Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jasmine Gomez Teacher Work Sample EDST 4500 NA
Chapter 4: Post-Assessment Narrative & Data
Evaluation of Student Learning Due to the timing of my unit and state-testing schedule in my school, the post-assessment
was broken up into two parts that were given to my students over a two-week period. The first part of the post-assessment was a small performance for a second grade class that was done a week before state testing took place. The students sang the last two songs we worked on during the unit for the second grade class. The “woodchuck” song was done by memory and the class was divided up into 4 groups: 3 groups singing a line of lyrics, 1 group clapping and stomping the rhythmic line. Performing this song was a lot of fun because the students were able to get into it and we managed to change the tempo at various times to keep the song engaging with the second graders.
The Spanish song was not song by memory; the students got to use their books as they sang along with the instrumental version of the song and myself. I was able to edit the instrumental version in Garage band by slowing down the tempo to accommodate the students. The CD played both the original and instrumental versions at a fast tempo making it difficult for the students to sing along and attempting to pronounce the words correctly. I slowed the tempo down at a comfortable tempo that we practiced at before performing it for the second graders. I selected a few students to play the two short ostinatos along with myself using hand percussion instruments and congas as we sang along with the instrumental CD track. The students were graded on how well they participated individually in the small group performance using acceptable, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory as a rating system.
For the second part of the post-assessment, I decided to recreate the jeopardy review game to use as part one of the post-assessment for the students. It was rather difficult deciding on what kind of assessment to do because one: all related arts classes were held in the students’ homeroom classes due to testing, and two: I did not want to create an activity that would disrupt the nearby classes that were testing. I had to plan lessons for all of my classes that were flexible enough for me to do without having to worry about depending on the classroom teacher for materials, yet allowing the students to have some fun and wind down from testing all day. Since my cooperating teacher had already decided to start giving the students their music finals the week after state testing was over, I thought a review game would be the best idea to do for all my classes. All it required was a PowerPoint game saved to my flash drive and my cooperating teacher’s portable cart with a projector and laptop. I did not have to rely on using the classroom teacher’s computer and the students already had their own paper and pencils to use in the classroom.
For my selected class for this unit, I used the same jeopardy game layout as the pre-assessment, but changed two of the categories and updated select questions in the previous categories that involved sound clips. I wanted to make sure that the game did not have any sound to ensure that no nearby classes were going to be disturbed as they tested. The layout of the game is the same as the pre-assessment game: six categories with one final jeopardy question at the end. The first four categories (treble clef notes, bass clef notes, music terms, instruments) stayed the same, with some updated questions. The two new categories added into the game are music
symbols and random music information, which consisted of questions referring to notation, vocabulary, instruments, and symbols. These categories were added in with new information I have taught them in the unit, as well as previous information they already knew. With the last category, I am hoping that it will help boost the students’ scores and class average this time around. All six categories will be included in the results for the post-assessment.
The final jeopardy question stayed the same because I wanted to see if the students were able to proper name the notes on the staff examples using the correct accidental associated with each note. For the post-assessment, I decided to not include the final jeopardy question in with the results. While the final jeopardy question covers ledger line notes (something they have been working on since February) and accidentals (a new topic I introduced to them during the unit), there is not a set amount of points the students can earn if they answered it correctly or not. It will still allow me to see which students truly understand the material they have learned by applying it to the question on their own. Again, each question in the game varied from being definitions, pictures, short answers, true or false, or listing (see appendices). Each question was worth a certain amount of points (ex: 100, 200, etc.) and the difficulty of each question depended on how many points the question was worth.
Since our class meeting took place in the students’ homeroom rather than the music room, the game rules and instructions were tweaked to in regards to the state testing. It was very essential that the students knew the importance of actively listening to my directions and following the rules as we went through the game. Not only was the jeopardy game a review for their music finals, it was a very critical listening activity as well. The students’ desks were already placed in groups when I went to their classroom, so the only change I made was seating them with the same people they sat with in the music room. Below is a list of instructions on how the game was played under the circumstances of that meeting day:
• The class will be divided up into six teams. • Each student will write their answers down to each question on paper, but every
student will take a turn to answer a question for the group during each round by raising their hands only.
• Before the team raises their hand to answer the question, every person in that group must have the answer written down on their papers. I will check the group to see if their answer is right or wrong. If correct, that team earns the points. If not, their score stays the same.
• Absolutely no name calling, shouting, calling out, or talking out of turn will be accepted during the game.
• Unless called upon, no student is allowed to talk due to other classes testing. Everyone must remain silent to carefully listen to the directions and questions.
• You must raise your hand if you have a question. The class period was cut a little shorter than usual, so the students were given 30 minutes to get through the game, answering as many questions as possible before reaching the final jeopardy round at the last 5 minutes of class. The students were told that the game was going to be counted as a class participation grade. The students will be graded based on how well they participate within their groups during the game, actively participating in the game by answering questions verbally and on their papers, and following the game and classroom rules, using the same checklist I created for the pre-assessment. I walked around the classroom as I conducted the game, observing the students and taking notes of which students understood the information
and which students were still struggling. Twenty-three students participated in the post-assessment game, 13 females and 10 males.
To best accommodate the students that did not have strong musical backgrounds, I did keep the same seating previously used for the pre-assessment: at least one student that played an instrument, sang, or had some musical background was placed at each table to help their teammates throughout the game. For the student S, I still translated the jeopardy game questions into Spanish and printed them out for him to use as a reference. This time around, he has been speaking a little bit of English and understanding the material slightly better. His peers were very quick to help him whenever he did not understand something. During the post-assessment, he participated more with his group than when the pre-assessment was done.
Analysis of Student Learning
Below are tables and figures that analyze student performance on the post-assessment in comparison with their performance on the pre-assessment. Table 4.1 examines the scores from both assessments, separated by the group numbers.
Table 4.1: Pre- & Post-Assessment Data (without final jeopardy question) Note: Post-assessment scores include all 6 categories instead of 5. Ratings for the performance part of the post-assessment is included in the chart, but have no effect on the percentage scores.
Groups Students Gender Performance Rating Pre-Assessment % (5 categories)
Post-Assessment % (6 categories)
#1 A M Acceptable 40 76 B F Satisfactory 80 100 C M Unsatisfactory 56 70 D F Acceptable 64 73
#2 E F Acceptable 68 83 F M Acceptable 40 83 G F Satisfactory 68 96 H M Satisfactory 60 80
#3 I F Unsatisfactory 32 60 J M Acceptable 76 93 K F Satisfactory 40 76 L F Acceptable 48 80
#4 M M Unsatisfactory 72 70 N F Acceptable 60 83 O M Acceptable 48 83 P F Satisfactory 72 80
#5 Q F Acceptable 64 90 R M Acceptable 76 96 S* M Satisfactory 36 73 T F Acceptable 52 86
#6 U M Acceptable 80 100 V F Satisfactory 52 86 W F Acceptable 56 86
* = Spanish speaking student Average Score: 58.2 82.7
The following graph below compares the scores each student received on the pre-assessment and post-assessment. The class goal average I wanted to accomplish at the end of this unit is also represented on the graph.
Figure 4.1: Comparisons of Pre- & Post-Assessment Data
By looking at both the chart and table with the data from both assessments, it is clear that the students as a whole class have significantly improved from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment. The average class score from the pre-assessment was at a 58.2%. The average class score from the post-assessment rose up to an 82.7%, just making it past my goal of 80% by 2.7%. Even though I did achieve my statistical goal with this unit, I also have accomplished my goal of getting my students more familiar with the material they have learned during my unit and throughout the year with my cooperating teacher.
By looking at the graph above, there were only a total of 6 students that did not meet the 80% goal for the post-assessment. However out of the 6 students, 2 students came very close to meeting the goal by missing it by 4 points. I had a total of 6 students that scored 90% and higher, with 2 of them scoring a 100% on the post-assessment. I am pleased with the results student S has produced between the two assessments. His score on the post-assessment increased by 37 points from his score on the pre-assessment. For a student who came into a new school in the middle of the year with no knowledge of music and not understanding one bit of English, he has done very well and has shown tremendous improvement from what I originally expected of him on the first day I started student teaching. Student M is the only student in the class that had a 2-
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Pre-‐Test 40 80 56 64 68 40 68 60 32 76 40 48 72 60 48 72 64 76 36 52 80 52 56 GOAL 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Post-‐Test 76 100 70 73 83 83 96 80 60 93 76 80 70 83 83 80 90 96 73 86 100 86 86
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Test Sores
Comparison of Class Pre & Post Data
point decrease in his post-assessment score from the pre-assessment. Even with the final jeopardy question, about half the class had an easier time identifying the notes and giving them its proper name with the accidentals. Some mentioned that it was a little challenging, but after all, that is the point of final jeopardy: it’s there to challenge your brains.
As a whole, the class had some kind of a significant increase on his or her scores from the pre-assessment to post-assessment, which is what I initially wanted for this unit. These scores show me that the students have a better understanding of the material. The lessons were very interactive and I think the students enjoyed it a lot. When it came to the instrumental portion, the students were full of many questions. They were excited to see the instrument up close and I think they were more excited to hear me play each instrument I presented them. This was a good way to grab the attention of the students and it holds their focus for a long time period. Having that 6th category reiterating the other 5 categories in the review game has helped greatly. With repetition, learning and drilling the information into your minds gets a little easier to retain.
Table 4.2, 4.3, and Figure 4.2 below contain the pre- and post-assessment scores without the final jeopardy question. The following table compares the two sets of scores and ratings for the performance part of the assessment broken down by gender. The ratings for the performance part have no effect on the score averages from the post-assessment.
Tables 4.2 : Pre- & Post-Assessment Data for Male Students * = Indicates Spanish speaking student
Males
Students Performance Rating Pre-Assessment % (5 categories)
Post-Assessment % (6 categories)
A Acceptable 40 76 C Unsatisfactory 56 70 F Acceptable 40 83 H Satisfactory 60 80 J Acceptable 76 93 M Unsatisfactory 72 70 O Acceptable 48 83 R Acceptable 76 96 S* Satisfactory 36 73 U Acceptable 80 100
Average Score: 58.4 82.4
Table 4.3: Pre- & Post-Assessment Data for Female Students Females
Students Performance Rating Pre-Assessment % (5 categories)
Post-Assessment % (6 categories)
B Satisfactory 80 100 D Acceptable 64 73 E Acceptable 68 83 G Satisfactory 68 96 I Unsatisfactory 32 60 K Satisfactory 40 76 L Acceptable 48 80 N Acceptable 60 83 P Satisfactory 72 80 Q Acceptable 64 90 T Acceptable 52 86 V Satisfactory 52 86 W Acceptable 56 86
Average Score: 58.1 83
Figure 4.2: Comparison of Pre- & Post-Assessment Data by Gender Note: This graph also includes the class average score for both assessments.
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Males Females Whole Class
Average Scores
Comparison of Pre & Post Data
Pre-‐Test
Post-‐Test
Based on the chart and tables above, it is safe to say that both the male and female students in this class are neck-to-neck with the score averages for both assessments, separately in two groups and as a whole class. I did find it interesting that the female students averaged a slightly higher score for the post-assessment than the male students. I also find it interesting that the female student population scored either at 80% or higher on the post-assessment, which an exception of 2 students. The male student population had 4 students that scored under the 80% mark on the post-assessment. The class in general has done well with the small performance, with an exception of 3 students who decided to misbehave during the performance. These 3 students also happen to be part of the small group that scored under the 80% mark on both assessments.
Table 4.4: Impact on Student Learning The following table is based on the class average performances on the specified assessment.
Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment ∆ % Student Increase
Overall Class Performance
58.2% 82.7% 70.3% Increase 96% Satisfactory
Figure 4.3: Impact on Student Learning Graph
Table 4.4 and Figure 4.3 summarize the overall progress of the students during the unit. At the beginning of the unit, it was interesting to see that the class’ average was only at a 58.2% when it came to understanding the content tied with the objectives. I was expecting to have a higher average since most of the questions were based on information they have already learned from my cooperating teacher over the past 2 1/2 years. After spending almost 2 months on this unit, it was nice to see the average raise up above the 80% mark I set as a goal, creating a 70.3% increase in student achievement as a result of 2 months of instruction related to the assessed
Sales
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pre-‐Test
Post-‐Test
Test Increase
Student Increase
objectives. If student M had an increase on his post-assessment score, then the student performance percentage would have been at 100% instead of 96%. I still consider 96% a very good increase between the two assessments.
Table 4.5: Comparative Chart of Objective Accomplishment & Growth
Category Questions Correct (23 students) Incorrect (23 students) Pre Post ∆ Pre Post ∆
Treble Clef Notes: Objs 1 & 2
1 14 21 31% 9 2 -31% 2 10 21 44% 13 2 -48% 3 15 21 26% 8 2 -26% 4 10 21 44% 13 2 -48% 5 10 21 44% 13 2 -48%
Bass Clef Notes: Objs 1 & 2
1 10 21 44% 13 2 -48% 2 9 21 52% 14 2 -52%
3 10 21 44% 13 2 -48% 4 8 20 52% 15 3 -52% 5 10 21 44% 13 2 -48%
Music Terms: Obj 3
1 15 20 21% 8 3 -21% 2 18 21 13% 5 2 -13% 3 18 21 13% 5 2 -13% 4 19 21 9% 4 2 -9% 5 15 20 21% 8 3 -21%
Instruments: Obj 5
1 13 21 35% 10 2 -35% 2 15 21 26% 8 2 -26% 3 13 21 35% 10 2 -35% 4 13 20 30% 10 3 -30% 5 15 21 26% 8 2 -26%
Random Info: Obj 6
PRE-ASSESSMENT ONLY
1 12 --- --- 11 --- --- 2 12 --- --- 11 --- --- 3 13 --- --- 10 --- --- 4 12 --- --- 11 --- --- 5 11 --- --- 12 --- ---
Music Symbols: Objs 3 & 4
POST-ASSESSMENT ONLY
1 --- 16 --- --- 7 --- 2 --- 16 --- --- 7 --- 3 --- 16 --- --- 7 --- 4 --- 16 --- --- 7 --- 5 --- 16 --- --- 7 ---
Random Music Info: Objs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6
POST-ASSESSMENT ONLY
1 --- 15 --- --- 8 --- 2 --- 16 --- --- 7 --- 3 --- 16 --- --- 7 --- 4 --- 15 --- --- 8 --- 5 --- 15 --- --- 8 ---
Figure 4.4: Comparative Graph of Objective Accomplishment & Growth In Table 4.5 and Figure 4.4, the percentage of student improvement on the number of correct answers for both assessments all was on the positive side for the first 4 categories. The number of incorrect answers for both assessments also dropped, causing the percentage of wrong answers to decrease as well for the first 4 categories. For category “Random Info”, it was noted on the chart that it was only in the pre-assessment, meaning there is no information available in the post-assessment to do a comparison. For categories “Music Symbols” and “Random Music Info”, it was noted on the chart that they were only in the post-assessment, meaning there is no information available in the pre-assessment to do a comparison. Figure 4.4 gives a better visual view of the score improvements made by the students as a whole. There is definitely a huge difference between the results from both assessments. The students have done very well in the 4 first categories of the post-assessment. Every question had at least 20 students answer it correctly, which is a tremendous improvement from the pre-assessment. With the last 2 categories of the post-assessment, more than half the class answered all 10 questions correctly, which is also a great improvement as well. This chart shows that the students progressed in their achievement of each objective in the review game. Given the circumstance that the students were not in the music room the day of their post-assessment and did not have the answers and resources available to them like for the pre-assessment, they have exceeded my expectations and have done an incredible job with learning all the content I had planned in this unit.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Treble Clef
Bass Clef
Music Terms
Instruments
Random Info
Music Symbols
Random Music Info
# of Questions
Cat
egor
ies
Incorrect (Post)
Correct (Post)
Incorrect (Pre)
Correct (Pre)
Appendix for Chapter 4
Post-Assessment Grading Rubric
Participation (3 Points) ________ 1. Student works well in groups to answer questions. ________ 2. Student answers questions when asked to. ________ 3. Student shows a great amount of effort when actively writing down answers and participating in the game. Content (2 Points)
________ 4. Student answers each question with accurate information. ________ 5. Student is able to ask questions that are related to the topic for a better understanding. Classroom Rules (4 Points) ________ 6. Student is using his or her inside-voice to talk to teammates. ________ 7. Student is not calling out or shouting answers out of turn. ________ 8. Student is treating his or her teammates with respect and not name calling or putting down anyone. ________ 9. Student is following the classroom rules set by the teacher at all times. TOTAL POINTS: _______/9 Performance (6 Points) A S U 10. Student is focused on the conductor at all times. A S U 11. Student is properly using their songbook to read the lyrics while singing. A S U 12. Student is properly using the hand percussion instruments with instructed to. A S U 13. Student is not acting silly, goofing around, or talking to others when singing. A S U Student’s overall performance A = Acceptable S = Satisfactory U = Unsatisfactory
Post-Assessment Jeopardy Game
Songs Used for Performance
