Standard IV:

Analysis of Student Learning

The pre-test was designed to assess characteristics of living things, knowledge of living versus non living things, small environments compared to large environments, and three vocabulary words. I created the assessment to align with the Core Standards to be mastered. The pre-test was administered on a Monday in the afternoon after last recess. The students seemed focused. There are a total of 10 questions. Some are short answer, one is matching, one is arranging words into their respected category, and one is circling multiple words. Each question was worth one point requiring questions to be all or nothing. Prior to this unit, the students were visited by a ranger from Zion National Park. We had a 5 minute lesson on living things. The ranger came and discussed animals and their habitats. This visit may have attributed to the high scores on the pre-test. 10 females were present for the pre-test. The average female score was 6.5 points. The highest score on the pre-test for the females was 9 of 10 points while the lowest was 3 points. 10 male students were present for the pre-test. The average male score was also 6.5 points. The highest score on the pre-test for the male students was 8 of 10 points. The lowest score was 3 points.

Pre-test
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Female Male

Figure 9

Every student missed question number 1. This asked students to circle the six characteristics of a living thing indicating they didnt know this concept. Another trend in the pre-test was the amount of students who didnt know question number 8. This question asked them to choose the definition of organism. The 13 of the 20 students got it wrong with the majority of them choosing your lungs as the answer. The last trend I noticed was in question 2. This asked students to list the words in either the living or non living category. Of the 20 students, 8 wrote tree in the non living category. The post-test was given two days after the unit was taught. The week and a half of teaching the unit was done during the same week as the end of year writing (SAGE) testing. Due to the timing (beginning of April on), there was practice and testing that took priority that week. Science was taught in between the practice and tests. The post-test was squeezed in on a day of the school walk-a-thon. The students had just returned from a half hour of running/walking around the school track. There was 20 minutes of school left and most of the children were tired and I had to remind them twice to slow down and answer the questions to their best ability as many of them were simply marking answers to finish the test quickly. Figure 10 compares each students pre-test scores with their post-test scores.

10 9 8 7 6 Score 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 *2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 *11 12 13 14 15 16 17 *18 19 20 Student Number *Student Absent for Post Test Pre Test Post Test

Figure 10 Of the three most affecting subgroups, (ELL, behavior/IEP, Talented), ELL students (5) made the most gain by averaging slightly above 2 points. Talented students (5) were next to gain by increasing their average 1 point. Behavior students (3) made the least gain by raising their average by half a point. This is clearly seen in the graph below.

Test Averages
10 8 6 4 2 0 Behavior Talented ELL Pre 5 Pre Post Post 6 8.5 6.5 7.4 7.25

Figure 11

All but one student that took the post-test either made progress in understanding or maintained their pre-test score. The individual progression is as follows:
Student # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sub Group E, S B Pre-test Score 5 3 5 9 8 5 7 3 8 6 8 8 8 8 5 8 10 7 6 3 Post-test Score 9 Absent 6 9 10 8 7 6 10 7 Absent 9 7 9 6 9 10 Absent 10 4 Points Gained 4 1 0 2 3 0 3 2 1 1 -1 1 1 1 0 4 1

B, I E, B T B T T E T T E E

Figure 12 Based on the post-test information, I identified students that have understood the concepts (blue), those who are borderline understanding (yellow), and students who need remediation (red). The chart following shows at a glance which students fall into what categories.

Student # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Score 9 unknown 6 9 10 8 7 6 10 7 unknown 9 7 9 6 9 10 unknown 10 4

Figure 13

Nine students are proficient with the concept. Four students are on the border of misunderstanding the unit. Four students are in need of remediation. The assessment is graded in such a way that a slight misconception can drop the score low. This, coupled with the environment of the post-test, would prompt me to review the questions with them to truly gauge their understanding. Three students would need to take the post-test to assess their understanding. Reflecting on the trends of the pre-test, I noticed that the trends significantly decreased in the post-test. I found question number one, circling the six characteristics of living things, was widely understood. Only five students missed a point for this question and four of them missed it by circling one extra characteristic. Compared to the pre-test where every student missed this question, I was pleased with my findings. While reviewing question number two, categorizing words in living or nonliving, I noticed that five students listed tree in non living (versus the 8 from the pre-test). This was slightly disturbing given the amount of time we spent on plants being living things. After I collected the post-test, I asked the class if a tree grew, moved, reproduced, etc. The students all responded with a yes. When I asked if it was a living thing, every student said yes. I feel that the students rushed through the post-test and some answered this question the way they had done before to get through. The last trend, marking an organism as your lungs, also greatly improved. Though 13 students had missed it in the pre-test, only three students got that question wrong on the post-test.

Summary of Individual Performance on Various Assignments

As a way to analyze the effectiveness of my unit, I chose a high, average, and low student to focus upon. For every lesson students wrote or drew in their living and non living book I created. During and at the end of each lesson, I looked over each students book. There were

seven pages in all. Each page had three points possible. Figure 14 depicts the score the three students received on these pages as well as the pre and post-test. Student Low Average High Class Average Figure 14 As stated above, the book contained seven pages. The pages were, unfortunately, copied out of order and didnt progress with the lessons. As a result, pages were completed out of order. Page one of the Living and Nonliving book required students to circle the large scale environment their group was given. Beneath Living things, students were to write at least three living things they saw in their given environment. Under Nonliving things the students were to write at least two nonliving things they found in their given environment. Students received full points for identifying the environment, three living things, and two nonliving things. On page two of the book students wrote down the characteristics of living things. Also, in the Living column, students were to write at least three living things in the school box and three in the home box. On the left side students wrote under the nonliving column. They were to write the characteristics, nonliving things at school and home, just as they had done for the right column. Students received a point for completing each row. This meant a point for living and nonliving combined on each row. Pre 3 5 8 6.5 P. 1 2 3 3 2.5 P. 2 3 3 3 2.6 P. 3 3 3 3 2.1 P. 4 3 3 3 2.4 P. 5 2 2 3 1.9 P. 6 3 2 3 2.2 P. 7 3 1 3 2.2 Post 4 8 9 8 Total 23 30 38 30.4

Page three was for the lesson of comparing small environments to large environments. Students identified their given small and large scale environments. Following that, students wrote four different reasons why they are similar. The last portion of the page is a sentence the students fill in comparing their house to a larger environment. Students received credit for accurate completion of each section. Page four is one in which the students identify the small scale environment their table was given. Then they list at least three living and two nonliving things they found in their environment. Points were given for correct completion of each section. Page five was created for students to draw a picture of a small scale environment theyd like to have in their house. To receive points for this page, the drawing needed to be of something that would either fit in their house or take a small space of their backyard and contains at least two living and one nonliving thing. The sixth page aligned with the lesson of predicting and observing changes made on a living thing. Students wrote prediction and observation of a worms response to heat and water. Students received full po9ints for at least one prediction for each stimuli and at least one written worm response in both the heat and water section. The seventh page was designed to allow students to make a prediction of a river before beavers, observation of beaver behavior, and a drawing of the changes that occur on a river. Each portion was given a point for completion. High Student #12 The pre-test showed that the high student wasnt completely familiar with the characteristics of living things, though he was able to correctly identify five of the six characteristics. He had circled breathe air instead of move. The only other point he lost on the

pre-test was on question 4, name a nonliving thing in a flower bed. He wrote leaves. I was unsure whether he meant dead or alive leaves, however neither reason justified a point given. His score was 8 out of 10 points. The high student completed each page correctly. On page 2 he went beyond the three required living and nonliving things for each section, though he began listing parts of a living thing for the living things section. He listed his hand and his body. When I noticed that, we discussed parts of living things versus living things. He also added extra components to the picture he drew of a small scale environment hed like in his house. He drew a pond, a desert terrarium and added a dog and cactus to his picture. In his beaver prediction, he used one of the vocabulary words and made many notes of his observation of the river. He seemed engaged in each lesson, led many table discussions, and asked questions to further his knowledge. The post-test showed that he had learned each concept well. He correctly identified the characteristics of living things and for question 4; he wrote dirt and pedals. Since he had written a once living thing, and had discussed that in an earlier lesson, we reviewed how once living things are different from nonliving things. He did lose a point in number 5. He made one small mistake by matching the green house with a forest instead of the rain forest. He ended up with 9 out of 10 on the post-test. Average Student # 6 The pre-test for the average student proved that he wasnt familiar with many of the units concepts. He correctly identified three of the six characteristics of living things and chose three incorrect characteristics. He wasnt aware of what small scale environments matched which large scale environments. He matched two of the five matches correctly. He didnt get points for

all three vocabulary words. This is largely due to his choosing two choices for each word. His pre-test score was 5 of 10 points. Most of his book pages were completed correctly, yet he lost a point on page five, his drawing of a small scale environment hed like to have in his home. This is because his drawing had one living thing and one nonliving thing. His drawing was slightly difficult to understand. He also lost two points on page seven. His prediction was it did. His drawing of before changes and after changes in a river environment was lacking. The scribbles on the entire page lead me to believe he got bored or stopped paying attention and chose, instead, to doodle. His post-test showed a high advancement in his understanding. He lost a point on question 2 for placing tree in the nonliving category. A few other students placed the tree in the same category. The only other point he lost was on question number 8, the vocabulary word organism. He chose your lungs for that definition. His post-test score was 8 out of 10. Low Student # 20 The low student got the lowest score in the class on the pre-test. For question number one, she correctly identified two of the six characteristics of living things. On question 2, she placed tree in the nonliving category. For question 4 and question 10, nonliving things in an environment, she wrote tree. She also missed each of the three vocabulary words. Her pre-test score was 3 out of 10. Her book indicates that she was engaged and worked hard during the lessons. She lost a point on page 5, drawing a picture of a small environment shed like to have in her home. She drew a pond and drew the correct amount of living and nonliving things, however she drew a road next to the pond leading me to think that she drew the environment in a random area and not one that she could have at her home.

Though she worked hard on her book, her post-test indicates that she didnt fully learn all the concepts in the unit. On question 1, she did correctly identify four of the six characteristics of living things. Instead of circling reproduce and grow, she circled breathe air and talk. Since reproduce is a large word, I speculate that she came to it and either didnt know how to pronounce it or she simply didnt understand its meaning. I will review this portion of the test with her. For question 2, she placed tree in the nonliving category again, yet on question 3, she wrote plants for a living thing. I should review the definition of plants with her to ascertain her understanding that trees are plants. On question 5 she only matched two of the five small scale environments with their large scale counterparts. The matches she made are surprising. She matched pond with ocean, aquarium with rain forest, and green house with lake. Her being an ELL student makes me wonder if this is a vocabulary misunderstanding. I will sit with her and go over each term to determine if this is the root of her misunderstanding. She missed each vocabulary word again. Clearly she struggles with the vocabulary aspect of the unit. I wonder if she would know the definition if the words are read to her. I suspect she is aware of the meaning of temperature, however written words may be difficult for her to decipher. Comparing the class average to the students, high student, #12, excelled, the average student, #6, scored very close, and the low student, #20, scored rather low as shown in figure 15.

Overall Score
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Class Average Student #20 Student #6 Student #12

Figure 15

Explanation of Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment Findings

The class average on the pre-test was 6.5 points while the class average on the post-test was 8 points. As seen in figure 12 the majority of students gained only one point from the pretest to the post-test, however, given that the pre-test scores were already rather high, this is a sufficient gain. The table below shows the questions that were missed in the pre and post-test. This information helps me see where the most learning occurred as well as the areas that werent understood through the lessons. An x indicates the question was missed, A indicates the question was correct, and represents an absence. KEY # B A T Student number Pre-test (before) Post-test (after) Total Checks

Test Questions
# B 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 T x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x - - x x x - x 12 A B 2 x x x x x x x x x -x x x x - x - x 11 A B 3 -x - - 16 A B 4 x x x x x x x - x x - - 15 A B 5 x x x x x x x x x x x -x x x -x x x x - x 9 A B 6 x x x - x - - x 15 A B 7 x x x x x x -x x - - x 14 A B 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x - x x x - x x - x 11 A B 9 - - - 17 A B 10 x x x - x - - 16 A

Figure 16

The table above was very helpful to pin point concepts that students continue to have difficulty understanding. The table revealed that questions number 3 and 9 were understood by the students since not a single person lost points on either one. These questions asked students to name living things in an environment. Question 1 and 8 were the most difficult for students on the pre-test. Number 1 asked students to circle characteristics of living things. Only one student got that right. Question 8 was a vocabulary term to define. The word organism was unknown to students. For a concept to be sufficiently taught 80% or more of the students need to have mastered it. The total check marks show how many of the students got that question correct. 17 students were present to take the post-test. Students had the most growth with question number 1. 95% of the students got question 1 wrong on the pre-test. The post-test showed that 30% of the students got it wrong. Still, 70% leads me to believe this concept should be reviewed in small groups. Question 2 post-test showed that 64% of students understood this concept. This is due to the fact that students placed tree in the nonliving category. This needs to be reviewed as a whole class. Question 3 elicited a mastery of 94%. Only one student missed this question and he had gotten it correct on the pre-test. My assumption is that the post-test was taken at an inopportune time. 88% of students understood question 5. I will go over this question, with those that missed it, individually. Question 6 was the most misunderstood on the post-test. 52% of the students understood which small scale environments matched the large scale environments. This will need to be

reviewed with the students. Perhaps more exposure to this concept is needed in teaching this lesson in the future. The students understood the word temperature and prediction.. 88% got question 7 right while 82% understood question 8. Question 9, the vocabulary word organism was understood by 64%. I suspect reading this question aloud would have given better results since I had two students ask me how to pronounce the word. This word will need to be reviewed. Students didnt get to use the word as often as prediction was used. This led to the gap of understanding between the two words. Question 9 was again answered without any one missing points. Only one person missed points on question 10. The student that didnt answer number 10 correctly had written trees as nonliving things in her environment. The review for question 2 would be beneficial for correcting this misconception.

Discussion of Validity of Assessment Instruments in Measuring Learning

The pre and post-test was created by me. I tried to align the questions to measure progression for the entire unit. While I feel this was accomplished, I wonder about the format of the test. The first question is to circle words. Question 2 was to list words in one of two columns, the rest were short answers, multiple choice, and matching. Perhaps the many types of questions were difficult for students. I had to give instructions more than once and spotted several mistakes, during the test as well as after, relating to format. The most common mistake was that when the students got to the multiple choice questions, they felt the need to circle several answers as question one had instructed them to do.

Questions 3 and 4 were very similar to questions 9 and 10. For this reason, I feel that I should have eliminated one set and replaced it with questions on predictions or another concept covered in the unit.

Informed Conclusions Concerning Each Subgroups Student Learning

The first subgroup I analyzed was gender. The pre-test revealed the same average score. I had predicted that the female students would score higher on the post-test since they are typically more engaged in the lessons and generally do better in science. Though the male students had a wider scale in scores on the post-test, their average was slightly higher than their female peers. The female scores varied little with about a point or two difference from each other with the exception of two students. During the lessons, I made certain to include both male and female students and choose an equal amount of both to be called on.

Average Test Score Per Gender

8.8 10 8 6 4 2 0 Male Pre Post Female 6.5 6.5 8.2

Figure 17 During my planning and execution of each lesson I followed the SIOP components to be certain to reach all students including to connect with the ELL students in the class. I made sure

to include visuals, hands on activities and lots of opportunities for interactions and expression, both orally and written, so that the ELL students could gain understanding easily. As I analyzed the ELL scores I was pleased to see that they made the most gain of all the subgroups. While I was pleased with their gain, I realize that a second lesson, to review the concepts, is necessary.
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Class

Average Test Scores

Pre Test Post Test

ELL

Figure 18 During my instruction, I made accommodations to keep students that struggle with behavior involved and motivated. The behavior students all require extra time to discuss their learning and benefit from being called on to help. They all also have their own individual needs to be met. As I analyzed their scores, I was shocked to find that they made the least gain of all the subgroups. The next time I teach a unit, I will be sure to have a small group pre lesson to assist in their learning.

Average Test Scores

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Class Behavior Students Pre Test Post Test

Figure 19 At the beginning of the year, three students had IEPs, however as the year went on two of them moved away. There is currently only one student with an IEP. It is for our student who is Autistic and is designed to address his behavior in and out of the classroom. Part of his IEP states that he is required to have an aide with him at all times. He tends to get frustrated easily and has frequent outbursts, many of which are violent. As he took the pre-test his aide noted that he guessed on questions 6, 7, and 8. They are the vocabulary, multiple choice questions. After his post-test taking his aide came to me and said she was very impressed by his purposeful and correct choices. He got the same score for the post-test as he did for the pre-test. Question 1 improved and question 2 was missed both times because he wrote tree under nonliving things. Question 5 was missed in the post-test but not in the pre-test. He also missed the vocabulary word organism both times. Since he belongs in the behavior group as well, he would be included in the pre lesson teaching group. Figure 20 shows his individual score versus the class average for the pre and post-test.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Class IEP/Student # 7 Pre Test Post Test

Figure 20 Whenever I plan and teach a lesson, I tried to be mindful and include the diverse cultural background of the classroom. As I taught this lesson, I attempted to use background and past learning experiences to enhance the lesson. I was curious how Caucasian students performed against the minority students in the classroom. Though their average post-test score was a point below their Caucasian peers, the minority subgroup made large gains in their average score and made the second largest gain next to the ELL students.
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Caucasian Students Pre Test Post Test Minority Students 5 7.14 8.33 7.2

Figure 21

The last subgroup I looked at was the talented and high student group. While planning lessons, I incorporate accommodations for the talented/high achieving student in the class room. The high students in this classroom are highly receptive to thought provoking question and challenging tasks. This unit required an extra critical view of the environments they studied with their groups. The pre-test showed that these students already knew much of the material. They, on average, scored one point higher on their post-test than their average pre-test score.

Average Test Scores

Pre-test Post-test

8.5 7.4

6.5

Class Talented/High

Figure 22