1
Analysis of Student Learning
Analysis of Student Learning
Whole Class
After creating the table and graph to assess individual students’ progress for all learning objectives, it was clear to see that achievement is evident. Learning Goal 1: (Students will be able to analyze connections between text ideas and own experiences by analyzing and evaluating the relationship between The Woman Warrior and its historical period and culture with 80% achievement) was met collectively as a class after conducting the post-assessment and had the highest rate of progress (16%). Almost every single student improved from the Pre- to Post-Assessment for this learning goal, with the one exception being Student D, who achieved 100% in the Pre- and Post-Assessments. Though Student F did not meet the LG, she improved the most by 70%. Every other student met the learning goal (83% of the class).
Learning Goal 2: (Students will be able to plan, compose, and present written, oral and visual presentations for a variety of purposes and audiences with 80% achievement) was somewhat ineffective for two reasons. Proper time could not be given to assess this goal and many students (50%) of them did not remember to complete their Post-Assessment for LG 2, which is why they received zeros. This did not dishearten me much, since this was the learning goal that students excelled at the most. In order for the students to meet LG 3, I had to tailor the schedule and so I ended up meshing LG 2 and LG 3 together. As a Formative Assessment, students had to write a Reflective Paper on the novel, reflecting on their search for their identity in high school as a woman in American society, as well as reflect on the cultural activity that made them think about what makes up their identity. This meshing of the two goals together and coming at the end of the novel, made students feel that the Reflective Paper was sufficient as a Post-Assessment for LG 1 and LG 3. They felt they were just repeating themselves when they took the Post-Assessment. This prevented students from being post-assessed for LG 2 because many of them forgot to complete their post-assessments or forgot about the section on the post-assessment for LG 2, which explains why there are zeros. Therefore, there was no achievement rate for LG 2, but rather a very large decline (28%). But I must point out that the three students who did complete LG 2’s post-assessment, all did better compared to the pre-assessment and collectively had an achievement rate of 27%. 50% of the class met the learning goal.
Learning Goal 3: (Students will be able to write reflective papers that analyze specific incidents and reveal certain themes with 80% achievement) was met collectively for the class after conducting the post-assessment. The rate of achievement was 14% and came in at a close second to LG 1. Students E and F greatly improved their scores compared to the pre-assessment. The average rate of achievement for these two students is 65%. 83% of the class met the learning goal.
After charting every individual student’s performance it is easy to see that the largest discrepancy in student achievement is in LG 2 assessments. This may be due to the type of pre-assessment that LG 2 is, which is Listing, since the students indicated on the VARK Survey that they were largely Kinesthetic and Visual Learners.
Pre- & Post-Assessment Data for Whole Class on all Learning Goals in Table Format
LG 1 Pre-Assessment / LG 1 Post- Assessment / LG 2 Pre-Assessment / LG 2 Post-Assessment / LG 3 Pre-Assessment / LG 3 Post-AssessmentStudent A / 90 / 100 / 90 / 0 / 100 / 98
Student B / 100 / 100 / 60 / 0 / 100 / 96
Student C / 90 / 100 / 90 / 100 / 100 / 120
Student D / 100 / 100 / 100 / 0 / 120 / 110
Student E / 80 / 90 / 90 / 100 / 10 / 100
Student F / 0 / 70 / 40 / 100 / 0 / 40
Average Percentage / 77% / 93% / 78% / 50% / 72% / 94%
Subgroups
I chose to analyze the assessment results between leveled students (Honors, Advanced, and Regular) since students contracted into different academic ability groups and to see if there was any validity to students contracting and academically stereotyping or challenging themselves. 83% of students met LG 3 by the end of the post-assessment with the exception of Student F, though she improved by 40%. The largest rate of achievement was for the students who contracted in Advanced. They met LG 3 in the pre-assessment and surpassed the learning goal, but the largest rate of achievement in terms of growth occurred for the students who were contracted in Regular level. They improved 65% from the pre- to post- assessment. Ideally, the student who was in Honors should have achieved the highest score, and so I found it interesting that students seemed to do best when contracted at the Advanced level. I wonder if this is for two reasons. One, I think students do best at Advanced because they are challenging themselves, as compared to contracting for Regular, but they are not overwhelming themselves, as compared to possibly contracting in Honors. Also, there were a larger number of students in the Advanced level (three students or 50% of the class was contracted for Advanced). I think having more peers on the same academic level makes students feel comfortable and thus leads to higher achievement.
Pre- & Post-Assessment for Subgroups (Honors, Advanced, Regular) on LG 3
Honors / LG 3 Pre-Assessment / LG 3 Post-Assessment / Rate of Achievement (growth) from Pre- to Post-Assessment in %Student A / 90 / 98
Average % for Honors / 90% / 98% / 8%
Advanced
Student B / 100 / 96
Student C / 100 / 120
Student D / 120 / 110
Average % for Advanced / 107% / 109% / 2%
Regular
Student E / 10 / 100
Student F / 0 / 40
Average % for Regular / 5% / 70% / 65%
Average Percentage / 72% / 94% / 22%
Individuals
Student A and Student C are the two students that I have selected to demonstrate different levels of performance. Student A is contracted for Honors and Student C is contracted for Advanced.
Student A received a 90% on her pre-assessment for LG 1 and LG 2, while Student C scored a 90% on LG 1 and LG 2 for the pre-assessment. For LG 3, Student A achieved a 90% and Student A scored 100% (see Appendix O-Q and V-X). For the post-assessments of LG 1 and LG 2, Student C scored a 100%, while Student A scored a 100% (LG 1) and a 0% (LG 2). For the post-assessment of LG 3, Student A made a 98% and Student C scored the highest out of the entire class with a 120% (see Appendix R-U and Y-DD). Student A achieved a total average of 78% overall on all pre- and post-assessments, while Student C achieved a 100% overall (and had the highest score in the entire class). Student C scored 22% higher overall than Student A and scored 29% higher than the rest of the class on average. Student A could have done better on the post-assessment, while Student C far surpassed my expectations. Student A forgot to do some of it, which brought down her overall performance. Both students did a remarkable job and put sincere effort into the Reflective Paper (see Appendix R-U and Y-BB).
It is important to understand the learning of these two students because once again, ideally Student A, who contracted for Honors, should have achieved higher than Student C, who contracted for Advanced. After reviewing the Interest Survey for both of these students though, Student C is more involved at school than Student A, but this may not be the reason why Student C excels. In fact, one would think that Student C would not do as well, due to all the other responsibilities and activities she has going on. The reason I think Student C achieved higher than Student A, is because she contracted for the Advanced level. The Advanced level challenged her, but did not overwhelm her. The problem with the school’s STAR Program is that even though there is some teacher input, the decision to contract into the three different levels is almost entirely left up to the students (and their parents to an extent, since they must sign the contract along with their child). The Advanced and Honors levels weight the students GPA and at semester, students have the opportunity of switching to a different level (higher or lower). Though learning to differentiate instruction is a wonderful skill to develop for teachers, since not all students will be academically at the same level, I question the ethos of students stereotyping themselves academically through contracting. On the one hand, students that excel at particular subjects can contract for a higher level, but there students may not just be academically contracting, but socially contracting themselves. Student A was the only Honors student in the class and though she was an active participant, she was not as socially accepted by her peers as Student C. The saying, “It’s lonely at the top” comes to mind. This may be the reason why Student C achieved higher than Student A.