1.  Entire class

a. Analyze what the graphic representation in part A1a indicates about class progress in student learning based on pre- and post-assessment data (i.e., the number of students meeting the criterion).

I utilized an electronic, self-grading pre-assessment that aggregates and analyzes student performance automatically.  This is a powerful and highly effective method of assessing students when each assessment question has only one correct answer.  27 of my 31 students took the pre-assessment. Four students were absent.  There were six questions on the pre-assessment.  Students needed to answer four of the six questions correctly in order to receive a passing grade. 

Only one student achieved a 100% on the pre-assessment.  Only four students achieved a passing grade.  Out of a possible 6 points, the average student received 3 points (2.85 points under the electronic scoring system I utilized).  On average, students were able to select the correct response to half of the pre-assessment questions. 

In my formative assessment data collection system, I use red, yellow, and green to represent student performance in specific areas. I am presenting color-coded performance graphs derived from my formative assessment data to represent students’ level of mastery on each individual learning goal throughout the unit.  This system is highly effective in analyzing formative assessment data.  With green and red as visually familiar codes for “go” and “stop”, yellow gives me the freedom to quickly note student performance that indicates partial mastery in an area, or is otherwise indicative of a need for reflection and modification of my teaching strategies, a conference with the student, or further action based on my notes.

For the purpose of analyzing my graphs, students whose level of mastery rating is yellow are students who demonstrated a substantive level of mastery, but for many possible reasons were flagged as “could do better”.  These students may have failed to complete independent practice, but the work they completed indicates that they had at least an entry level of mastery of the goal.  Their performance was above failing but below a grade of B-.

The graphs clearly demonstrate a class trend toward higher and higher levels of mastery as we completed each lesson in the unit. 60.7% of students fully mastered the goal for lesson one, with another 28.6% demonstrating partial mastery.  10.7% did not demonstrate mastery of that lesson goal.  After the second lesson, full mastery increased to 66.7%. Lack of mastery decreased to 3.3%.  The partial mastery category widened to 30%.  A trend toward a higher level of mastery is evident.

By the end of lesson 3, students who demonstrated full mastery increased to 80%.  Students who did not demonstrate mastery remained unchanged at 3.3%, while students who only demonstrated partial mastery decreased to 16.8%. 

Using my formative assessment data, I was able to reflect and to adjust my instruction to engage students at a higher level.  I learned what speaks to them.  I observed the way they interact with peers.  I considered their individual needs and worked to meet those needs through carefully planned instruction.

Lesson 4 showed an interesting trend in student mastery.  This was the lesson in which the highest percentage of students, 90.3%, demonstrated full mastery with another 6.5% who demonstrated partial mastery.  This was the one lesson in which students completed independent practice on their Chromebooks.  Overall student engagement was remarkably higher during independent practice.  Students were ready to take a break from pencil and paper independent activities.  They had fun working on subject-verb agreement.  The BrainPop.com tools were both engaging and highly effective.  This is telling, as it is a testament to the positive impact of effective use of technology in engaging students at a deeper level.  This deeper level of engagement results in a higher level of student mastery of the goals when utilized by a reflective and prepared professional teacher.

The data associated with lesson 5 is, perhaps, the most crucial in gauging overall mastery of this unit of study.  Independent practice time for lesson 5 was when students wrote their final essay.  80.6% of students demonstrated mastery, with another 9.7% who demonstrated partial mastery.  I noted a remarkable decrease in overall engagement from lesson 4 in which we used Chromebooks, to lesson 5 in which we returned to pencil and paper. 

I have reflected upon many facets of this unit, including the student data and my own performance.  I used a very fair and objective rubric to assess the final essays and assign grades. This is an important aspect of grading a writing assignment, where students are not demonstrating mastery through a summative assessment in which they answer questions with only one correct answer.  However, the most fair and complete rubric or summative assessment cannot measure many important factors that impact student performance at any given time.  Often the actions and choices of two or three students in the classroom have a substantial impact on the performance of other students in the classroom.  Whether or not a student took their medication on time, if a student is feeling ill, attendance, and a whole host of other factors have a remarkable impact on the quality of work a student produces at any given time. 

I chose the topic for the narrative essay students would write.  I had come to know these students well enough to understand that their diverse and substantial array of needs and abilities would present unnecessary complications if I left topic selection to the discretion of these 31 students individually.  I had evidence to support the topic I selected as engaging to the majority of students in this group.  However, in reflecting upon students’ final essays I came to realize that the topic I chose was more conducive to writing a process essay than a personal narrative.  My hope was that students would write about the experience they were having in this very engaging cooperative learning science unit. What I discovered is that students felt most comfortable giving a step-by-step account of what they had accomplished.  Given that I chose the topic for them, I needed to make allowances for this as I assessed their level of mastery of the goals. 

What I learned about these students in the 12 weeks I spent teaching them is that the majority are much more comfortable writing about processes, as opposed to reflecting upon and describing their experiences.  The majority of these students do not have the vocabulary inventory and base skillset that is required to produce an eloquent and descriptive writing piece.  I provided students with a comprehensive list of adjectives as a layer of support in our quest to “show not tell” in our writing.  I found that a great many of these grade-level appropriate adjectives were words that these students could not define or use in a sentence.  In using my rubric to assess and assign a grade to their final essay, I needed to consider their abilities as individuals, the goals of the unit, and the level of growth they demonstrated from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment. 

2.  Subgroups

a. Analyze a group characteristic (e.g., gender, performance level, socioeconomic status, language proficiency) in terms of one learning goal.

I selected students who are English Language Learners as well as students with other recognized learning needs to analyze as a subgroup.  I provided analysis for this group of “students requiring differentiation”.  I also provided a subset of data for this group broken down into “ELL Students Receiving Services” and “Other Learning Needs”.  Students in the “Other Learning Needs” category do not have IEPs.  They may or may not be medicated.  They may or may not receive counseling services.  They may or may not have a 504 plan.  They do not receive push-in services in the classroom.  This is contrasted by the group of “ELL Students Receiving Services”, in which every student receives push-in service from an ELL Paraprofessional daily, receives extended time on state mandated tests, and are pulled from the classroom for administration of state tests by the Language Assistance Program. These tests are administered to these students in a small group environment, with other ELL students who have no other documented learning needs.

The learning goal in lesson five was “Students will understand the role of a topic a sentence and a conclusion in writing a personal narrative.”  In the analysis of the subgroup “Students Requiring Differentiation”, 73.3% demonstrated full mastery of the objective.  13.3% demonstrated partial mastery, and 13.3 percent did not demonstrate mastery. 

When looking at the two subsets within this group, a different trend emerges.  In the group “ELL Students Receiving Services”, students either mastered the goal or they did not master the goal.  There was not a partial level of mastery demonstrated.  83.3% demonstrated full mastery of the goal, while 16.7% did not master the goal.  For clarity, only one student in this subset did not demonstrate mastery of the goal. 

In the group “Other Learning Needs”, 66.7% of students demonstrated full mastery of the goal.  Another 22.2% demonstrated partial mastery.  11.1% did not demonstrate mastery of the goal.  For clarity, only one student in this subset did not demonstrate mastery.  Two of these student demonstrated partial mastery.

b. Justify your selection of this group characteristic.

The group “Students Requiring Differentiation” constitutes 48.4% of my class.  Fifteen of my thirty-one students have some type of learning need.  Six are ELL students.  Nine speak English as their first language, but have a wide variety of other documented needs that require: a) medication; b) modification to instruction and/or the learning environment; c) counseling and a behavior plan during the school day.  Each of these nine students fits into at least two of those categories.

It is vital to look at the data for these student separately in order to reflect upon the quality and impact of differentiation in my lessons.  These are the students for whom differentiated instruction makes or breaks their educational experience in every lesson.  It is important to have a thorough understanding of things I can control, and circumstances that are beyond my control as their teacher.  This is another valuable aspect of reflecting upon the data for this subgroup.

c. Analyze what the data from the graphic representation in part A2a indicate about student learning.

In analyzing students who require differentiation, I noted that a smaller percentage of students demonstrated mastery or partial mastery of the goal when compared to the group as whole.  In this subgroup, 73.3% mastered the goal and 13.3% showed partial mastery.  Overall, 4% fewer students in this subgroup showed at least some measurable level of mastery, even with differentiation in the lesson plan.  This caused me to reflect upon my performance as their teacher.  Did I do everything that is within my control to facilitate mastery of the learning goals?  At the time these students took the pre-assessment I had been a student teacher in their classroom for two weeks.  For one week I was an observer.  For the second week I was teaching them for about 90 minutes a day.  Would I have been more effective if I had more experience with these specific students?  I considered factors that are beyond my control such as level of language acquisition, proper medication regimens, poverty factors, behavior challenges, and the ways in which the level of support for some of these students expanded and changed throughout the time I spent in this classroom after I taught this unit.

By dividing this subgroup into the two subsets, I was able to see that differentiation I design specifically for ELL students impacted their level of mastery with a higher degree of effectiveness.  These students have tested and diagnosed learning needs.  They have a staff member assigned to provide planned, consistent, daily support to help them meet learning goals.  A large portion of that support is provided to these students in their classroom.  In this unit of study, those students were receiving that daily support during independent practice for this unit of study.  83.3% of the ELL subset demonstrated full mastery of the goal, as contrasted by the subset of students with other learning needs, in which 66.7% demonstrated full mastery of the goal.

This data seems to show that students whose learning needs are not fully diagnosed, fully documented, and fully supported suffer academically.  Among the nine students in this subset are students who have substantial behavior challenges that frequently disrupt learning for every student in this class.  One student has medication prescribed but it is never administered; therefore, the state will not approve the IEP he desperately needs.  Three are medicated on a tight regimen, but for two of those the medication wears off and must be re-administered throughout the school day.  One of those has a 504 plan that stipulates extra time to complete work.  However, I have never observed a scenario in which allocating extra time for this student to complete work has facilitated a higher level of mastery.  Another student who does not take medication has a 504 plan that stipulates extra time to complete work.  As with the medicated student with the same stipulation, I have never observed a scenario in which allocating extra time for this student to complete work has facilitated a higher level of mastery.  This student did not demonstrate mastery of the goals for this unit.  I spent extra time with him.  I encouraged him.  I provided him with layers of support and differentiation throughout the unit.  There was not a measured impact upon his assessed level of mastery, despite substantial differentiation and support from me. 

3.  Selected individuals

a. Discuss the two students selected in part A3a who demonstrate different levels of performance.

I have selected “Student A”, the student I discussed in the last paragraph of section A.2.c., who is not medicated and has a 504 plan stipulating extra time to complete work.  I have selected “Student B”, a higher ability student with no known learning needs or language barrier.

Student A scored higher on the pre-assessment than Student B.  Student B, the higher ability learner, received a score of 33% on the pre-assessment while Student A received a score of 50%.  While neither student received a passing score, it is important to note that the higher ability learner demonstrated a lower level of mastery of the goals on the pre-assessment than the lower ability learner.

In all five lesson plans, Student B demonstrated full mastery of the learning goal.  Student A did not demonstrate mastery in any of the learning goals using the pre-established methods for measuring mastery.  Neither student was proficient prior to the learning experience.  However, the higher ability student was able to transfer the information presented in the lesson and produce evidence of mastery.

I do not believe that Student A failed to learn anything throughout the entire unit of study.  I have formative assessment data that clearly indicates otherwise.  He was consistently engaged in the learning experiences.  He had consistently high performance in the category of overall participation.  He verbally demonstrated knowledge and understanding during the many times I performed checks for understanding during every lesson plan.

b. Explain why it is important to understand the learning proficiencies of the selected students.

It is important to place weight on the formative assessment data that I collected throughout each lesson plan in order to fully assess the learning proficiencies of all students.  We cannot simply look at pre and post-assessment data as definitive measurement of mastery.  Written assessments do not definitively measure the learning proficiency of every student.  It is important to be flexible in how we measure these students so that we create the highest degree of likelihood that we accurately measure their level of mastery of learning goals and objectives.

The one student who got 100% correct in the pre-assessment did not receive a high score on the post-assessment.  This is a higher ability learner who possessed the knowledge required to answer every pre-assessment question correctly, but did possess or work to attain the skills required to demonstrate a comparable level of mastery of the learning goals for the unit of study.  This is a student who consistently uses his standing as a higher ability learner in this classroom as an excuse to “help others” while avoiding completing work he finds challenging and less engaging.  It takes a skilled observer to show this on a formative assessment because this learner knows how to appear engaged.  His peer interaction skills are exemplary.  When I observe him closely and look for very specific behaviors to indicate engagement with the learning, I often find that he is personally not engaged in learning but is engaged in the learning experience of the students around him.  His learning proficiency is often much lower than that of students whose learning levels I consider average. 

c. Discuss conclusions reached about the extent to which these students attained two learning goals.

 Student A and Student B demonstrated sharply contrasting levels of mastery of the following learning goals:

Students will understand how to use the Ideas and Content trait to organize thoughts and ideas for a writing assignment.

Students will understand the role of characters in a personal narrative.

On paper, Student A did not demonstrate mastery of either of these goals, while Student B demonstrated full mastery of both learning goals.  However, I do not believe that Student A failed to master the goals.  I believe that his 504 plan is not adequate to meet his learning needs.  I spent 12 weeks observing and teaching this student.  I learned that if he is allowed to verbally demonstrate mastery, he would demonstrates the potential to achieve A’s and B’s.  I followed this theory across every area of instruction for the entire 9 weeks in which I was the full-time teacher.  I unofficially collected his level of mastery verbally before every written assessment I administered, and incrementally at every opportunity I had to conference with him. In every instance, he verbally demonstrated mastery.  In every instance, he did not demonstrate mastery on paper.  He is ten years old.  I taught him very basic algebra and he showed me verbally, over and over again, that he mastered it.  He did not pass the district mandated algebra unit post-assessment.  This student with straight F’s is fully capable of mastering grade-level learning goals aligned to state standards.  He just cannot show that mastery using traditional assessment instruments.