Ogechukwu Ozo-Onyali

Part D
Analysis and Instructional Decision Making
The following graph shows students performance on the pre-assessment and postassessment. Each student is represented by a color (see graph legend) and each individual
score is represented for each assessment. This graph shows each students performance on
each assessment.
Student Performance on Pre and Post Assessments
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40

Pre-Test
Column1

0.20
0.00

The graph above shows students growth from pre-assessment to post assessment. A notch
on the line graph represents each student. The blue line shows scores for the preassessment and the red line show scores for the post assessment. The table below is the
raw data for the pre and post Assessment scores.

Scores on Pre and Post Assessments

Name

Pre-Test

Post-Test

We
Jo
Li
Ai
Je
Alsa
Tre
So
Kh
Lins
Ja
Matt
Cia
Miss
Zi
Own
Mck
Ako
Jasm
Carl
Court
Isa
Oluw

0.33
0.67
0.33
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.33
0.67
0.67
1.00
0.33
Absent
0.67
0.00
0.67
Absent

0.80
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
0.80
1.00
0.80
Absent
0.60
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.40
1.00
1.00

According to this data, most students exhibited a positive change from pre-assessment to
post assessment.
Percentage Change from Pre to Post Assessments
Name

Name

Change
We
Jo
Li
Ai
Je

140
50
200
20
50

%
Change

Matt
Cia
Miss
Zi
Own

50
20
80
20
50

Alsa
Tre
So
Kh
Lins
Ja

20
200
140
0
80
50

Mck
Ako
Jasm
Carl
Court
Isa
Oluw

0
140
0
20
-0
50
-0

The percentage change was calculated using the pre-assessment scores and the
post assessment scores. Pre-assessment scores were subtracted from post assessment
scores, and the difference was divided by the pre-assessment score then multiplied by 100
to obtain the percentage change between the two assessments. Positive percentage
changes show an increase, meaning that students have learned from pre-assessment to
post assessment. No change is identified by 0%; showing that student did not learn from
pre-assessment to post assessment.
Patterns of Achievement/Lack of Achievement
In line with the MCCS standard; RI1 CCR, which expects that students will be
able to determine what the text says explicitly and make logical inferences from it; cite
specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the
text, I administered a summative test and compared the grades with the pre-assessment
data.
All data show that most of the students made at least a 20% improvement after the
unit instruction. I am especially delighted with Students Trev and Lis performance; Li
has dyslexia and works very hard to make good grades. He made very meaningful
contributions during the lesson and often gives insightful responses through a scribe. Trev
was quite active during instruction, often going off-task or distracting other students ever

so often; most times I feared he might not have been paying attention or learning
anything.
Students Mck and Oluw were absent on the day of the pre-assessment and
student Kh was absent on the day of the post-assessment: therefore there were no data for
comparison and they scored 0%. However, they participated actively during the other
classes and I made sure to clarify any gray areas they had. Therefore, even if a students
percentage change data showed a 0% improvement, informal data collected during
instruction such as classroom observation and interviews showed they made some level
of progress when compared with the summative assessment.
Student Courts summative assessment score does not alarm me because she has
challenges comprehending written and oral language. She also has difficulties with shortterm memory, which makes it difficult for her to retain information. However,
irrespective of the fact that she scored a 40% in the summative assessment, she showed
an overall improvement considering the fact that she had scored a 0% in the pre-test. She
also performed reasonably well during formative assessments.
Recommendations for Instruction and Interventions
All students achieved scores on the summative assessment that were comparable
to other summative assessments they have taken in reading this year. However, during
instruction, I discovered that the students struggled most with writing. Activities such as
Monday News for weekly, or Morning News for daily reports, would provide the
students regular authentic writing practice. These writings could be short descriptive
writing on issues of interest to the students or simply a description of an event that
happened over the previous week. If these or similar activities could be implemented,

they would help the students develop better writing skills. These interventions would
benefit all students irrespective of any peculiar challenges.
Overall, I am very pleased with the results of the summative assessment. This
showed me that the students met all the units objectives and have also acquired all the
essential skills and knowledge stipulated by the MCCRS.