Analysis of Student Learning

Assessment Information
1.
Formative
Standard
Assessment
Alignment
Crash Pre-Test
Character
Prediction
Prediction Exit-Slip

Grade Range

7.RL.2.1
7.RL. 2.1

Number of
Students
completing
assessment
12
12

7.RL. 2.3

10 (two students

100%

absent)
12 (one student did not
turn in his assignment)

0%-100%

12 (one student was

0% - 89%

63% - 94%
70% - 100%

Crash Interrupted
Passage handout
Reading Response
#13

7.RL. 2.1
7.SL.2.5
7. W. 3.3

Penn Interrupted
Passage handout
Quakers Close
Reading and Quiz
Bullying Graphic
Organizer
Crash Chapters 110 Quiz
Reading Response
#14
Crash
Comprehension
Questions Chapters
15-19
Literary Device
Quiz
Crash Internal
Monologue

7.RL. 2.1
7.SL.2.5
7.RN.4.3

12

50%-100%

12

30% -100%

7.RN.4.3

12

50%-100%

7.RL. 2.1
7.RL. 2.3
7.W.1

12

65% - 94%

12

77%-92%

7.RL.2.1

12

50%-100%

7.W.6.1

12

50% - 100%

7.W.3.3

11 (One student was

50%-100%

Crash Quiz
Chapters 11-35
Compare and
Contrast Writing #3

7.RL.2.1
7.RL.2.3
7.W.3.1

absent during this

assignment and did not
ever make up the
assignment)

absent for several days

and I chose to make
this assignment
exempt)

12

63%-97%

12 (One student was

0%-100%

supposed to come in for

a working lunch to
receive help, but did
not show up)

2. Summative Assessments:
Summative
Assessment

Standard
Alignment

Crash Summative
Assessment

7.RL.2.1
7.RN.2.1
7.RV.2.1
7.W.6.1
7.W.3.1
7.W.6.1

Compare and
Contrast
Summative Paper

3. Whole Class Pre- versus Post- Test:

4.) Sub-Group Analysis:

Number of
students
completing
assessment
12 **Every student

Grade Range

84%-100%

met the class goal of

80% or higher**

12 (There was one

student who did not
finish writing his paper
despite several chances)

17% - 98%

High Lexile vs. Low Lexile

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Pre-Test
High-Lexile Group

Post-Test
Low-Lexile Group

I have decided to compare the High-Lexile range students to those of the Low-Lexile
range. One could assume that students with a higher Lexile score would outperform those
students with a lower Lexile score. However, since I have used a variety of groupings and
pairings throughout this Novel Unit I believe that they have had equal opportunity to master
comprehending Jerry Spinellis Crash as well as compare and contrast writing.

5.) Individual Students:

Student A vs. Student B

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Student A

Student B

Student A is in the class mid-Lexile grouping, while Student B is in the low-Lexile group.
Student A and Student B put forth the same amount of work ethic in the class, and are both two
of the quieter students. Both of these students could easily be missed in a larger group because of
their quiet demeanor along with an inability to seek help when they are confused. Furthermore,
these two students must be checked-in on during instruction because many times they are
unaware of what they do not know until I begin prompting them with questions to assess their
comprehension of the lessons expectation. Student Bs lowest grade is a 30% because he simply
did not turn his page over to recognize that there were more questions on the back. This was a
quiz in which I had explicitly gone over the instructions, but for some reason he was not paying
close enough attention when they were given. Student B struggled more at the beginning of this
Novel Unit, and I believe that it was due to language. Student B is one of three ESL students in
the class, and the Novel Unit focused on the students identifying descriptive character traits in
connection to the main characters of Crash. Student Bs limited vocabulary hindered his

progress towards the beginning of the Novel Unit; however, he became much more proficient in
using a thesaurus by the third assignment. While Student A received higher grades than Student
B she was unprepared to many classes, having left necessary worksheets in her locker or at home
when they were needed for her writing. In addition, her attention to detail in her work cost her
unnecessary points. For instance, she would leave sentences unfinished, or not fix answers that
we had gone over in class. However, at the end of the Novel Unit she was one of the two
students who receive a 100% on the post-test.

Assessment Commentary:
Student Data
1.)

The formative assessments that I used in class for my Novel Unit guided my decisions

regarding the modifications that I made, as well as how much time I spent reviewing certain
concepts regarding descriptive character traits, finding evidence from the novel, Crash, and how
to format compare and contrast writing. For instance, the first time that I released the students to
complete a Character Analysis handout in which they had to independently find a citation to
support a descriptive character trait, most of the students failed. By looking through their original
Character Analysis handouts I found that many of the students had not been following along
when we read the book aloud, and as a result found it difficult to find the citations they needed.
Therefore, when I passed back out the assignment their low grades reflected the importance of
following along during the reading process. This formative assessment led me to recopy the
handout again, staple their original copy to the back, and go through the instruction a second
time. Furthermore, during the next Character Analysis handout, I allowed the students to find a
partner after completing the assignment to compare and contrast their answers with another

persons (this was also a great activity to have the students verbally share with the class in a
compare and contrast format). It was not until the fourth and final Character Analysis
assignment that the students had mastered this skill. I am so glad that I structured this Novel Unit
in such a way that the students had multiple opportunities to manipulate the same skill.

2.)

During my Teach Week, I had two summative assessments. The first summative

assessment is the Crash Post-Test. Many of my students did well on the Crash pre-test because
they had read the novel in 6th grade. As a result, some of my pre-test scores were higher than I
would have thought. The interesting aspect in respect to the pre-test scores is that it was my
lowest-Lexile students who did the best because it was these students who had read the novel
previously. I enjoyed their deeper conversations and that they participated more during the novel
discussions because this was their second reading of the novel. By the post-test, I had found out
that the students were most weak in answering their short answers questions. They had been
doing an amazing job answering the multiple-choice and true/false questions; however, they
continually were not constructing good short answer responses. Mrs. Slifer and I focus on using
RAS (Restate, Answer, Support) when writing, and this has been an ongoing lesson since the
beginning of the school year. Yet, some students simply choose to not use this method of
writing. Therefore, before the test began I spent time reviewing RAS and then showed the
students on the board how many points each short answer questions was worth, so that they
would understand how many points that a short answer questions could add up to. My goal was
to encourage them to focus just as much attention on their short answer as they had been doing
on the other types of questions. Finally, I reminded them of what their class goal grade is on

assessments, an 80% or higher, and then released them to begin. Every single student met our
class goal average of an 80% or higher on this summative assessment.
The second summative assessment the students took was their compare and contrast
paper. I created this Novel Unit with two characterization strategies: Character Analysis and
Interrupted Passage. The students had a total of six handouts using these strategies by the end
of the novel unit. I also included five oral and written compare and contrast opportunities for the
students. All of these assignments fluidly were incorporated into the Novel Unit, which is why I
think that the students were completely ready to write their seven paragraph paper (the longest
paper theyve written in our class). When I first had the students write in the compare and
contrast format, I had them doing a paragraph. My focus was on the transitions and
understanding the terminology when comparing and contrasting two items. Then, we moved on
to lengthier responses. Once the students were ready to write their paragraphs for their
summative paper, they had every resource they needed to begin. The students brought their six
characterization handouts to the small group, as well as their thesis: who they would choose to be
their best friend (Penn or Crash). The characterization handouts allowed them to compare and
contrast these two characters easily, while also have direct citations from the novel already
completed. Eleven out of my twelve students met our class goal of an 80% or higher on their
writing. The one student who did not achieve our goal did not complete his assignment despite
several opportunities.

3.)

The subgroups that I chose to monitor were to compare the higher-Lexile learners to the

lower-Lexile students. When I compared the higher-Lexile learners to the lower-Lexile students
in regards to pre- and post-tests, the lower-Lexile learners achieved higher scores. I was

impressed with my lower-Lexiles stronger ability to comprehend Crash more than I had
observed them comprehending other texts in our class, which was when I learned that this was a
second read for these students. My lower-Lexile students all had the same sixth grade teacher,
and this was a novel that she had taught them. When I had chosen to evaluate these two groups
of learners, I had hoped that both groups would perform at the same level because I purposely
placed the students with partners and in heterogeneous collaborative groups. These groupings
were to be a type of support for all learners.
Typically, my lower-Lexile learners do not participate as much as they did during this
Novel Unit, and I feel that with them having led the class for a few weeks in discussion that they
will gain a new confidence in their own learning. In fact, out of the two 100%s on the Crash
post-test assessment, one was a lower-Lexile learner, and the other a mid-Lexile learner. Two of
my higher-Lexile learners did show great leadership skills whenever we worked on our compare
and contrast writing. Two of my male students mastered this type of writing quickly and
volunteered to assist their peers. I love with this type of learning takes place: student-to-student
teaching because it shows mastery on the student-teacher and then the learners pay closer
attention because it is their peer helping them.

4.)

Prior to this Unit, Student A and Student B were both passing the class. Both of these

students are quiet and compliant to learning. However, neither was able to graduate out of the
Scholastic 180 program because they do not asks questions when they are confused. Both
Student A began the Novel Unit stronger than Student B; however, she began to make careless
mistakes. By the end of the Novel Unit both students were performing equally strong. Neither of
these students stood out as major participants during the reading of the novel, or when the

compare and contrast writing was taking place. They are content to be the average in the class,
not raising their hands too often, but when each is called on doing well to answer the question.
Student A was one of the two students who received a 100% on the Crash post-test. Student B
made excellent growth in his vocabulary because I would not accept the low-level words he tried
to turn in during the beginning of the Novel Unit on his Character Analysis handouts.
Therefore, after a few low grades, he began trying harder.

Formative Instruments:
I believe that each formative assessment aligned with the Indiana State Academic
Standards. There were at total of 15 assessments that I was able to use during this Crash Novel
Unit. The most beneficial formative assessments that I learned from were the Character
Analysis and Interrupted Passage handouts. The heart of the Novel Unit was descriptive
characterization, and if the students were not able to move to a place of independence when
characterizing, then I needed to change my teaching methodology to ensure they found their way
to mastery. I noticed during the first opportunity that I released them, that the students did not do
well. Therefore, I took a slower route to independence. We reviewed the failed first attempt, and
then tried again together. During the next characterization activity, I allowed the students to
compare and contrast their answers with a peer before turning in the assignment. I learned that it
is okay to have high expectations for students as long as I am willing to be flexible if they miss
the mark. Formative assessment is crucial in understanding what material needs to be retaught or
moved on from so that there is not any wasted time in the classroom. Each formative assessment
guided my next days lesson plans in terms of what needed to be taught differently, taught more,
and was already mastered.

Summative Instruments:
I believe that both summative assessments aligned with the Indiana State Academic
Standards. The Crash post-test incorporated four Indiana State Academic Standards, from
reading fiction to nonfiction, utilizing literary vocabulary, and writing response to short answer
questions. The scores from this post-test ranged from an 84% to a 100%, reflecting the students
hard work and excellent interaction on a whole with the Novel Unit. Every single student met
the class goal of an 80% on this summative assessment. The best part is that when we finished
reading the last page of Crash, many students asked me what the next novel was going to be.
They voiced their enjoyment of the Novel Unit and wanted another one. In my opinion, this is
learning at its bestwhen students are asking for more.
The next summative assessment assignment was the students compare and contrast paper,
which met two Indiana State Academic Standards. The writing took place from the beginning to
the end of the Novel Unit. When I released the students to write their summative papers I
genuinely took on the role of a facilitator. I did not have any students confused in regards to the
formatting of their papers. The most challenging aspect of this writing were the explanations
that the students had to construct following and/or introducing their direct citation (this citation
supported the character trait they used to compare and contrast Crash Coogan with Penn Webb).
The students needed prompting questions to get to the reason why they felt that specific
character took on that descriptive trait. Then, they would verbalize the answer, to which I would
confirm that it was good, but then they would look up at me and say so what do I write? It was
comical at first, but once they got into their third body paragraph, my prompting questions were
not needed nearly as much. This was also the point in which I had a few students who had
finished more quickly than others because they completely understood the entirety of the writing,
and they asked to help others. The scores from this summative assessment ranged from a 17% to

a 98%. The 17% is a poor reflection on the class, because this one student did not show up to
complete his paper despite several opportunities to do so. The next lowest grade was an 80%,
reflecting that eleven out the twelve students met our class goal of achieving an 80% or higher.