Michael Martinez

Assessment Data and Analysis

1) The first pre-assessment was for the Introduction to Credit lesson. In this lesson, students were
given the same worksheet at the start of class (before discussing the content and taking notes)
and towards the middle of the class (after discussing the content and taking notes). For each
attempt, students were assessed on a scale of zero to ten. Only the grade on the second attempt
was recorded in the gradebook. Students who were absent were given the same opportunity to
complete the research assignment. Some students did the pre-assessment, but failed to turn in
their research for the post-assessment. As a result, students received the grade they got on their
first attempt. The chart below details the pre and post-assessment scores of all 34 students for
the Intro to Credit lesson. If a student failed to turn in their final Credit Score Research you will
see only an orange bar in their column.
2)

Credit Score Research

Max points: 10
10
8
6

Score

4
2
0

Student
Pre-asses score

Post-assess score

For the pre-assessment of this lesson the mean, median, and mode scores were 4.03, 4, and 3
respectively. When looking at percentage correct, this translates to 40%, 40%, and 30%. For the
post-assessment the mean, median, and mode were 6.88, 9, and 10 respectively. When looking
at percentage correct this translates to 69%, 90%, and 100%. Looking at the difference between
pre and post-assessment mean, median, and mode scores we notice an increase of 2.85, 5, and
7 points respectively. From a percentage difference standpoint we see an increase of 29%, 50%,
and 70%. The mean percentage growth between the pre and post-assessment scores ranged
from 0% to 350%. Those students who show negative growth in the chart below only submitted
one of the two attempts.

Percentage Growth in Mean Score Between Pre and Post-Assessment

350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
Percentage Difference

100%
50%
0%
-50%
-100%
Student

2)
1) To see a graded attempt please view the attachment directly below this document entitled
Credit Score Research Graded. There were ten questions students were asked to answer. Each
question was worth one point. This assignment was submitted electronically via Google Drive.
Throughout the unit this was the case for many assignments. As a result, assignments submitted
to me via Google Drive and email were graded online and returned to students via Google Drive
and email. This enabled me to give students access to their grades and feedback sooner than
they would if I had hand graded everything and returned assignments in class.
For the identity theft lesson students were pre-assessed informally. Students engaged in a guided
class discussion in which they shared their thoughts and ideas about what identity theft is. A
word wall was created and students came up with their own definitions of what identity theft is.
For the post-assessment students were assigned an online news article to read. Students then
summarized the article and provided three things (in writing) that they can do to protect
themselves from identity thieves. The summary was worth seven (7) points and the three items
were worth one (1) point apiece for a total of ten (10) points. Students who did not turn in their
summary or three items received a zero for the assignment. For those students, the chart below
does not have a bar representing their data.
For this assessment, the mean, median, and mode scores were 7.26, 10, and 10. In terms of
percentage correct, this equates to 72.6%, 100%, and 100%. Since the pre-assessment was
informal, there were no points values distributed. For this reason, there is no statistical data for
percentage growth. However, each students ability to come up with three ways to protect
themselves from identity thieves served as a formative assessment and showed growth from the
pre-assessment.

Fraud Article Post-Assessment

Max points: 10
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Student Score

2)
1) For the Introduction to Financial Institutions lesson the pre-assessment was also informal.
Students were guided through a discussion about their experiences with financial institutions.
Students then took notes about different kinds of institutions. In the culminating activity for the
lesson, students engaged in a collaborative learning activity. Without knowing so, they created
their own quiz questions. At the end of the lesson students were given the Financial Institutions
Quiz that can be found under the Financial Institutions Post-Assessment tab of this teacher work
sample.
The quiz consisted of ten (10) questions that I chose from a pool of questions submitted by
students in the group activity. There were also three (3) bonus questions that students could
answer for extra credit. The quizzes were graded using ten points as the maximum score,
meaning that if students answered all thirteen questions correct, they received a 13 out of 10 in
the gradebook. Each question was worth one (1) point. Students were not informed of this prior
to taking the quiz, so there was no added incentive to study for the quiz any more than they
normally would.
Below is a chart representing the quiz scores of all students present the day of the quiz. The
mean, median, and mode scores were 11, 12, and 12 respectively. This meant that the average
score on this quiz was above 100%. Furthermore, every student who took the quiz received a
passing grade. The lowest grade for the quiz was a 70%.

Financial Institutions Quiz Results

Max Score: 13 (10 questions + 3 bonus)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Student Score

2)
4) The quiz served as a summative post-assessment of the students knowledge about financial
institutions. The fact that students did so well was surprising. Similar results are found in the unit
2 exam which served as the unit post-assessment. From the discussions had with students and
the results of the quiz there was definitely a large amount of learning that did occur. I believe the
main reason for this was the level of engagement with my students. I built strong relationships
with my students and as a result they were willing to do work for me even if they didnt find the
topic incredibly interesting. I approached the students who had the lower scores and had a
conversation about what they were having trouble understanding and the general consensus was
that they didnt understand because they were absent from class and missed notes or didnt
study for the quiz.
1) The Unit 2 Exam served as the post-assessment for the entire unit. The exam was broken into
two sections. The first section was completed on the high schools Blackboard system. This
means that students used computers to take a summative assessment that consisted of multiple
choice, true/false, matching, and short answer questions. This section was worth seventy (70)
points. This portion of the exam was graded automatically using the Blackboard software. The
second section of the test was a written/practical section. In this part of the test students had to
balance a checkbook. They were provided with a list of transactions and a check register. Once
they recorded transactions they had to answer questions about their findings. This section of the
test was worth thirty (30) points and was hand graded. The recording of each transaction was
worth two (2) points while answers to the questions were each worth one (1) point. An example
of a graded exam can be found below this document.
2)

Unit 2 Exam
Max Points: 100
100
90
80
70
60

Part 2 (30 Points Max)

Part 1 (70 Points Max)

50
40
30
20
10
0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

3) The above chart represent the individual exam score for each student. The highest score on the
exam was a 96% while the lowest was a 71%. The mean, median, and mode scores for the exam
were 86.2, 86.5, and 90 respectively. This means that the average test score was a B+. This
assessment covered all of the topics addressed in the unit. The high level of performance on the
test showed a significant amount of growth as it pertains to the content area. While this is not
the only growth demonstrated by students, it is the only type of growth with statistical support.
The use of informal formative assessments was pivotal to student learning. I attribute the high
performance of my students to the use of a combination of formative and summative
assessments.
The chart below represents the average score for the exam as it pertains to gender. The mean,
median, and mode for all male and female students was calculated. The chart shows that as a
whole, the female students scored slightly lower than their male counterparts. Despite this fact,
the most common score for females was higher than the most common score for males. Overall,
the performance by gender was very similar. The slightly lower averages of the girls can be
partially attributed to the distribution of males to females. The class this data was taken from has
26 boys and 8 girls. The smaller sample of females could skew the averages.

Unit 2 Exam Score Averages by Gender

100
90

84.75

87

90

87

86.5

86

80
70
60
50
Female
Average Percentage Correct

Male

40
30
20
10
0

Mean

Median

Mode

Average Score
2)

3) The chart below break down average exam scores by ethnicity. This ethnicity information used
for this analysis was retrieved from records the school had on hand. Of the 34 students in this
class, 2 were identified as Asian, 3 as Hispanic, 1 as Two or More Ethnicities, and 28 as White.
The chart below showed that the Asian students had the highest mean score with 88, the
Hispanic students had the highest median score with 89, and the White students had the highest
mode score with 86. There wasnt a great deal of variance between any of the ethnicities.
Overall, any discrepancies in the score can be attributed to the small sample sizes for the
students who identify as Asian, Hispanic, and Two or more ethnicities. Once again this chart
shows that overall, student performance on this assessment was fairly high.

Unit 2 Average Exam Score by Ethnicity

100
90

88 88

83

89

87 87 86
78 78 78

80
70
60
Mean
Average Percent Correct

50

Median

Mode

40
30
20
10
0

Asian0

0
Hispanic

Two or More

Ethnicity
2)

White

4) All of the assessments presented showed students growth. The formative assessments I used
yielded the most results, but unfortunately, the informality of those assessments made them
nearly impossible to quantify. This is something I will address in the strengths and weaknesses
portion of this document. The assessments that were quantifiable did show student growth. The
closest I came to a true pre and post-assessment was the Credit lesson. Even then, the pre and
post-assessment werent identical, but I did my best to make sure they aligned well.
Despite the nature of my pre and post-assessments, I feel confident saying that actual student
growth took place. The informal pre-assessments I used showed that most students had some
knowledge of the content we covered, but that they were definitely lacking. Use of ticket-out-thedoor activities, written reflections, and reflective discussions showed me what my students were
and were not learning. I used that to re-write lessons and place emphasis on the problem
areas.
5) If there is one thing the assessments showed me, it is where students struggled. Im very
confident that my students now know what to do to build their credit, but they were less familiar
with the technical vocabulary. One of the exam questions asked students to identify the 5 Cs of
credit. While a majority of students were able to name the 5 Cs, some were unable to. However,
their answers to other questions and results from their other assessments demonstrated that
they did in fact know what categories they need to focus on to build and maintain their credit.
For the identity theft lesson, the students who turned in their assignment all seemed to
understand the content and were able to provide three examples of how they could protect
themselves. Many of the students had a fair amount of background knowledge on the subject
and how to protect themselves. The new knowledge they gained focused on what to do if they
ever fell victim to identity thieves.
For the financial institutions lessons the students performed strongly. The simulation we did
throughout the unit reinforced their financial institutions knowledge. The one place students
struggled was on the Checkbook Balancing/Bank Statement Reconciliation assignment. They had
little experience managing their own personal finances. Furthermore, most students just didnt
take the time to double check their calculations. This was one of the only things that caused
grades for that assignment to be so low. The average (mean) score for that assignment was 76%.
However, I know students learned from that experience because part 2 of the exam had students
doing the exact same kind of activity and the average (mean) score for that exercise was 93%.
The evidence I noticed from the formative assessments and the high performance students
demonstrated on the summative assessments, especially the quiz and exam, shows me that
learning and growth took place. I know that this does not mean that large amounts of growth
occurred for every student. I know that growth isnt always quantifiable and even if quantitative
data shows growth, that doesnt mean that high level learning took place. Each student learns
and grows differently. If there is one goal that I have that I want to always strive for it is to help
every single student. While Im happy for every student that excels in my class, I want to make
sure my students who show slower growth get the type of individual attention that helps them
grow as much as possible.
6) Ill start off by discussing the weaknesses of my assessment plan. The first thing that comes to
mind is the fact that there were no true pre and post-assessments. What I mean by this is that
my pre and post-assessments were not identical. As far as this teacher work sample goes, this is
something that may cost me. However, Im proud of the work I did and the unit I taught. It was
not close to perfect, but I put my heart and soul into it. If I had to think of a strength of this
assessment plan, it would be that the goal was achieved. I can say with confidence that my

students met every objective that I set for them. Not every student achieved those objectives at
the same level, but they all achieved the objectives.
I teach for my students. I want them to grow, learn, and have a positive experience. I believe I
accomplished that. Having said that, I want to emphasize the fact that I will not take the same
pre and post-assessment approach in the future. I will have my pre and post-assessments be
identical. I want to quantify the growth that my students experience. Not only does it let them
see the results, it lets my supervisors know what is going on in my classroom. I dont want my
students to be the only ones who grow. As a teacher it is just as important, if not more important,
for me to grow. I want to be the best teacher that I can be because my students deserve the
best. That starts with looking at what I do well and what I need to work on. This reflection
process is pivotal. I may not be a master teacher yet, but I believe I have the right attitude and
motivation to become one. Ive always been an optimist and when it comes to teaching its no
different. This is just the first step in a very long and successful journey.