Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics

Task 3: Assessing Student Learning

Part C: Assessment Commentary
Directions 1. Save a copy of this file on your personal computer and name it EM_Assessment_Comm_template. 2. Type your response to each prompt into this file where indicated below. 3. Format your response in Arial 11 pt single spaced text with 1" page margins. 4. Limit your response to no more than 8 pages total including prompts. Scorers will not read beyond page 8. 5. If the directions and/or prompts for the assessment are not shown on the student work samples, insert them along with the evaluation criteria (2 pages maximum) at the end of the Assessment commentary. 6. Save your file in one of the following formats: .doc, .docx, .odt, .pdf 7. Submit your file electronically.

1. Analyzing Student Learning Identify the specific standards/objectives and central focus from the learning segment measured by the assessment chosen for analysis. Describe any changes from what was planned for this assessment as described in the lesson plans or in prompt 5 of Task 1, Part C: Planning Commentary. a. Respond to the prompts below to create a summary of student learning relative to your evaluation criteria. i. Summarize student performance in narrative and/or graphic form (e.g., table or chart). ii. Discuss what students appear to understand well and where they continue to struggle, including any misunderstandings, errors, confusions, or needs (including a need for greater challenge). iii. Consider common patterns across the class as well as groups of students with similar strengths or needs. Cite evidence to support your analysis from the 3 student work samples you selected. b. Respond to the prompts below by referencing your understanding of the 2 focus students: i. Describe each students individual learning strengths and challenges relative to the standards/objectives measured by the chosen assessment. Consider your knowledge of each student (e.g., prior knowledge of the content, language development, academic development, and/or special needs). ii. After analyzing each students work sample, what conclusions did you make regarding their individual learning? Cite specific evidence to support your conclusions.

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 1 of 8 | 8 pages maximum

Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics
1ai.

Individual Analysis of Student Learning

Student 1 PreTest 65% LG1 67% LG2 100% Post Test 92% LG1 100% LG2 100% +/- % Test +25% +/- % LG1 +33% +/- % LG2 --

76%

78%

100%

100%

100%

100%

+24%

+22%

--

53%

11%

100%

100%

100%

100%

+47%

+89%

--

53%

78%

0%

80%

50%

100%

+27%

-28%

+100%

35%

44%

0%

54%

50%

0%

+19%

+6%

--

47%

56%

0%

75%

60%

50%

+28%

+4%

+50%

53%

56%

100%

92%

100%

100%

+39%

+44%

--

47%

33%

100%

88%

80%

100%

+41%

+47%

--

10

41%

44%

100%

67%

50%

100%

+26%

+6%

--

11

53%

33%

100%

83%

100%

0%

+30%

+67%

-100%

13

41%

44%

100%

92%

80%

100%

+51%

+36%

--

14

65%

67%

100%

96%

100%

100%

+31%

+33%

--

15

88%

89%

100%

92%

100%

100%

+4%

+11%

--

16

65%

67%

100%

100%

100%

100%

+35%

+33%

--

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 2 of 8 | 8 pages maximum

Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics
17 59% 56% 100% 83% 90% 50% +24% +24% -50%

18

53%

67%

0%

63%

70%

0%

+10%

+3%

--

19

29%

22%

100%

92%

100%

100%

+63%

+78%

--

20

35%

33%

0%

29%

30%

0%

-6%

-3%

--

Totals

53%

52%

72%

82%

81%

72%

+29%

+29%

--

Whole Class Analysis of Student Learning

Pre-Test Advanced 86% and up Proficient 76-85% Basic 60-75% Below Basic Below 60%
'$" '#" '!" &" %" $" #" !" ()*"+,'" (-./"+,'" ()*"+,#" (-./"+,#"

Post Test 10 3 3 2

Pre LG1 1 2 4 11

Post LG1 10 2 2 4

Pre LG2 13 --5

Post LG2 12 --6

1 1 3 13

012345*1" ()-6757*4/" 83.75" 8*9-:"83.75"

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 3 of 8 | 8 pages maximum

Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics
a) Cut score (76% or above) met vs. not met LG1: 12 vs. 6 LG2: 12 vs. 6 b) Number and percent of students who met all LGs: 10 students (56%) c) Number and percent of students who did not meet all LGs: 4 students (22%) met one learning goal, but not the other (1 student met LG2, but not LG1; 3 students met LG1, but not LG2). 4 students did not meet either learning goal (22%). d) Number and percent of students who met more LGs on post-test than on pre-test: There were not any students who met more learning goals on the post-test than they did on the pre-rest. I attribute this to the fact that so many met LG2 on the pre-test. I then I made the components of LG2 more difficult on the post-test and I actually had fewer students meet that particular learning goal on the post-test. There was, however, a huge leap in students that met LG1. Only 3 students met LG1 on the pre-test (17%) and 12 students met LG1 on the post-test (67%). e) Number and percent of students showing no change/regression in meeting LGs: Two students met the learning goals on both the pre and post-tests. One of those students is in the gifted program, but I found the other students pre-test results particularly interesting because, while he is bright, he is not a student of any tested exceptionalities. Five students did not meet either learning goal on the pre or post-test. These students are all recipients of either math special services, Reading Improvement Plans, IEPs, or 504 Accommodations. Two students made regression on LG1. One of those students received special math services earlier this year and the other is a student currently being tested for full special education services. Two students made regression on LG2. One of those students has an IEP and the other receives services from the counselor for help improving organizational and sequential skills. These regressions may be attributed to both their learning needs/tendencies and the fact that the material was more difficult than was on the pre-test. f) Most improved LG: Learning Goal 1 (29% increase) g) Least improved LG: Learning Goal 2 (no increase or decrease) 1aii. Overall, students seemed to struggle most with classifying units of measure into their respective measurement systems, which was a component of LG1. There was a significant gain in learning for that aspect, but the struggles are still apparent. There was no change in their performance from pre-test to post-test for LG2, but as previously mentioned, I feel that might be attributed to the fact that I added more challenging questions and there were only 2 questions on the post-test regarding LG2. The lack of questions made it a very pass/fail portion of the assessment. 1aiii. The pattern that is most notable to me is that the degree of mastery aligns with the students typical success in academics across the board. The 5 students who did not meet proficiency for the overall post-test are all students with either IEPS, 504 Accommodations, on Reading Improvement Plans, receiving special math services, or in process of being tested for Special Education, several of those students having a combination of more than one of the previous accommodations. All of the gifted

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 4 of 8 | 8 pages maximum

Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics
students in the class reached Advanced mastery of the material overall. For LG1, the 6 students who did not meet proficiency include the 5 that did not attain that level on the overall post-test, as well as one student who was Proficient, but did not meet that level for LG1. That student had received special math services earlier in the school year, so I think the history of math struggles is an indicator for a lower achievement in some concepts. For LG2, again, the same 5 students did not meet proficiency, plus on that did overall, but did not for the learning goal, and that student is also one with an IEP, 504 Accommodation, and receives special math services. 1bi.

Analysis of Focus Student Learning

Student 1 Pre-Test Post-Test LG1 33% 100% LG2 100% 0% Student 2 Pre-Test Post-Test LG1 22% 100% LG2 100% 100%

Both students made leaps and bounds with the concepts of LG1. From the pretest to the post-test, both students made at least 67% improvement. On the pre-test, Student 1 seemed to have no concept of how to classify units of measure into their respective systems and also did not show any understanding of measurement conversions. Student 1 did, however, seem to understand perimeter, based on the pretest. On the pre-test, Student 2 seemed to understand how which units of measure are systematically organized together, but mixed up the correct systems, listing most of the standard units of measure in the metric system category and vice-versa. Student 2 showed evidence of prior knowledge for standard measurement conversions, but not metric. Student 2 also was not able to identify any units of measure on a ruler, but this may be due to a lack of sufficient understanding of the academic language. Both students showed evidence of prior knowledge for LG2, however Student 1 regressed on the post-test. Both students struggled some with the perimeter activity, as evidenced by the feedback provided in the work samples. Student 1 receives special math services and has an IEP for speech-articulation errors, visual motor delay, and Attention Deficit Disorder. An indicator for this students struggles is an inability to focus. This students work seems to jump around, evidenced by an inconsistency in correctly labeling and/or utilizing the same unit of measure across the board for aspects of the activity as directed.

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 5 of 8 | 8 pages maximum

Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics
Student 2 is a shining example of a student who works hard to make progress. This student consistently performs low at the beginning of a unit, but makes great gains throughout the learning experience. This is evidenced by the lowest pre-test score of the group (29%), as well as the largest gain of the group (+63%), and total Advanced mastery of LG1 and LG2. 1bii. Knowing that Student 1 is diagnosed with ADD and struggles with focus, I feel that the environment in which the post-test was administered was not ideal to help this students focus. I believe it is crucial to note that the post-test was administered immediately after the final lesson, which had been interrupted twice to take class pictures. The test was running over into recess time, but as this was the final day before Spring Break, there was no other opportunity to take it. Had post-test been administered during a more routine day, Student 1 may have performed better on LG2. I believe that Student 2 sometimes works too quickly and doesnt follow directions, as evidenced by several mistakes on the perimeter activity. Since this student mastered LG2 and both the pre-test and post-test, I believe this student understands the concept and the academic language. However, I saw several errors in this students activity that led me to believe the trouble is associated with taking an appropriate amount of time and following direction to show evidence of skill mastery. 2. Feedback to Guide Further Learning a. In what form did you submit your evidence of feedback (e.g., written directly on work samples, in audio files, a time stamp reference for video clip(s) in the Instruction task)? If submitted via video for Task 2, provide the time stamp here. b. How did feedback provided to each focus student address individual students needs and learning objectives? Reference specific evidence of submitted feedback to support your explanation. c. What opportunities were/will be provided for students to apply the feedback to improve their work, either within the learning segment or at a later time? [a. The evidence of my feedback can be found on the scans of my students work, since I wrote directly on their activity sheets. b. For Student 1, I made sure to highlight anywhere that the units of measure were not consistent since this student has trouble focusing and staying on track. On the Perimeter Problems activity sheet, this student did not answer the questions in a way appropriate to the question. I made sure to provide feedback to exactly what was written, so this student could see that, even though the question was not properly addressed, the answer could have been better given if certain information was also provided. Then, I made sure to provide feedback on the actual question so the concept of the content was not gone. For example, on question #3, Explain the why the two measurements of the same perimeter are different, this student wrote, It has the most cm. I know this because it is the longest measurement. Not only does his response fail to answer the prompt, the response does not stand alone on its own. I provided feedback asking, What is the longest measurement? Yards, feet, or centimeters? Make sure you read back through your answers and write in complete sentences. To provide content feedback, I wrote, Centimeters are actually the smallest unit of measure, but that object would require far more centimeters than feet or yards to measure the perimeter. Student 2 is academically higher than Student 1, so I made sure to provide feedback that directly addressed the concept of LG2 on the Perimeter Problems activity sheet. I also noticed on a few of the objects measured, this student appeared to measure the length. Rather than just stating, oops, you measured the length, not perimeter! I

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 6 of 8 | 8 pages maximum

Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics
made sure to provide feedback that stated how I knew the perimeter was measured so I could model reasoning between the difference of length and perimeter. For example, on question #1 (the chart), this student wrote that the perimeter of a ruler was 1 foot. This student put the same answer for the desk nametag, which we had been using throughout the unit as a benchmark for 1 foot. I provided feedback by stating, If I know the length of my nametag or ruler is 1 foot, the perimeter must be greater than that. Remember, the perimeter measures the length around the outside edges of an object. c. Students will be able to apply feedback on this unit during their upcoming state standardized testing and in subsequent years as the begin working deeper with the same concepts.] 3. Using Assessment to Inform Instruction For the prompts below, consider what you know about your students and the effectiveness of your instruction when designing next steps. Be sure to connect your next steps to your analysis of the student performances. a. Based on your analysis of student performance in the assessment, describe next steps for instruction for the whole class. b. Describe any individualized next steps for the 2 focus students. c. Explain how these next steps follow from your analysis of the student performances. [a. Unfortunately, I will not be in this classroom for five weeks after the completion of this unit per the rotation obligations of my student teaching schedule. I will, however, return to this classroom for four weeks after my rotations are complete. Though I will not be revisiting this specific material with students, my instruction strategies will be slightly altered. I will do whatever I can to ensure I have more time working with this group on any material. I will ensure that I do not over-plan my units because this truly is a group that needs an extended period of time to absorb and master concepts. I can see that the instructional strategies that I used were effective, since there was an overall gain in learning. If I could continue with this class, my instruction would include more work with finding the perimeter of an object without having to actually measure each side of the object. This would require the students to continue using the knowledge possessed in regards to finding perimeter as well as build on their problem solving skills. I would also build upon the successful gains for LG1 and focus on converting between units of measure, rather than just identifying them. These students will be preparing for standardized testing for the next four weeks, which would prove to be an opportune time to revisit this material and build upon the concepts. b. I am currently tutoring Student 1. Though I am not in this classroom for five weeks, I will be maintaining my tutoring schedule with the students in that class. During our tutoring time together, our focus is on reading and this students organizational skills, since special math services are already being received. However, I will be willing and able to help supplement math instruction during tutoring, especially if this student is behind on group activities or homework. I will also take the opportunity to work with Student 1 on the concept of LG2, which is knowing that perimeter is the measure of the length of around the outside of an object, since it will continue to be a concept worked with throughout the years. Student 2 showed total mastery for both LG1 and LG2. I will not have the opportunity to work with this student over the next five weeks, but if I would, I would take the opportunity to prepare this student for standardized testing by going deeper into LG1 and LG2 by focusing more on the conversion between units of measure and calculating the perimeter of non-regular polygons.

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 7 of 8 | 8 pages maximum

Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Elementary Mathematics
c. As previously stated, I will not be able to follow up on content directly related to this assessment of student performance. However, I will be able to amend instructional strategies that I feel may have lead to the learning outcomes. What I might amend would be providing strategies to remember the units of measure and their respective systems, understanding the concept behind identifying marks on a ruler, and simply having more practice finding the perimeter of objects. 4. Evidence of Academic Language (NOTE: You may provide evidence of academic language with your video clip(s) in Task 2 OR through the student work samples analyzed in this task. If your evidence of the key language demand is well represented in the student work samples, then respond to the prompts below. Otherwise, respond to prompt 4 in Task 2, Part B: Instruction Commentary. You must provide this evidence in at least one of the two available tasks.) a. Describe evidence from the student work samples that demonstrates the extent to which students are able to understand and/or use the language associated with the identified language demand (vocabulary, function/form, and instructional language) in ways that develop content understandings. b. Using this evidence, how well did your language supports or scaffolding promote academic language development for students with varied language levels. [Refer to video clips in Task 2 for evidence of academic language.]

Copyright 2011 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Page 8 of 8 | 8 pages maximum