Standard IV:

Analysis of Student Learning (DM2)

Student Performance Assessment
Presented in Data Tables and Charts
Figure 1 shows the pre and post-test for each student. Students can receive up to 100 on
either of the tests. The percentages run vertically along the left side of the chart and the students
numbers are horizontally on the bottom of the chart.
Figure 1
Pre-Test

100

Post-Test

75

50

25

18

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Figure 1.2 displays the scores of all the students within subgroups. The subgroups are
labeled: E-ELL, I- IEP, G-GATE, L-Lower Level, and R-Racial Minority. Again, the
percentages run vertically on the left side of the chart and the student numbers run horizontally
on the bottom of the chart.

Figure 1.2
Pre-Test

100

Post-Test

75

50

25

1G

2G

4E,R,L

5R

6I,L

7L

Figure 1.3 show the data in more detail with the student number and subgroup in the left
column followed by the scores of the pre-test and post-test. The far right column shows the
improvement that student made from the pre to the post-test.

Figure 1.3
Student

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Improvement

1G

100%

100%

0%

2G

100%

100%

0%

100%

100%

0%

4 E, R, L

100%

75%

25%

5R

100%

100%

0%

50%

100%

50%

0%

50%

50%

50%

100%

50%

100%

100%

0%

10

100%

100%

0%

11

50%

100%

50%

12

100%

100%

0%

13

100%

100%

0%

14

100%

100%

0%

15

25%

100%

75%

16

75%

100%

25%

6 L, I
7L

Subgroup Key:
G-GATE
E-ELL
R-Racial Minority
L-Lower Level
I-IEP

Summary of Individual Performance on

Various Assignments
As a way to analyze the effectiveness of my lessons, I looked closely at the scores of a
GATE Students, an at grade level students, and an ELL who is a lower level students. I examined
any changes they made throughout my unit. I had students turn in assignments and assessments
so that I could analyze the results of these three students. Figure 1.4 shows the main assignments
and assessments, along with their scores.

Figure 1.4
Pre-Test

Diagram

Review

Post-Test

#1 GATE

100%

100%

100%

100%

#3 At Grade Level

100%

87.5%

100%

100%

#4 ELL & Lower

Level

100%

75%

100%

75%

Class Average

71.9%

95.3

100%

95.3%

Explanation of assessments:
Pre and Posttest:
The pre and post-test was a diagram of a flower which listed four major parts, both included the
same questions. They each had four questions to answer. For these four questions, students were
to correctly label the major parts of a flower.
Diagram:
This assessment was very helpful in seeing how much each student understood after a few

lessons on the major parts of a flower. The students were required to put together the major parts/
pieces of a flower. After arranged correctly, students where then required to label the major parts
of a flower and place in the correct area on their diagram. This formative assessment also served
as a great review.
Review:
While students planted their own flowers during small groups, I was able to review the major
parts of a flower with each student. This small group interaction was incredibly helpful, since I
was able to work one on one and analyze what each of the students knew and then if further
reviewing needed to take place.
GATE: Student #1
Student #1, a high learner, received 100% on both the pre and post-test. He above average on all
of the formative and summative assessments. I wasnt at all surprised that he received 100% on
his pre-test. His mother is a 1st grade teacher at the same elementary school and is frequently
teaching him more advanced learning to keep him from getting bored. He was one of the first
students to complete his flower diagram and label all the major parts correctly. He also didn't
have any struggles when reading the major parts to me either. During the review, he was quick to
answer the questions throughout the planting of the flower, which consisted of a review of the
major parts.
At Grade Level: Student # 3
This next student I analyzed received an above average score on her pre and post assessment.
She received a 87.5% on her diagram assignment. This assignment students correctly arranged
the parts of a flower and then labeled the parts. She incorrectly labeled the stem, stating it was a
leaf instead. The error was then corrected and she was able to take home her diagram with the

correct order and labeling of a flower. This particular student is always putting her best foot
forward, continually trying her hardest. Her mother comes in to volunteer once a week and
provides great support for her daughter. I wasnt the least bit surprised with how well she did
throughout the unit. Her participation in the review was outstanding as well. She was quick to
raise her hand and answer the questions.
Low: Student #4
The lower leveled, ELL student I analyzed received an above average pre-test and review score
but scored below average on his diagram and post-test. He mixed up both the stem and the petals
on his flower diagram. This was a common mistake amongst all the other students that received a
lesser score. I was excited after scoring his pre-test and seeing that he received a score of 100%,
but then was flustered once I graded his post-test and he received a score of 75%. I initially
thought that I confused him throughout the lesson. After talking with him I think the language
barrier was the main issue. I believe that if he could have just told me the parts and pointed to the
correct part he would have gotten them correctly. The written portion and reading may have been
too overwhelming. Because of the language barrier I should have spent more time one on one
with him. Throughout the unit I felt as if he was grasping the concept. After his post-test I met
with him and went over the diagram again and he was able to determine where he made his
mistakes and then correct them.

Explanation of Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment Findings

The classs average score on the pretest was 71.9% and 95.3% on the posttest. The
average improvement rate was %. I was thrilled to see that all but one student either improved on
their scores or received a 100% both times. Fourteen of the sixteen students earned 100% on
their post-test, I was ecstatic about this. The students who received less than 100% were at 75%
6

and 50%. The student who earned 50% on her post-test had a large increase of 50% and I was
glad that her percentage had a significant increase. I was pleasantly surprised that student #15
showed such improvement and earned 100% on the post-test. If you refer back to figure 1.3 you
can see that he scored one of the lowest scores of 25%. This particular students is frequently off
task and rarely is paying attention, causing most of the behavior problems. However, he enjoyed
my engaging lessons, and was excited each day to continue the unit.
Giving the pre-test and organizing the data helped me to see students prior knowledge as
well as misconceptions. I was pleasantly surprised to see that ten of the sixteen students received
a score of 100%. The question that was missed the most was which part of the flower was the
roots. Students were able to easily determine the leafs and petals of a flower.

Discussion of Validity of Assessment Instruments in Measuring Learning

All of the assessments focused on the major parts of a flower and how is part essentially
helps the plant grow. We also focused on five main needs of a plants, which also help the plant to
grow and survive. Students completed several different forms of assessment, either through
games, scavenger hunts, reviews, art, and class discussion. The class was exposed to the major
parts through several different methods and materials. I found these different forms of
assessments through UEN, as well as from previous kindergarten teachers that had taught similar
lessons and/or units.

Informed Conclusions concerning each Subgroups Student Learning

The first subgroup I analyzed was student gender. Because the class has the same number of
boys and girls it was easy for me to quickly examine which gender scored higher. Figure 1.5
shows that the males scored higher on both the pre and post-test. A lot of the score deviation, I
think, has to do with one particular female student who received 0% on her pre-test and only
50% on the post-test.

Figure 1.5:

Pre-Test

100

Post-Test

75

50

25

8
0

Male

Female

Figure 1.6 shows the average test scores for ELLs compared to native English speakers.
The data shows that the ELL student scored better than the rest of the class on the pre-test.
The ELL student score decrease by 25% from the pre to the post-test. Still, I feel it was my
responsibility to get them to the same level of understanding. Although I differentiated quite a
bit, I should have focused more on whether or not this ELL student understood the academic
language I was using. I believed he would have been able to tell me the parts correctly, rather
than having to write them. Because his english is somewhat limited I should have allowed him
this opportunity, because I think he knew the concept.

Figure 1.6:
Pre-Test

100

Post-Test

75

50

25

9
ELL Student

Non ELL Student

The last subgroup I analyzed were GATE students compared to the rest of the class, who are
either at grade level or below grade level. Figure 1.7 shows a significant difference in scores
between the two groups on the pre-test. The post-test scores were very close, not showing much
of a difference, which was great. The chart also shows that the GATE students started the unit
with more prior knowledge than the rest of the class.

Figure 1.7
Pre-Test

100

Post-Test

75

50

25

GATE

Non-GATE

10