Professional Documents
Culture Documents
100.0%
95.0%
95.0%
95.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
85.0%
85.0%
85.0%
85.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
80.0%
70.0%
75.0%
75.0%
65.0%
65.0%
60.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
20.0%
10.0%
20.0%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
10.0%
10.0% 10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C1
0.0%
A1
0.0%
C2
0.0%
E1
0.0%
A2 C3 E2 B1 A3 B2 D1 B3 B4 A4 E3 E4 B5 D2 E5 D3 C4 A5 C5 D4 D5
Pre%
Post%
The pre and post-assessment results indicate that the students in this fourth
grade science class increased their understanding of forces that shape the
Earths surface. The students scored 84.6% on the post-assessment which is
an increase of 75.4 points from the average pre-assessment score of 9.2%.
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
9.2%
Pre %
Post %
92.0%
88.0%
84.0%
80.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Pre-Assessment
Post-Assessment
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%LG1
0.0%LG2
0.0%LG3
0.0%LG4
students who did not master all four learning goals with at-home connections
and small-group instruction to continue to cover these concepts and provide
practice opportunities for the students. In future units, I plan on writing in a
day after the post-assessment to reinforce student learning and to fill in any
gaps of understanding for students who may not have mastered all of the
learning goals. I did not do this for this lesson and feel that the 20 minutes
that I allotted myself to cover any questions that students had regarding the
test was not sufficient or productive.
72.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
24.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Post-Assessment
Mastery of No LGs Mastery of Some LGs Mastery of All LGs
Additionally, this data indicates that there was significant progress made for each
learning goal. The students cumulative scores increased between 71.2 and 80 points per
learning goal from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment. I do think this difference is quite
remarkable and have to question its validity. I did ask for input from my cooperating teacher
regarding these results. We concluded that one factor that was not taken into consideration is
that the students are not routinely given pre-assessments before a unit. In other words, they may
have purposefully bombed this first test. Still, there are other factors to consider as well. Such
as, similar wording between pre and post-assessments, repition of material over the eight
lessons, and familiarity with me and my teaching and testing style by the time this unit postassessment was delivered.
90.0%
84.0%
85.6%
83.2%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Pre %
Post %
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
5.6%
LG1
8.0%
LG2
12.0%
LG3
11.2%
LG4
The one student that did not master any of the learning goals is a
student with an active emotional/behavioral disability and specific learning
disability for reading and writing. This student did require redirection during
each lesson and was supported by another student with reading and writing
work. Initially, the groups that the cooperating teacher had assigned to each
student seemed to contribute to his lack of attention and focus. On day five,
I did switch these pre-assigned groups and formed groups that I felt would
contribute to the overall success of each student. This students new group
was comprised of three students of equal abilities, was moved to the very
front of the room, and I was able to oversee and interact with this group
much more often than where they were previously located. Unfortunately, I
did not think that I made this switch soon enough to fully benefit this
student. However, on the formative assessments for the last few days of the
unit, this students work was done carefully and he showed understanding. I
feel that if this student were allowed to continue to work with this new group
of students, and located much closer to the front of the room, then he may
show improvement on assessments.
89.1%
75.0%
11.5%
4.4%
Students w/ No Disability
Pre %
Students w/ a Disability
Post %
E1 and C2 are the students that only mastered one of the four learning
goals. C2 does receive special education for both math and reading, but E1
is in the classroom for the whole day. C2 works at a fairly consistent pace
and completes tasks on time with support in reading. He pays attention and
shows perseverance on challenging assignments. E1 typically rushes
through the assignments and does not complete the tasks with quality in
mind. He typically does not pay attention while the lab is being
demonstrated and therefore is unable to follow directions when working
independently or within a group. Moreover, he interrupts the lesson with
inappropriate comments and noises and is unwilling to put forth his best
effort on assignments.
C2 struggled significantly in the written and reading portion of each
lesson. In retrospect, I feel I should have front-loaded each lesson with
vocabulary building exercises specific for his skill level as an alternate
activity to the other bell-ringer activities. I feel that reading the questions
and answers to him during the test was not a significant enough
modification. If I had focused solely on bridging the gap of understanding
scientific language with this student, he may have scored better on the postassessment. Had E1s behavior and attention been more consistent and had
he been able to separate social and work time better, he may not have
struggled nearly as much as he did. I have been able to watch him perform
during the early portion of the day far better than towards the end of the
day. He is very productive during reading and math in the morning, but after
lunch his stamina decreases and this directly effects his productivity and
focus. I did administer his science test to him before lunch and I feel that
this was a good choice because he was able to score proficiencies in three
10
out of the four learning goals. Looking back, I think that he could have
benefitted from deep breathing exercises right before the start of class as a
way to help him maintain focus at the end of the school day.
Subgroups: Students with and without Disabilities
The subgroups that I will detail are students with a disability and
students without a disability. 88.2% of the students without a disability
mastered all four of the learning goals whereas only 37.5% of the student
with a disability were able to master all of the learning goals. Additionally,
none of the students without a disability were unable to master any of the
learning goals, whereas 12.5% of the students with a disability could not
master any of the learning goals. Students of all backgrounds and abilities
have a need to learn and be included in learning science skills. I had thought
that I planned for the challenges this may present by writing in specific
accommodations for the unit. I feel that I could have arranged time within
the school day to further assist these students comprehend this science unit.
I think more one-on-one time with this group may have benefitted them as a
whole. Although, I did have small learning groups within the science class,
this time was primarily used for the active lab portion of the lesson. I do not
wish to take this activity away from any group, but this time may have been
used more efficiently had I covered the terms and concepts more
aggressively with this group. So, for future lessons, I may provide additional
diagrams and graphics for the key terms at this time to this group of
students to ensure that they comprehend the concept. They were able to
11
successfully complete the lab, but were less able than the students without a
disability to correlate that lab activity to the science concept.
88.2%
50.0%
37.5%
11.8%
0.0%
Students w/ No Disability
12.5%
Students w/ a Disability
The chart below shows the three main groupings that the cooperating
teacher uses to structure her lessons. Group one contains all students with
active disabilities, group two are students who are at-level learners in both
math and language arts, and group three contains students who are more
advanced learners in either math or language arts. What stands out to me is
the significant difference between complete mastery of all the Learning
Goals by these three different groups. Less than half of the students with a
disability mastered all of the learning goals, whereas all of the advanced
learners mastered every learning goal. For this reason, I would like to
partner advanced learners with the students with disabilities to see if this
pairing of students benefitted each to master all of the learning goals.
12
100.0%
81.8%
18.2%
0.0%
#2
0.0% 0.0%
#3
13
also have to adapt my instruction in ways that are meaningful and effective.
Reviewing the pre and post-assessment results for these two groups helps
me be accountable by using a systematic method to produce the results that
I would hope my whole class is able to achieve.
89.1%
75.0%
11.5%
4.4%
Students w/ No Disability
Pre %
Students w/ a Disability
Post %
14
issues such as ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Anxiety. C1, A1 and
C2 receive special education classes
95.0%
90.0%
80.0%
75.0%
70.0%
60.0%
65.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
85.0%
65.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
C1
0.0%
A1
0.0%
C2
0.0%
E1
Pre%
0.0%
A2
10.0%
10.0%
A4
E3
A3
C4
Post%
15
having common items (pencils, erasers, etc.). E1 does not take his time
doing his work and does not demonstrate understanding of the concepts by
asking and answering appropriate questions. The following are pictures of
some of the formative assessments that were used for this unit.
The cooperating teacher does not record grades for formative
assessments for science. Therefore, there are no scores indicated on the top
of these assessments. I provided comments and feedback to the students
and offered additional support where comprehension was lacking. Typically,
there was not enough class time to review these assessments on the same
day. So, as a transition between bell-ringer and new material learning time, I
did review these assessments with the with the whole class. The first 10
images are of D5. This students work was accurate, neat and completed in
a timely manner. The next nine images are of E1s work. Frequently there
are omissions, errors, and sloppy work. The only assessment that was
completely accurate is LG 2.1. For this lesson, the students were given a
homework sheet to complete over the weekend. I do feel that the support
that his parents provided for this homework assignment aided in his
accomplishing this task with success.
The cooperating teacher discourages homework on weekends and only
gives assignments for math and reading. However, I do see that with this
student in particular, it may be beneficial to schedule a meeting with his
parents to ask for suggestions and ways to continue to review and cover the
material at home. I am confident that if they were able to assist with short
16
homework pages that this student would see better results. Of course, this
may not work with all students and would have to be done in a delicate
manner, but I see a huge difference between the work that is completed
during class time and that which is completed at home, that I cannot see a
downside to providing additional supports to the parents for in the home.
D5 scored the highest score on the post-assessment. He successfully
completed all assignments and demonstrated a true passion for this unit. He
also was able to research the effects of erosion on North Shore, Hawaii and
present a short report on his discoveries a different class. E1 scored the
lowest score for students who were not given any accommodations during
the post-assessment. E1 did meet the criterion to master three out of the
four learning goals on the post assessment, but I am concerned that his
performance during the class time is not at the level that he is capable of
demonstrating.
Student D5s Formative Assessments
17
On the back of D5s sheet, he matched the correct mineral to the ones he
was given. He also included a complete sentence to describe his thought
process.
18
19
20
D5 filled in a three column chart to include all three ways rocks are formed.
21
22
D5 created a cartoon that indicates wind, water and glacier erosion. The
pictures are clear representations of the type of erosion and the sentences
that he included are accurate.
23
D5 created a graph to show erosion with chalk. He labeled both axis and
highlighted the points on his line graph.
24
25
26
27
D5 wrote a very detailed description of plate movement and how that affects
the Earths Surface.
28
E1 did not complete the chart. Additionally, he did not identify three
properties of minerals. On the side he wrote an analysis of the minerals, but
failed to correctly match any mineral.
E1 did not complete this report. The information in the report was not
accurate.
29
30
E1 did not use complete sentences to identify the three types of rocks. He
also gave partially complete answers.
31
32
E1 selected wind and water erosion, but failed to provide clear graphics to
indicate how this type of erosion effects landforms. Additionally, there are no
sentences written that indicate understanding of this type of erosion.
On this graph, E1 did not label his axis. So, Im unable to see exactly what
he needs help with on this lab. Had he been looking at the chalk and its
33
34
erosion pattern, the graph would descend, had he been looking at the rocks,
the graph would be in a straight line.
It appears to me that E1 did not take his time to complete this activity. His
answers are in alphabetical order which means that he did not correctly
match any of the items for volcanoes.
35
E1 was able to identify how plates move but did not indicate what type of
destructive force was created by that type of plate movement.
36
37
Summarized Reflection
There are two main differences between how I presented these
learning goals and how my cooperating teacher has indicated that she and
the other fourth grade teachers present learning goals for science. First, the
fourth grade team never presents a pre-assessment before beginning a
lesson and second, none of the fourth grade teachers would ever spend as
much time on the learning goals. Typically, two learning goals are covered in
one lesson, whereas I gave each learning goal at least two lessons to cover
the materials. I am interested in determining if the approach that I have
learned at the University of Phoenix results in higher demonstration of
mastery of learning goals, but for that I may have to wait until I get my own
classroom. I say this because after I saw the scores of the pre-assessment, I
was concerned that I would not be able to effectively communicate the
learning goals to the students. The pre-assessment scores did push me to
emphasize certain vocabulary terms and other content that I knew would be
important for mastering the learning goals.
Overall, I think that the students scored very well on their post
assessment. Most of the students seemed to enjoy the lab activities that I
selected to cover the content. The feedback from the formative assessments
was very useful in helping me know how much time to give on reviews of
some material. I do think that in the future I will plan on allotting an extra
38
day after the post-assessment to help any student who still may have issues
with the learning goals.