Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Objective 1
Focus Students are identified by an * on the graphs.
A4.) The pre-test results of the class based off of mastery were 13/25. That is more than half of the students,
however that is not the desired level they should be performing at. I had three students receive a 4/5, ten students
A5.) My post-test results showed mastery for the majority of the class with 19/25. However, I had 4 students
who either maintained or went down points. The students who went down are students who typically rush through
their work or do not read the directions clearly. Objective 1 is strictly on factors, which insists you know your
multiplication tables. These students may be lacking in that skill.
A6.) As a whole class, the mastery level went up and the non-mastery level went down which is what we aim
for. I had 19 students master the objective and 6 as non-mastery. Two of the students were my focus students,
another is a child who is constantly in and out of the classroom due to her home life situation, and the others are low
performing.
A7.) As stated above, the 6 students who did not receive mastery are the low performing students or low SES.
When a childs physical, mental, and emotional needs are not met, there is little to no learning-taking place.
However, my low performing students either didnt know how to read the test (we went over it together), rushed
through the work, or didnt care enough to actually put forth effort and try.
B2.) Focus Student 1 scored a 1/5 on the pre-test and Focus Student 2 scored a 2/5. I know that both of them
have trouble with their multiplication facts. Student 1 completes multiplication facts by using dots, which is effective
until he ends up having to draw 72 dots. Student 2 is frequently off task and not focused; she also struggles with
multiplication tables.

B3.) Focus Student 1 scored a 2/5 and Focus Student 2 scored a 2/2.
B4.) Student 1 went up by one point while Student 2 maintained her score. While this isnt a score going
backwards, it isnt much of a gain either. If I were to continue working with them during Tier II Math on their
multiplication tables and basic facts, I have no doubt I would see growth in them.
B5.) The focus students were not necessarily unsuccessful with objective 1, however they didnt gain much
knowledge on the skill either. As stated above, they are both behind on their multiplication tables. Multiplication ties
hand in hand with factors and multiples, so if the students were already struggling to begin with, there wasnt much
room for growth; even if I were to spend every Tier II Math time with them small group.

## Student Performance on Objective 1

Total Points Possible: 5pts

Pre-Test
Post-Test

## Whole Group Performance on Objective 1

Mastery
Non-Mastery

Objective 2
Focus Students are identified by an * on the graphs.
A4.) The pre-test results of the class based off of mastery were 5/25, which is significantly low. Therefore, I can
assume that students have little to no knowledge about multiples. The 5 students who scored mastery on this
objective for their pre-test scored a 4/5 or a 5/5.
A5.) The post-test results showed mastery for 20/25 students. However, the remaining 5 students scored a 0/5
on the post-test. They completely did not understand the concept. I did notice that some of the students got the two
terms, factors and multiples, confused and mixed up.
A6.) As a whole class, objective 2 was my greatest accomplishment and content gain. The students went from
5/25 mastery on the pre-test to 20/25 on the post-test, which is a significant gain. However, I have 5 students who
scored a 0/5 for this particular objective.
A7.) On the multiples section of the post-test, students were to just list 3 multiples for a given number. Two of
the students wrote factor pairs, one student wrote prime/composite, and the other two students just circled one of
the numbers. This is clear evidence that the students either have multiples/factors confused or they just simply did
not read the directions that were directly above the questions.
B2.) Focus Students 1 and 2 both scored a 0/5 for objective 2 on the pre-test. Student 1 just wrote down a
random number while Student 2 just circled one of the questions.
B3.) Focus Student 1 and 2 both scored a 0/5 for objective 2 on the post-test. Student 1 wrote factor pairs,
which were correct with the corresponding number; however, those are not multiples. Student 2, again, just circled a
question.
B4.) Student 1 and 2 did not make any kind of gain from the pre-test to the post-test.
B5.) Student 1 has a very short attention span and only learns in certain ways. He is very careless about his
grades and does not care if he is passing or failing, so if it is something that does not interest him, he wont put forth

any effort. That is what happened in this case. Its evident he was paying attention to some of the lesson, but
probably didnt focus completely because he got multiples/factors mixed up. Student 2 on the other hand is
extremely low. She either didnt know the content because it is above her skill level or she didnt know how to read
the questions on the paper; she is reading on a 1 st grade level.

## Student Performance on Objective 2

Total Points Possible: 5pts
6

4
Pre-Test
3

Post-Test

## Whole Group Performance on Objective 2

25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Mastery
Non-Mastery

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Objective 3
Focus Students are identified by an * on the graphs.
A4.) The pre-test results of the class based off of mastery were 13/25, which is more than half of the class
however we do not want them to maintain at this level. There were 7 students who scored a 0/5 on the pre-test for
prime/composite numbers.
A5.) The post-test results showed mastery for 21/25 students. However, the remaining 4 students scored as
follows: one student scored a 0/5, two students scored a 1/5, and 1 student scored a 2/5.
A6.) As a whole class, objective 3 was a significant improvement and gain as well. The mastery level went
from 13/35 to 21/25, which is a 9-student increase. However, I still have those 4 students who are non-mastery.
A7.) For the prime/composite section of the test, students were given a number, and they simply had to write
either if the number was prime or composite. One student just circled one of the numbers, one student didnt
complete the work, one student just wrote composite for all the numbers, and another student just got the two
confused. Student 5 rushes through his work constantly, student 7 is my focus student 2 who has trouble reading or
asking for help, student 9 doesnt fully pay attention, and student 10 is my child with the unhealthy home situation.
B2.) Focus Students 1 and 2 both scored a 0/5 for objective 2 on the pre-test. Student 1 just wrote down a
random guess while Student 2 just circled one of the questions, again.
B3.) Focus Student 1 went from a 0/5 to a 3/5, which is mastery. Student 2 maintained at a 0/5 for the pre and
post-test. Student 2, again, just circled a question. I genuinely believe she is scared to ask for help, because she
cannot read the problem and is easily embarrassed or the content is too hard for her.
B4.) Student 2 did not make any kind of gain from the pre-test to the post-test. Student 1 went from 0/5 to a
3/5 therefore he achieved mastery on the skiil!
B5.) I genuinely believe Student 2 is scared to ask for help, because she cannot read the problem and is easily
embarrassed or the content is too hard for her. She becomes easily frustrated and embarrassed with herself,

because she is low performing in all subjects. However, she enjoys art; hence, why I included the factor rainbows
activity.

## Student Performance on Objective 3

Total Points Possible: 5pts
6

4
Pre-Test
3

Post-Test

## Whole Group Performance on Objective 3

Mastery
Non-Mastery

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Objective 4
Focus Students are identified by an * on the graphs.
A.) For this particular objective, there was no pre/post test. This objective was assessed and monitored by a
checklist during the lesson. The completed checklist can be found under Task 5. However, the graphs below display
the same data. I monitored the students to see if they were using the technology effectively and appropriately.
Student 9, 15, and 25 were the only students who did not do so. They were off task and not using the technology to
B.) Both of my focus students used the technology extremely well. Focus Student 1 works better with
technology and Focus Student 2 always follows directions and does as she is told, until she starts to struggle with
the content.

## Student Performance on Objective 4

Informally Assessed with Checklist

Skill: Yes(1)/No(0)

Mastery
Non-Mastery

Skill