Analysis and Synthesis

Third Grade Assessments

Allred, Ariel

Dixie State College ElEd 3420

ASSESSMENT #1

The students took a pre-test with information from the unit before the test was administered. At the end of the unit, the students were given a post-test. Mrs. Chadaz administered the pre-assessment independently of practicum students and then a week later the entire class was given a post-assessment by the practicum teachers. The curriculum tested was taught to the students via their regular teacher. The assessment was a math assessment for the unit that the class had previously completed. The students were instructed not to cheat, and to do their best to answer the questions completely, but not to rush as doing so would disrupt their grade. The assessment used was comprised of 10 questions. The questions were as follows: Question 1 took a number written in expanded form and asked the students to write the number correctly. Question 2 wrote 209 and asked the students how that number would be written in words Question 3 wrote out one hundred eighty and asked what is the same way to write that number in number form. Question 4 asks to translate from expanded notation Question 5 asked the students to add two numbers on price tags. Question 6 has the students regroup the tens to the hundreds and write the correct number. Question 7 assess place value; which place is worth more. Question 8 asks about adding 10. Question 9 is adding coins. Question 10 asks student what items add to make a total of $500.

Synthesis of Class
Out of the 21 students who took the assessment, 5 students received 100% on their posttest. 1 student got 90% 4 students received 80%, 3 students got 70%, 4 students received 60%, 1 student got 50%, 1 got 40%, and 1 students received 20%. On the pre-test 1 students got 90% correct, 3 students got 80%, 2 got 70%, 3 got 60%, 7 got 50%, 2 got 40%, 1 student got 30% correct, 1 got 20%. Three students did not improve their test scores from the pre-test to the posttest. On the posttest, only three students missed question 1. Three students missed question 2. Seven students missed question 3. Nine students missed question 4. Ten students missed question 5. Nine students missed question 6. Six students missed question 7. Only two students missed question 8. Only one student missed question 9. Finally, twelve students missed question 10. Question 10 was the most missed and question 9 was the least missed.

Analysis of Class
There was a lack major improvement in scores from pre to posttest. The biggest improvement was that three students got 30% higher on their posttest. Three students did not improve their scores, or even received worse scores on the posttest. The pattern demonstrates that something is preventing the students from truly understanding the concepts. A majority of students only got one more question correct on the pre-test. Only nine students received 80% or better on the posttest. Conversely, twelve students received a 70% or worse. Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 were all questions that caused student struggles. Yet, questions 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 seem to be understood better by the students.

Analysis
Student A scored 80% on his pre-test. He received 100% on his posttest. On the pre-test, he missed question 6 which inquired how much an item would cost if added to another item to get a total of $1,000. He also missed question 10 which asked what items add to make over $500. It should be noted that during the assessment, his was the first one completed. Student B got 60% of the questions right on her pre-test. She received a 50% on her posttest. She got questions 1, 2, and 3 correct on her posttest, she missed question 4 which asked for a number written in expanded form. She also missed question 5 which had the student add and subtract money. She missed question 6 which had one regroup numbers. She missed question 7 which asks the students the students to use three numbers and write the largest number using the three digits. She missed question 8, which asks the student an addition problem. Finally, she missed question 10, which asks what items add to make more than 500. It should also be noted that most students answered question 10 incorrectly.

Synthesis
Student A is a talented student who excels in most areas. He was chosen as a subject to assess if and how he is learning, whether he is being challenged, and if he is making improvement. According to this assessment, Student A did grasp the concepts enough to improve his scores. His mistakes on the assessments were similar contextually, which leads one to believe that he has developed a misconception, or does not fully understand the concepts. However, it should be noted that student A often speeds through assignments and tests. This almost reckless speed could be contributing to his mistakes. One should be aware of this, and occasionally remind him to carefully review his work, to ensure that his answers are intended. Student B was chosen for analysis because she is, for all intents and purposes, an average student and is devoid of any learning disabilities. She was a desirable subject because it would be very useful to analyze how an average student develops the content knowledge,almost like a control group in a science experiment. However, I was surprised to she became a more interesting subject once it was established that her scores dropped after instruction. It is unknown why she answered more questions incorrectly the second time, but this is not a trend one wants to see in ones students. The best plan of action to improve her learning, and her understanding of math concepts would be to incorporate hands-on activities and visual aids to help re-teach her those concepts that plagued her on the post-test. It would also be beneficial to pull her aside (inconspicuously) and have her explain her thinking as she works through some of the problems she answered incorrectly. Then, one can assess where there may be a gap in her learning, correct it, and correct any misconceptions she may have.

ASSESSMENT #2
This assessment was constructed and administered to test the knowledge base of a third grade student involving cardinal directions after two weeks had passed since the initial introduction of the concept. The students had previously been able to participate in a manipulative-based lesson that introduced the concept of moving in cardinal directions and using a map and compass rose to navigate various planes. Only one other formal lesson was given between the introductory lesson and the assessment. It was made apparent however, that incidental applications of this concept had been used throughout each day and the classroom was even conceptually labeled as a compass (labeling the top-most parts and corners of the classroom walls. This is a worksheet formatted assessment that uses a picture to correlate with subsequent fill-inthe-blank questions. As well as two questions that require you to complete a task on the map. However, due to shortened time, only one of these questions was required, leaving six possible answers to be given credit for. In preparing to give this assessment students were reminded of an acronym that was discussed to help remember the proper way to label a compass rose. Also, it was set as a standard that these students try their best to remember as much as they could and to work honestly and diligently so that I could see how much they really knew.

These assessments can be found in Appendix A * ( Note: there is a reverse side this worksheet that was found invalid because of a classroom incident where one student had found the answer key and was sharing information).

Administration of this assessment occurred just before lunch time when the students tend to get hungry and antsy for recess. Also, because of the previous lesson with this objective being hands-on and enjoyable for the students, the student expectation was that they should get to use matchbox cars with the assessment. As a result, conversation got a little rowdy as the students began talking about what type of car they had been able to use, some students were pretending to use other materials as cars (noises included) and by the time everyone was finally settled down to pass out the test, almost a full minute had passed and it was deemed necessary to take another moment to have the students calm down and re-focus their attention to the task at hand. The circumstances for this assessment were also unusual per the normal demographic. There were six students unavailable for this testing. For various reasons (resource classes, choir trip, absent) there were only 15 of the usual 21 students present for assessment. The students that were taking the test did not seem nervous about the test at all or showed any signs of apprehension or fear. All the students were seated in the classroom at their usual desks. One Student is on an IEP and was invited to have the test read to her, being that she would require an extensive amount of additional time if asked to read and write independently.

Student Scores by Percentages Number of Percentage Number of Correct Students (15 Responses total students) (out of 6) 8 100% 6 3 83% 5 3 67% 4 1 50% 3 This graph shows that the range of student scores is 50% to 100% with a class average of 87% and a mode of 100%. The majority of the students taking the assessment were above levels of competency and more than half of the students taking the assessment were at perfect proficiency with the objective (8/15 students scoring 100%).

Student Average Score Percentage by Gender

92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% male female 84% 91% male female

As shown above, male students performed better than female students on this assessment by a difference of 7%. There were eight female students, two of which are ELL students and 1 of which is in Special Education resource classes for learning disabilities. Of seven males who took this exam, only one was an ELL and there were no students in Special Education.

Average Scores by Student Exceptionality

100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 traditional advanced learner ELL IEP traditional advanced learner ELL IEP 82 91 78

The above figure shows a comparison between the exceptional dynamic of learners that took this assessment. Tested were traditional, or average mainstreamed students, English Language Learners of varying WIDA levels, Advanced or high-level learners and finally one student who is on an IEP also was considered in this analysis. As shown, the one child (female) was astute enough to score the highest grade out of all the students, scoring 100%. Next highest achievers were the advanced learners with 91%. Traditional learners were third with 82% achievement and the three ELL students in this assessment scored the lowest with 78%.

GENDER DIFFERENCES WITHIN EXCEPTIONALITIES

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Traditional Advanced IEP ELL male female

This is a graph that shows the gender differences between the exceptionalities that were assessed. The traditional group of learners was a homogenous group of six students, four of which were female and two of which were male. The advanced group of students was four males and 1 female. There was only one student with an IEP to take this assessment and she was female. The group of ELL students had two females and one male.

SYNTHESIS

My next plan in regards to teaching this objective with cardinal directions would involve more consistent exposures to content, quality time for test taking and review of English syntax. I feel that the amount of time that had lapsed between formal exposures to the concepts of direction was a hindrance in student performance. With so many things being taught in a day, it cannot be an expectation that we have for our students to remember everything after just a few introductions. Incidental applications are important, but I do not feel that they often give enough clarity or weight to an entire concept. It has been proven that opportunistic teaching usually only addresses one specific domain or aspect of a subject and sometimes it gives the instructor a falsified feeling of comprehension because there are only a few students within the projected range of discussion that can even benefit or make connection.*** With that being said, I find that as much as possible, before summative testing of a subject I will most definitely plan more consistent, focused exposures and practice to the objective. Because of the crucial need to optimize the time spend in meaningful activity, I plan to have procedures practiced and habitualized and respected for all activities of the day, ESPECIALLY test taking. If a test is being or going to be handed out, my students will know what I expect them to be doing, and where I expect them to be doing it. Especially in looking at the test score of 100% for my IEP student, it makes a difference that my attentions will be spent reading the test to my students that require that accommodation; I hope to not have to waste time managing behaviors that are disrupting the environment and could have potentially upset a student. In this case, I do not feel that this happened, but it could at some point in time. In the future I plan to be more aware of the difficulties that my ELLs may encounter. I admit that my knowledge of what is perceived to be misunderstood or confusing is limited in scope. It will become a more thorough routine of mine to try and analyze the test sentence structure and syntax and try to predict where there may be confusion. If possible, it will be beneficial to these students to have the tests read to them so that any inquiries or clarification can be noticed and addressed at that moment. This testing information is hard to

decipher, but the fact that two out of three of my ELL students scored 67% causes me to wonder about the language barrier affecting their scores.

ASSESSMENT #3
Growing With Math Topic 3 was paired with the correlating UTIPs topic test. This compilation test was administered by Mrs. Chadaz to her entire class on, October 21,2012 after students returned from lunch. Four students were absent for the assessment, 17 were present. Topic 3 deals with place value using base-ten blocks and written numerals, also assesses the transferring written notation into number form, both traditional and expanded notation and vice versa. This assessment also had some reinforcing questions from the previous Topic, reviewing and reiterating the use of subtraction in word problems. Practicum teachers were present when the test was administered, but the results were not shared until the following Tuesday. The environment in which the students took this test was calm and quiet, each student seated at their own desk, which are grouped in teams of four. Prior to the test, the leading teacher showed the students the test, explaining why the two stapled pages were a different format with identical numbering, calming them by saying its ok and encouraging them thay theyre ready. She also had the students take a deep breath, chant I can do this, and then told the students where they could place their test when finished. The purpose of the test was for the instructor to gain an understanding of what students learned from the Topic and what they are unfamiliar with; this assessment will guide the planning of subsequent lessons. No accommodations were made during the administration of the assessment. Actual student assessments are located in Appendix B

Analysis The following chart shows the number of correct responses out of 20 that each individual student scored. Topic 3 Math Test
100 80 60 40 20 0

*absent when assessment was administered .

The graph above is a compilation of all student scores (other than the four students that were absent for administration)

The following charts show the breakdown of how students answered on each specific question. Key:
correct response incorrect response Not applicable
Student # M/F Question 1 Question 2

+ X O
Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10

1 M 2 F 3 M 4 F 5 F 6 M 7 M 8 F 9M 10 F 11 M 12 F 13 F 14 M 15 F 16 F 18 M 19 F 20 F 21 F

O + + O + + +
+

O + + O x + +
+

O + x O x + +
+

O + + O x x x
+

O x x O x + +
+

O + x O + + x
x

O + x O x + x
+

O + + O x + +
+

O + x O x x +
+

O x x O + x +
x

+ + +
+

+ + +
+

+ + +
x

+ x x
x

+ + x
x

+ x x
x

+ x +
+

+ + +
+

+ + +
+

x x x
+

+ + O O + + + +

x + O O + + + +

x + O O + + + +

x + O O x + x x

+ x O O x + x +

x x O O x x x x

x + O O + + + +

+ + O O + + + +

x + O O + + + +

x x O O + + x x

Questions 11-20 are continued on following page with picture interpretive data.

Student # M/F

Question 11

Question 12

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

Question 16

Question 17

Question 18

Question 19

Question 20

1 M 2 F 3 M 4 F 5 F 6 M 7 M 8 F 9 M 10 F 11 M 12 F 13 F 14 M 15 F 16 F 18 M 19 F 20 F 21 F Key:

O x + O + + +
x

O + + O x + +
x

O + x O x x +
x

O + + O + + +
x

O x x O x + +
x

O + + O x x +
x

O x x O x + +
x

O + + O x + +
+

O + x O x + +
+

O x x O x x +
x

+ + +
x

x x x
+

+ x +
+

+ + +
+

+ x +
+

+ + +
+

x x x
x

+ + +
+

+ + +
+

+ + +
+

x + O O + x x +

x + O O + x x +

x + O O + + + +

x + O O + + + +

x + O O x x x +

x + O O + + x +

+ x O O + + x +

+ x O O x + x +

x + O O x + + x

x x O O + + x +

correct response incorrect response Not Applicable

+ X O

The charts above relay number identification for all 21 students belonging to Mrs. Chadazs third grade class. Next to their student ID number is a letter (M/F) which indicated the students sex, male or female. As follows, each question of the assessment is represented and labeled according, showing whether the designated student answered that question correctly, erroneously or was not able to answer the question, nulling the data. (In this instance the symbol representing N/A happens to be because all of these students were absent from school this day.)

Question Breakdown

Question 1

17/17 or 100% answered correctly 15/17 or 81% 14/17 or 24% 8/17 or 67% 10/17 or 48% 2/17 or 12% 13/17 or 76% 16/17 or 94% 15/17 or 62% 4/17 or 24% 11/17 or 64% 11/17 or 64% 12/17 or 70% 14/17 or 82% 10/17 or 59% 14/17 or 82% 6/17 or 35% 11/17 or 64% 11/17 or 64% 13/17 or 76%

Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

This list shows the percentage of students, out of the 17 that participated, that answered that particular question accurately.

Student Scores
20 percent, 0 30 percent, 0 10 percent, 2 80 percent, 4 60 percent, 2 70 percent, 8 40 percent, 0 50 percent, 1 10 percent 20 percent 30 percent 40 percent 50 percent 60 percent 70 percent 80 percent

The graph above shows the comparison of student achievement on this Topic 3 test. The range of scores is 10% to 80%. Eight students scored in the 70%, four students scored in the 80%, two students scored in the 60%, one student scored in the 50%, and two students scored in the 2% range. There were no students that received scores in the 20-40% range. On this assessment, the mode was eight students scoring 70% and the average score was 65%. The two lowest test scores (in the 10 percentile range) were achieved by one student with an IEP (student#5) and one student (#13) who is mainstream, but struggles in math generally and was apparently absent for a few of the instructional days. On this assessment, all students were able to identify a given, three-digit number when given in base tens (question#1), all students, but one (IEP) were able to add and subtract 10 to a three-digit number (question#8).

Student Comparison As depicted below, male students scored higher than female students, with the male students average at 75% of the questions correct and female students average at 56 % of the questions correct. The five lowest test scores in the class were received by female students. It may also be pertinent to note that the only students in the class receiving special education services are female and these three young students were all among the lowest scores gathered. This may contribute to a lower test average, however the mean for a final average could also have benefited from the fact there are 13 females to the 8 males in the class.

Test Scores by Gender

Female Male Male 0 20 40 60 80 Female

For closer examination, I chose three students for score comparison; one male student with no exceptionalities (#18), one male ELL student with a WIDA level of 4 (#3) and one female student (#5) with an IEP for learning and emotional disabilities. I chose these students because I thought that it would give an interesting view of student dynamic. Student #18 is a child who struggles with ADHD issue, but when focused can exhibit brilliant creativity and exceptional intelligence. I was hoping that by observing his tendencies I might have a deeper understanding of how he learns and thinks. Student #3 is an ELL student who was classified as being on a WIDA level of 4. While this student has difficulties with the language barrier and struggles to be understood by his peers, he actually has great learning and studying skills that depending on when he applies them, his scores reflect his effort for involvement. The final student I chose was a female student in the classroom that has trouble motivating herself, academically and socially. This student has slowly been progressing throughout the year, however, and I was curious to see how shes progressing recently in comparison to her peers.

Student #

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10

18 3 5

+ + +

+ + x

+ x x
Question 13

x + x
Question 14

x x x
Question 15

x x +
Question 16

+ x x
Question 17

+ + x
Question 18

+ x x
Question 19

+ x +
Question 20

Question Student Question 11 12 # 18 + + 3 + + 5 + x

+ x x

+ + +

x x x

+ + x

+ x x

x + x

x x x

+ x x

Student #18 scored 14/20, student #3 scored 14/20, and student #5 scored 2/20.

Students' Score Comparison

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 18 student 3 Student 5 Student 18 student 3 Student 5

In comparing these students scores as shown above, it can be seen that my ELL student scored the same as my regular education student, both at 70% while my student with learning disabilities scored well below the other two with only 10% , a 60% deficit.

SYNTHESIS
For the pre-tests that are administered in Mrs. Chadaz classroom, the students are allowed to have the questions read to them (ELL and IEP).During the administration of this test, I believe there should have been similar accommodations made; the test should have been read to all of the ELL students and not just the students with IEPs to ensure they could correctly read the questions. Luckily, for at least one ELL student (3#) he asked questions to clarify any of the language he did not know, taking initiative to comprehend the testing document. Considering that this student did better than the class average and is a WIDA, this reaffirms the necessity for language supports in the classroom while learning and testing. I will be consistent in allowing and encouraging the students who are English Language Learners to utilize their teacher and practicum teachers as resources for language verification. This test is a tool that I can use to choreograph future learning by identifying the weaknesses and strengths that my students showed. Question #1 is a good example of data collection that allows me to see that because the entire class got the answer correct, I will not have to spend as much time teaching the concept of three digit numerals being translated into written words. Questions #2 and #3 are of the same concept as question #1 and 81% of students answered this question correctly. These questions were a little more challenging in that they did not label the place value for the numerically written number, requiring the students to either use the question above it as a reference or remember the place value labels. Based on the analysis of these questions I would be sure to practice skills that will help the students remember which place value is represented where, without needing a written guide. However, I would not spend too much time on this as more than 80% of the class is proficient.

Questions #4 and #7 were also dealing with base ten numbers and identifying 3-digit numbers and their respective place values. These questions, although the same concept, were introduced using word

problems. The formatting and the strategies involved in trying to decipher and interpret the data make these questions harder. As the analysis shows, only 67% of the class got question #4 correct and 57% of the class got question #7 correct. The disparity in these two questions is again, I feel, relating to the fact that in question #4 the place values are labeled on the numbers digits. This information would lead my planning again to keep the place value strategies in mind, using visual labels and supplements to introduce and reinforce the concept and gradually take them away, requiring the students to remember them so that, even though they are on the test, they will not require them to be successful. In regards to word problems, this will allow the students to focus on interpreting the information and question, without worrying about the place value factor. With word problems, I would focus on supporting my ELL students in understanding the language by assuming any misconceptions in the construction of the words, illuminating any idioms or clarifying vague or ambiguous text. Questions #3 and #14 include identifying four-digit numbers when written in words. Based on analysis of these types of questions I would urge students to slow down when reading the questions. The directions for these questions require students to rearrange the numbers given. However, based on student response, most of the missed answered were due to the fact that when the student saw a picture (for example) that shows: 6 tens 8 ones 3 hundreds : they rewrote that the picture represented the number

683. If students have adequate reminders and practice to slow down and read every part of the question, including directions and pictures, then they would not miss questions for menial errors.

The most missed questions on the assessment were #6 and #10. Question #6 only had 12% accuracy. The question simply gives amounts of tens, ones and hundreds and then asks, What number do you have after making trades? This question seems a little confusing in the wording of the required task. I would be sure to look at my tests before I administer them and highlight any potentially confusing phrases

or directions like this. Especially for my ELL students, addressing the phrasing and terminology and simply restating what it is that the test is asking you to do, I feel, will make a huge difference. Question #24 was also a widely missed question due to faulty word choice. The question asks, Which 2 things total a little more than $500? I would find out the answers, gage where the tests definition of a little is and then teach my students strategies in comparing answers. My students with IEPs would have to have to have been taught to find all answers to this question to compare which is more accurate. However, for the students in my class, this is just a matter of needing extra time to take the test. The skills of adding are proficient, but speed is consistently an issue. The testing environment of the classroom was conducive to good test-taking until it was only the Ell and IEP students left. After the majority of the class was finished with the test, the room began to get steadily more rowdy. I was able to allow one student to go into the hall way to work, but other students were forced to deal with subsequent distraction from peers and interruptions from the regular teacher as she tried to quiet them down. If I were to re-administer this test and/or any other assessment I would set the standard and expectation of what the students were to do after they completed the test. Especially if I was to run the classroom completely, I would implement strong consequences and responsibilities for disrespecting others while they are trying to work. Classroom community and respect for each other and the rules I would implement will be crucial.