Scribd
Upload
38 views4 pages

Data Analysis

Uploaded by

api-250145674
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
38 views4 pages

Data Analysis

Uploaded by

api-250145674
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

DATA ANALYSIS Learning Gains of Individual Students

Student Student 1 Female Student 2 Male Student 3 Male, IEP Student 4 Male, IEP Student 5 Male Student 6 Female Student 7 Female Student 8 Male, IEP Student 9 Male Student 10 Male Student 11 Male, IEP Student 12 Male, TDT Student 13 Female Student 14 Female Student 15 Female Student 16 Female, TDT Student 17 Female Student 18 Female Student 19 Female Student 20 Female Student 21 Female Student 22 Male, IEP Class Average Pre-Assessment 35 35 35 29 94 65 76 53 82 65 59 71 24 47 94 35 65 65 41 59 53 59 56.4 Post-Assessment 100 100 65 100 100 100 88 94 94 100 71 71 100 100 94 94 94 100 88 100 100 100 93.3 Learning Gain +65 +65 +30 +71 +6 +35 +12 +41 +12 +35 +12 +0 +76 +53 +0 +59 +29 +35 +47 +41 +47 +41 +36.9

Pre- and Post- Assessment Scores of Individual Students

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student 10 Student 11 Student 12 Student 13 Student 14 Student 15 Student 16 Student 17 Student 18 Student 19 Student 20 Student 21 Student 22 Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment

Learning Gains of Special Groups


Group Males Females Special Needs Class Average Pre-Assessment 69 65 47 56.4 Post-Assessment 89.5 96.5 86 93.3 Learning Gain +20.5 +31.5 +39 +36.9

Pre- and Post- Assessment Averages of Special Groups


100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Males Females Special Needs Whole Class Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment

Based on the data collected from the pre-assessment, I discovered that all of the students did have at least a very basic knowledge of the content to be covered in the unit. Some students knew more about the topic than others, but I was able to conclude that the prior knowledge that the students had on the topic varied. Using this information, I decided to keep my lessons as previously planned and did not make any further modifications. Most of the students had a grasp on the basic figures (point, line, line segment, etc.), but lacked the associated vocabulary so I knew that I needed to start with the basics of lines and angles geometry. The pre-assessments also allowed me to see what concepts the students had little or no knowledge about. Two of the students showed no learning gain between their pre-assessment and post-assessment scores. One of these students scored a 94% on both assessments, missing only one question each time. She attended school in a different county the year before, stating that she had learned this at her old school. She came in with prior knowledge on this subject and missed different questions each time, so I can conclude that while my methods of instruction may not have been effective in teaching her more on the subject, they may have helped to reinforce what she already knew. The other student who showed no learning gain scored a 71% on both assessments. He missed some, but not all, of the same questions. While a 71% was not a poor score for the pre-assessment, I had hoped that he would improve that score on the post-assessment. This particular student receives services from a TDT counselor and takes medication to help with his attention. This particular morning, my mentor teacher felt that he was having a very off day and may not have taken his medication that morning. This lack of attention may have contributed to his low post-assessment score.

Since he missed only some of the same questions, and not all of them, I can conclude that my methods of instruction may have been effective for him, but that he also may have benefited from extra one-on-one instruction. I was also concerned about another student who showed significant learning gains, but still scored relatively low on the post-assessment. He received the lowest score in the class on the post-assessment, a 65%, and is one of the students in the class with special needs and an IEP. Being familiar with his performance in class and on tests and quizzes, I knew that this was typical for him, as did my mentor teacher. Though I can conclude that my methods were effective for him based on this study alone, I believe that he could greatly benefit from direct instruction in a pull-out special needs class, based on his repeatedly low assessment scores across the subjects. Twelve students, or 55% of the class, scored 100% on the post-assessment and all but two students made gains between the pre- and post- assessments. From this information, I can conclude that my instruction was effective overall and made a positive impact on my students learning. If I could do this unit again, I would add another day to the unit and take it more slowly to make sure that I reach all of the students that are struggling. For the groupings of students in the chart above (male, female, special needs), each group made significant gains, but I was especially happy with the gains that the students with special needs made as theirs were the greatest of the three groups.

You might also like