Data Analysis of Student Understanding

Overall, my students improved over the course of this unit. At the pretest, five students
were proficient (70 percent or above) while sixteen students were not proficient. After the
posttest, however, that number had increased to fifteen students proficient and eight not
proficient. Class wide, seventeen students improved their scores, one students score declined,
one student stayed the same, and six students had insufficient data due to absences on the days of
the tests. This data is shown on a data table and chart below.
Pretest
Student A*
Student B*
Student C
Student D*
Student E
Student F*
Student G*
Student H
Student I
Student J*
Student K
Student L*
Student M
Student N
Student O
Student P*
Student Q
Student R
Student S
Student T
Student U
Student V
Student W*
Student X
Student Y*
*Indicates ESL and IEP Students

Posttest
2
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
5
3
6
5
6
4
6

3
3
4
3
7
7
6
6
5
0
6
6
7
6
4
7
7
5
6
7
4
5
4

Pretest and Posttest Results

8
7
6
5
4
3

Pretest

Posttest

Student A*
Student B*
Student C
Student D*
Student E
Student F*
Student G*
Student H
Student I
Student J*
Student K
Student L*
Student M
Student N
Student O
Student P*
Student Q
Student R
Student S
Student T
Student U
Student V
Student W*
Student X
Student Y*

Though these figures are promising, further analysis indicated areas of teaching that need
improvement and assessment questions that needed to be worded differently for clarity. Further
analysis of my subgroups (ESL students and IEP students) will indicate a need to more
thoroughly check for these students understanding and ability to grasp the concepts. Missing
data also indicates a need to work more closely with absent students to ensure work is given to
these students and made up by the student.
The pretest results indicate that the most missed questions were question two, which
asked students to define the word inference; question six, which asked students to identify the
suffix of a word; and question seven, which asked students to use context clues in a passage to
state the meaning of an unknown word. The least missed questions were question one, which
required students to make an inference about what was going on in the passage before the text
began, and question four, which was a multiple-choice question that asked them to choose the
answer that best describes what a central idea is.
Breakdown of Pretest and Posttest Questions

The first and second questions on the pretest involve inferencing skills. The first question
is a short reading passage that begins with two friends looking over a fence where an angry dog
sits guarding their baseball. One friend puts the baseball bat down while another friend asks if he
is going to scale the fence. The question that goes along with this passage is What were Emilio
and his friends doing right before the text begins? No one in the class missed this question.
They were all able to infer that the friends had been playing baseball.
The second question--which also deals with inference--however was the most missed
question on the pretest. This question asks students to define the word inference. Twenty
students missed this question, many stating that inference was an educated guess. Although
students had just used inferencing skills to answer question one, they were unable to articulate a
definition of the skill.
The posttest results of questions one and two were interesting, but further analysis
indicates possible reasons for the discrepancies. I changed the reading passage of question one to
a passage involving a girl who is crying when she notices a pustule on her nose. The passage also
indicates that she is wearing a dress and a boy named Eric is about to pick her up. The question
asks students Why is Gina upset at the beginning of the passage? Based on the students
responses, all students knew that Gina was upset because of a bright red pustule on her nose.
However, less students were able to further infer that the pustule was a pimple (an answer I
accepted as correct), and even fewer students further inferred that Gina is upset by the pimple
because she is going on a date and her dress could be ruined, which would be the most correct
answer. This could be a result of the way the question was phrased. After all, a bright red
pustule is technically the reason Gina is upset and therefore answers the question. However, my
purpose was to test inferencing skills. Therefore, this question was less valid than the pretest

question about the baseball. A better way to phrase that question would be the following: Gina is
upset by the bright red pustule on her nose. Based on the passage, why does it matter to her so
much? This would indicate to students that they are not only looking for what made her upset but
why it matters so much.
The second question was identical to the pretest and asked students to define the word
inference. Pretest results indicated that twenty students were unable to correctly define inference.
At the conclusion of the posttest, all but eight students were able to correctly define inference as
what we learn plus what we know. This is encouraging to me and indicates that many students
were able to both apply inference and also define it. However, the eight students would need
more coaching to learn the definition of inference and evaluation to make sure they understand
the skill.
My formative assessment for inferences involved an inferences worksheet that provided
students with several passages and questions that require students to make an inference about the
text. Students were then required to say how they know the information by referencing a specific
detail from the text. All of my students scored proficient on this assessment. Some students, such
as my low ESL and some of my IEP students, required additional time to finish the sheet. My
mentor teacher took these students aside during independent reading time to have them finish
and review inference with them. Formative and summative results indicate that hearing the
instruction twice and being given more time was beneficial for the students.
The third question asks students how readers can identify author bias in writing. During
the pretest, eight students missed this question. Eight students also missed this question during
the posttest. As I have reflected on my teaching of my author bias lesson, the reason for this
stagnation became clear. I realized that while I had titled my lesson author bias, I spent much of

my time teaching students about words with different connotations and how that is an indication
of bias. Students who remembered this portion of the lesson chose option A on the multiplechoice question. I spent less time discussing the second indication of bias: the fact that
information can sometimes be left out of an article, which was option B on the question.
Therefore, most students chose A instead of C: Both A and B as the correct answer.
This was also consistent with my formative assessments, which indicated that many
students were able to find the words with different connotations, but few ventured to wonder
what information had been left out. Upon reflecting on the lesson, I realized that this would be
more of a high school level skill than a seventh-grade one. A better assessment question to give
these students would have been to provide an example of three synonyms with varying degrees
of connotation and to ask them to indicate which word had a negative connotation, which had a
positive connotation, and which word seemed the most neutral.
Question four is a multiple-choice question that asks readers to indicate what a central
idea is. On the pretest, this was the least missed question with only three students missing it.
However, on the posttest, five students missed this question.
This data also contradicts my formative assessment during the central idea lesson. All
students were able to find at least one central idea in the text. However, few students were able to
find more than one central idea in the text (which is what is required in the Common Core State
Standard). More time would have been required to help students learn to identify more than one
central idea. Indeed, a whole unit could be spent on this skill without making the students too
tired of the subject.
Therefore, I think the discrepancies found in my pre/post test results and my formative
assessment is from a lack of practice with the skill using a variety of texts. We also spent very

little time identifying the correct definition of a central idea, as I had assumed that it would be
only a review for my students.
Question five asks students to identify the prefix of a word. Seven students on the pretest
missed this question, but only one student missed it on the posttest. These results and the results
of the formative assessment during that lesson indicates that students are familiar with prefixes
and were able to correctly identify them.
Question six asked students to identify the suffix of the word. On the pretest, twelve
students missed this question while five missed it on the posttest. Although this does show an
improvement in understanding of suffixes overall, I noticed that many of the students who
missed the question on the posttest did so not because they didnt know what a suffix was, but
didnt know where the root word ended and the suffix began. To improve their abilities to
recognize this, I needed to incorporate a discussion of root words as well as prefixes and suffixes
into my lesson so students can correctly identify each affix.
Question seven was one of the most often missed questions on the pretest and the
posttest, which tested students on their ability to define a word based on context clues found in
the passage. On the pretest, I chose a short excerpt from the story Gift of the Magi and asked
students to use context clues to define the word predominating found in the passage.
For the posttest, however, I used a different reading selection. I did this for two reasons.
First, after evaluating the reading passage on the pretest, I determined that it was at a much
higher grade level than many of these students were used to reading, therefore making it difficult
to comprehend the words and the language of the passage. A student could not use context clues
to uncover one unknown word if many of the other words were also unknown. Second, I also
wanted to use an excerpt that they would recognize and was more on their reading level. I chose

to use an excerpt from the novel Stargirl that they were reading in class during independent
reading time. Using this excerpt, I asked students to use context clues to define the word
flourish found in the passage. This seemed to be an effective adjustment to the test. Although it
was still the highest missed question, only ten students out of the class missed it, while sixteen
had missed it on the pretest.
A Note About Absent Students
Looking at my data, I noticed that I have six students without scores for the pretest and/or
posttest. I realized I should have been more diligent to make sure absent students received the
tests and turned them in to be graded. That way, I would have had a more holistic view of wholeclass performance on my assessments. I especially should have been more aware of Student X,
who missed both the pretest and posttest. This student was frequently absent as a result of health
issues, and I should have been more aware of this students need to catch up on missing work
and learn the concepts that we were discussing in class.
Subgroup Performance
Noticeable subgroups for this unit are ESL students and IEP students. Both of these
groups require additional support in order to be successful. Although the gains for these groups
were not large, all but one of the students in these subgroups improved in their scores.
The ESL students had varied performance on the assessments. Three of the four ESL
students improved, the two high-ESL students even receiving 100 percent grades on the posttest.
The other student that improved went from a score of three on the pretest to a score of four on
the posttest. ESL results are displayed in Subgroup Performance: ESL Students.

Subgroup Performance: ESL Students

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

0
Student B

Student F
Pretest

Student J

Student P

Posttest

However, I did have one ESL student (Student J) that did not perform well on the
posttest. This student scored a two on the pretest but scored a zero on the posttest. Although I do
not know all of the reasons for this degeneration (this student is often absent and it would take
more assessments and remediation to fully understand this), I know that there are more things I
could have done to ensure this students learning. I should have focused more on this student
during formative assessments and group work. I also should have read the posttest to my ESL
students, which is an appropriate and encouraged accommodation. I also should have helped this
student more to catch up on material and worked with her and other struggling students in a
small-group situation.
I also noticed on the day of the test that Student J seemed disengaged from what was
going on in the classroom, which could have resulted in a zero score more as a result of apathy
than lack of ability. I should have invited her to complete the test at a later date if necessary. I
also learned from this situation that students bring into classrooms many problems and issues
that impact student learning that teachers may be unaware of.

Formative assessments for these students throughout the unit seem to parallel what was
found on the posttest, with the exception of Student J. High-level ESL students were able to learn
concepts quickly and thrived during group work. My two low-level ESL students (Student J and
Student B) struggled more with concepts and needed more time with the reading selections than
was made available to them. This indicates that I should have done more to remediate these two
students. It is also important to note that Student J and Student B also have IEPs.
The second subgroup, the IEP students, displayed an interesting spectrum of results,
which is shown in the following chart.

Subgroup Performance: IEP Students

7
6
5

4
3
2
1
0
Student A

Student B

Student D

Student G
Pretest

Student J

Student L

Student W

Student Y

Posttest

Five of
the eight IEP students improved test scores. Student G and Student L showed the most
improvement, while Students A, B, and D each improved by one point. I am pleased that these
students improved, which is consistent with what I observed during formative assessments.
These students performed well on a variety of formative assessmentsthey were able to show
their proficiency with inferencing as well as identifying the central idea of a textbut performed

poorly on when asked to apply context clues to define words. These students would have
benefitted from more practice and application of context clues with a variety of texts.
Two students (Student W and Student Y) had insufficient data to calculate improvement.
I should have been more diligent about providing and collecting make-up tests and formative
assessments for students who were absent. Student Jwho is also an ESL studentdecreased in
score, which shows a need for accommodations not only for a speaker of another language, but I
also a needed to pay careful attention to the accommodations stated on this students IEP. It is
evident from the pretest and posttest results and formative assessments that more assistance than
I provided is needed for this student to be successful.
Reflection and Overall Conclusions
Overall, my students did well with this unit. They were able to learn the information and
then apply it during the posttest and for various assignments. However, I do not think that I
taught any concept in enough depth and over a long enough period of time to contribute to long
term application and learning. If I were to teach a similar unit in the future, I would spend several
class periods exploring and applying the same skill in a variety of different contexts. This would
give students further practice utilizing the skills.
I would also provide additional support for my subgroups and incorporate more
modifications and time for remediation to enable them to be successful.