administration. Thus, the use of vocabulary, as assessed by the
last question, and the use of the hand gestures by the one student indicates the vocabulary became
familiar and was retained. The significant increase in the student scores overall documents their
learning.
Post-Assessment Analysis: Subgroup Selection
The subgroup selected for more intense focus is the students who are working on social-
emotional development noted in the Standard I, Part II, Section C portion of this document.
Ideally, the selection of the ELL population would have been a better selection. However, this
class only has one ELL student who was with the ESOL teacher during the pre-assessment
administration. Therefore, the data on this subgroup is incomplete. (It may be noted that this
student’s score did meet the measurable objective’s expectation.) The population of students
working on social-emotional development involves one male and three female students who each
took the pre-assessment and post-assessment.
Post-Assessment Data: Subgroup (Gender, ELL population, Gifted, students on IEPs or 504s, etc.)

Pre-Test Post-Test
Exceeds
(90% to 100%) 0 3
Meets
(80% to 89%) 0 1
Approaches
(50% to 79%) 2 0
Falls Far Below

(0% to 49%) 2 0
Post-Assessment Analysis: Subgroup
The students in this subgroup could easily be distracted by their social and emotional
situations. This group’s issues did not seem to negatively impact their learning. In fact, the
students who scored far below the expectation on the pre-assessment at 33%, C-B.C. and L.N.,
one female and one male, went on to score 83% and 100% respectively. The female missed the
question in which she had to circle the object of greater length, a car or a bathtub. This is not too
alarming as this is the most missed question on the post-assessment. The two other girls, R. H.
and Z. L., whose pre-assessment score was in the approaching portion of the assessment scale

proceeded to score 100% on the post-assessment and move into the exceeding expectations
portion of the assessment scale. Therefore, neither student missed a single question and proceeded
to demonstrate mastery of the same questions with which they missed in the pre-assessment. Each
of the students in the subgroup demonstrated a clear conceptual understanding as documented by
the post-assessment scores which either met or exceeded the assessment score detailed in the
measurable objective for the mini-unit.
Since each of the students in this subgroup met or exceeded the 80% score expressed in the
measurable objective, it is clear that the lesson delivery was effective. The only concern was with
the female, C-B. C., who missed a single question that was missed by four other students in the
class, it may be concluded that there is the potential that some of the students were unable to
associate the images with real objects they could encounter in their lives outside of school or they
have a lack of exposure to one or both of the items, a car or a bathtub, within the question. It is
unclear which of these may have impacted this student. Perhaps in future encounters with this
question, the objects may be changed such that the realia used in the associated lesson may be
introduced. Additionally, continued work on this concept could occur in a small group to provide
the students with more insight into the lengths of objects, especially the ones they can only see in
images or help them make connections between objects outside the classroom and images of
those same objects. Although there is clear evidence that this subgroup’s scores document
learning, there is always room for a teacher to improve the craft and reach each student
effectively.
Post-Assessment Data: Remainder of Class

Pre-Test Post-Test
Exceeds
(90% to 100%) # 5
Meets
(80% to 89%) # 8
Approaches
(50% to 79%) 7 #
Falls Far Below

(0% to 49%) 4 #
Post-Assessment Analysis: Subgroup and Remainder of Class
The subgroup, three females and one male receiving social-emotional development support
through pull-out services, appears to have scored similarly to the remainder of the class as both
groups met the expectations detailed in the measurable objective for the mini-unit. Ironically,
more of the students in the subgroup exceeded the expectation, three, versus those who met the
expectations, one student. Within the remainder of the class, however, more students, eight, met
the expectation versus the five who exceeded the expectation on the post-assessment. Even though
it can be noted that the ratios of meeting the expectation versus exceeding the expectation are not

the same, it should be noted that there have been no students whose scores demonstrate
approaching nor falling below the expectations. Therefore, it may be concluded that the
instruction delivered to the students was effective in educating them regarding height, length, and
capacity as well as the understanding and use of the associated vocabulary.
Based on the content of this instructional mini-unit and the post-assessment scores of this
class, there would be two instructional steps that could be pursued. The first could be an
expansion of the unit to include width and weight. The objective of such another mini-unit, which
is based on the same Maryland Mathematics standard would include students being able to
compare objects based on the measurable attributes of width and weight to determine which is
wider, narrower, heavier, or lighter with 80% proficiency rate. This expansion could set the
students up for further learning in the next idea for instructional progress.
The next step I would consider with this group of students based on their progress in this
content would be to introduce measurement by comparing the object to non-standard units of
measure. This content, based on Maryland Mathematics standards, is a first-grade concept. The
standard would be: 1.MD.A.2 Express the length of an object as a whole number of length units,
by laying multiple copies of a shorter object (the length unit) end to end; understand that the
length measurement of an object is the number of same-size length units that span it with no gaps
or overlaps. Limit to contexts where the object being measured is spanned by a whole number of
length units with no gaps or overlaps. (source:
http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/share/frameworks/CCSC_Math_gr1.pdf). The lessons for this
unit of study would include measuring the measurable attributes of different objects initially using
snap cubes. The measurable objective would indicate that students would be able to measure the
length, height, width, weight, and capacity of objects using full snap cubes with an 80% efficacy
rate. I fully believe that with some quality instruction and adequate practice time, these students
could easily reach this measurable objective’s expectations.

Individual Student Pre-Assessment Data
(X indicates a question is answered correctly.)
Pre-test Post-test
Studen #1 #2 #3 #6 #8a #8b Studen #1 #2 #3 #4 #5a #5b Stude Change
t More Less Greater Identify Identify Explain t Score More Less Great Identi Identify Explain nt in
Initials height capacit length same tall choice height capacit er fy tall choice of Score Percenta
y length cake of y length same cake cakes ge
for a cakes length for a
large large
party party
R.B. X 17% X X X X X 83% +66%
L.C. X X 33% X X X X X X 100% +67%
C-B.C. X X 33% X X X X X 83% +50%
C.C. X X X X 67% X X X X X X 100% +33%
M.G. X X X 50% X X X X X 83% +33%
S.G-M. With With X X X X X 83% N/A
(ELL ESOL ESOL
student teach teacher
) er
0% Absen Absent
N.H. t
P.J. X X X 50% X X X X X X 100% +50%
M.K. X X X 50% X X X X X 83% +33%
Abse Absent X X X X X 83% N/A
S.L. nt
Z.L. X X X X 67% X X X X X X 100% +33%
Abse Absent X X X X X 83% N/A
A.M. nt
L.N. X X 33% X X X X X X 100% +67%
J.R. X X X 50% X X X X X 83% +33%
K.R. X X X 33% X X X X X X 100% +67%
J.W. X X X 50% X X X X X 83% +33%
R.H. X X X X 67% X X X X X X 100% +33%
(new
student
)
S.D. X X X 50% X X X X X X 100% +50%
(new
student
)
Average
Change
+46.29%
Avera based on
Averag
ge individua
e
11/15 2/15 9/15 5/15 13/15 0/15 17/17 16/17 12/17 14/17 17/17 17/17 Stude l scores;
Totals Studen
73% 13% 60% 33% 87% 0% 100% 94% 71% 82% 100% 100% nt Average
t Score
Score Student
43.33%
91% Score
Change
+47.67%
Students in the social-emotional support group which is a subgroup of this class of students

STEP Standard 7 – Reflecting on Instruction to Improve Student
Progress
Improved Practice Based on the Unit of Study
Based on the experience of developing and delivering your instructional unit, list three short-
term goals to improve specific areas of your teaching practice based on the unit of instruction
and describe your plan to reach each short-term goal.
Plan to Reach the Goal (i.e., professional

Short-Term Goal development, research on the Internet,
observation of a veteran teacher, etc.)
1. Examine available materials at the Partnership with the Early Learning Center
school and make use of all available and asking more questions of the cooperating
materials in instructing the students. teacher shall provide me further information
about what is available for use to ensure all
students benefit to the highest extent from
each lesson.
2. Become more familiar with all forms Professional development opportunities to

of technology that can be used in the learn to make the InterWrite Board and
classroom. Smart Notebook application fully integrated
shall be a priority. Additionally, the
kindergarten teachers have access to iPods
that I wanted to integrate into lessons, but I
was waiting to receive training which was
being organized at the end of my clinical
practice placement in kindergarten.
3. Boost my own self-confidence and Through further experience and becoming

seek learning opportunities that are more familiar with a class of students as well
outside the traditional box to make as positive feedback from administration, I
learning more meaningful to hope my self-confidence will be increased. I
encourage retention for students. will then become more willing to take
learning beyond looking at a book and
writing for the students. I would even
consider professional development sessions
that encourage creative teaching to make
students more successful.

References
AreaVibes, Inc. (n.d.). Temple Hills, MD Housing. Retrieved from
http://www.areavibes.com/temple hills-md/housing/
Data USA. (n.d. a). Temple Hills, MD. Retrieved from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/temple-
hills-md/
Data USA. (n.d. b). Prince Georges County, MD. Retrieved from
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/prince-george's-county-md/
Distance Between Cities. (2018). Distance from Temple Hills, Maryland to Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://www.distance-cities.com/distance-temple-hills-md-to-washington-
dc
Google. (2018). Google Maps: Temple Hills, Maryland. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Temple+Hills,+MD/@38.8105512,-
76.9566929,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b7bb95267764b3:0x6b8f7193d48fb00a!8m2!3d
38.8140024!4d-76.9455296

Maryland State Department of Education. (n.d.). Demographics: Prince George's County--
Samuel Chase Elementary. Retrieved from
http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Demographics.aspx?K=161216&WDATA=School#
ENROLLMENTgrade3all
Prince George's County Maryland Government. (n.d.). About PGC. Retrieved from
https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/1782/About-PGC
Prince George's County Public Schools. (2016, October 16). Facts and Figures. Retrieved from
http://www.pgcps.org/facts-and-figures/
Prince George’s County Public Schools. (n.d.). Prince George’s County Public Schools.
Retrieved from www.pgcps.org
United States Census Bureau. (n.d. a). Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
United States Census Bureau. (n.d. b). Hispanic or Latino by Type: 2010. Retrieved from
United States Census Bureau. (n.d. c). Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010. Retrieved from

Step Template

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Step Template

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Student Teaching Evaluation of Performance (STEP)

Grand Canyon University: ECH-485

March 11, 2018-April 8, 2018

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 1 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 2 of 41

Part I: Community, District, School, and Classroom Factors

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 3 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 4 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 5 of 41

Part II: Demographic, Environment, and Academic Factors

C. Student Academic Factors

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 6 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 7 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 8 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 9 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 10 of 41

Unit Topic: Measurement

National or State Academic Content Standards

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 11 of 41

Name _________________________________________________ Date ________________________

3. Which object has a greater length? Circle your answer.

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 12 of 41

5b. Explain why you chose this answer.

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 13 of 41

Data Analysis/Categorization Criteria:

Pre-Assessment Data: Whole Class -

Exceeds (90% to 100%) 0

Meets (80% to 89%) 0

Approaches (50% to 79%) 9

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 14 of 41

Unit Topic: Measurement

Unit Title: Measurement Vocabulary and Direct Comparison

National or State Academic Content Standard

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 15 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 16 of 41

Name ________________________________________________ Date ________________________

3. Which object has a greater length? Circle your answer.

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 17 of 41

5b. Explain why you chose this answer.

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 18 of 41

Data Analysis/Categorization Criteria:

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 19 of 41

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 20 of 41

Academic Measurement/Measu Measurement/Measure Measurement/Measure Measurement/Measure Measurement/Measure

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 21 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 22 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 23 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 24 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 25 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 26 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 27 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 28 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 29 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 30 of 41

Summary of Unit Implementation:

Summary of Student Learning:

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 31 of 41

Reflection of Video Recording:

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 32 of 41

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 33 of 41

Falls Far Below

Individual Student pre-assessment and post-assessment data is available on page 38 of this

Name _________________________ Date

Name ________________________ Date