Pre-assessment

Pre-assessment Goal

The goal of the pre-assessment was to see what the students understood about
multiplication for numbers 1 through 10 going up to a product equaling as high as 100. The goal
was to see what the students were solid with, and what they might be struggling with as far as
multiplication. Our pre-assessment was made up of 27 multiplication problems. The students
were to answer the multiplication problems as best they could. From observation of the students
in the prior class we noticed that the students in our group seemed to be distracted when learning
about multiplication, and many of them did not seem to be solid on memorizing their
multiplication tables or solving multiplication problems. We used this pre-assessment to see what
they did know about multiplication in order to see what type of instruction they would need and
how much multiplication instruction was necessary to help them gain an understanding of it.

Reliability, Validity, and Bias

I believe that the pre-assessment was reliable, valid, and unbiased. I do believe there were
outside factors in the classroom that influenced the reliability and validity of the pre-assessment
in a way. The test was reliable because it was based off of what the students had been learning
and are were going to be learning about in our lessons based on their scores. We aligned the test
questions with the Common Core State Standards for multiplication. The test was designed to go
along with what would be taught. The test was given in the classroom to all of the five students.
All five students received instructions from the same instructor in the same way. Each student
was given the same test. All of the students had the same amount of time to take the test and
were able to solve the problems in any way they would like such as counting up, drawing
pictures, or any other way to solve the problems on the paper using only the test paper and a
pencil. There were a few factors that influenced the reliability of the test. Some of the students
would get distracted while taking the test and would stop taking it and start drawing on the back
of the test paper and did not attempt all of the questions. Some of the students said they did not
know the answers and did not attempt to answer the question at all. This influences the reliability
of the test because some of the answers could have been guessed or not attempted. I believe that
the test was valid because it measured what it was designed to measure. We designed the test to
measure what the students knew about multiplication and what they were able to answer
correctly. The test measured what they knew and allowed us to see what they did not know. I
believe that the test was unbiased because all of the students were given the same test and had
the same expectations in completing the test. None of the students were given additional help on
the test and they have all been learning the same material in their class and were being tested on
the same material in this assessment.
Administration Conditions

The test was administered on Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9 A.M. The test was given to
a small group of five students. Each student took the test individually. The test was a written test
on a worksheet with 27 multiplication problems. Every student was given the same test. The
students were given 45 minutes to complete the test. There were students who finished the test
within 10 minutes or less. There were some students who did not continue to attempt the test or
would stare at the test and did not answer the questions. Eventually after 25-30 minutes those
students said they were finished with their test and handed it to the teacher. I think 45 minutes
was more than an adequate amount of time for the students to complete the pre-assessment. None
of the students took 45 minutes on the test, but they did not all complete the test as far as
attempting every question. I do not believe more time was necessary since they did not use the
entire amount of allotted time.
Table by Standard

Standard CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
Test Items 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

Table by Test Items

Test Items Standard

1 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
2 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
3 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
4 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
5 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
6 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
7 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
8 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
9 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
10 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
11 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
12 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
13 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
14 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
15 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
16 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
17 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
18 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
19 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
20 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
21 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
22 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
23 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
24 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
25 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
26 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
27 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
Reflection-What Would I Change about the Pre-assessment and Why

I would make the pre-assessment shorter. There were 27 questions on the test. I would
have shortened it by 7-10 questions. Some of the students struggled and seemed overwhelmed by
the amount of questions on the test. I think they would have been less overwhelmed with a
shorter test, and I believe a test of 17-20 questions could have given us an adequate amount of
information to measure their understanding of multiplication and what to plan our lessons on. I
would provide space for the students to draw out groups or use to solve the problems. I would
check and see if they would utilize any strategies to find the answers to the problems. It would be
helpful to know what they have learned about and what they have been using to solve problems
in the past. There were some students who did not struggle as much and did well on the pre-
assessment. I would like to challenge him and see what else he knows within a pre-assessment,
but the other students within the group would not be able to meet additional challenges. If I could
give the one student a separate pre-assessment to see what he knows, it could be beneficial for
planning lessons that would challenge him but would not become daunting.
Pre-assessment Results

The range of scores: Mean, Median, and Mode in the Pre-assessment

Mean: 17.4
Median: 19
Mode: None

Analysis of the Data

The data showed that some of the student scores were above average or close to average.
There are scores that are also below average. Three of the scores of the students were above
average. There were two scores that were below average. Some of the students did not attempt
all of the problems which does skew the data because their scores are lower than they possibly
could have been if they had attempted or worked on the problems. The middle score of the
student scores is 19. The scores around it are fairly scattered. There is not a mode for the set of
scores. All of the students received a different score on the assessment. There were no students
that received the same score.

Summary of What the Data Demonstrates

The three students who scored above average showed an understanding of multiplication.
More than half of the group had an understanding of multiplication. There were two students
who scored below the average. These students did not attempt all of the problems and their
scores reflect that they know some multiplication, but do not hold a firm understanding of
multiplication. The data demonstrates that there are students in the group who have a firm
understanding of multiplication and should be challenged more. Those students who gained
scores above average are prepared to build on their learning of multiplication and go farther. The
students who scored below average on the assessment require further instruction in
multiplication. They have some understanding, but require further instruction to become
proficient in solving and memorizing multiplication tables.

Reflection of Results

The teacher explained the first day we visited the class that the students were working on
multiplication tables and being able to know them by memory. He asked us to teach lessons that
would help solidify this. Our pre-assessment was based off of being able to memorize and solve
multiplication problems. Some of the students did well as we expected after observing them in
class. We noticed that some of the students did not speak up in class and seemed to struggle.
These same students struggled on the pre-assessment. The students all showed a familiarity with
multiplication and some showed a strong understanding. Overall, the group had a fairly low
average of about 62%. The results showed that some students definitely needed some further
instruction in order to memorize the multiplication tables and to gain strategies and knowledge to
solve multiplication problems in general. Some of the students seemed to be ready for more
challenges, but may still require continued practice in order to memorize multiplication tables.
Post Assessment

Post Assessment Goal

The goal of the post assessment was to see if the instruction that was given was effective
for the students to learn about multiplication and finding the unknown. Part of that goal was to
measure what the students had learned from the lessons taught, and if they were proficient in
multiplying and finding the unknown. We had an understanding of what the students understood
about multiplication from the pre-assessment, so this was to see what they understood after
having direct instruction of multiplication. The post assessment also went one step further in
seeing what the students had learned from the lessons about finding the unknown and
understanding the relationship between multiplication and division.

Reliability, Validity, Bias

I believe that the post assessment was reliable, valid, and unbiased. I believe that the test
was reliable because the questions were based on what the students had learned in the lessons
taught prior to the test. The questions were consistent in what they were asking and what they
were measuring. The test was given to the same five students in the same classroom. All of the
students were given the same instructions to complete the test and they all had the same amount
of time and methods available for answering the questions. There were factors such as guessing
that would influence the reliability of the test. There were some students that noticed that others
were doing activities when they were finished with the test, so they finished quickly so they
could join in on the activities. When grading their tests, they had many of the answers incorrect
even though they were problems that they had shown mastery in during group practice and
assessments during independent practice. The test was valid because the questions were based
off of the lesson concepts that had been taught and were aligned with the Common Core State
Standards for math at the students grade level. I believe that the test was unbiased, but there was
one factor that made it biased in a way. There was one student that was given assistance on two
problems by one of the teachers. These questions were marked automatically incorrect because
of the assistance given, but it was biased in the favor of the student in helping them solve
problems when other students were not given outside assistance. I believe that this also
influences the reliability of the test because those two questions were automatically marked
incorrect and the student was graded with the incorrect score for those questions included.

Administration Conditions

The post test was administered on November 18, 2016 at 9 A.M. The test was given to a small
group of five students. The students completed the test individually. The test was written, and the
students were to write their answers on the test. The students had forty-five minutes to complete
the test. None of the students took the entire time to complete the assessments. Some students
completed the assessment in ten minutes or less. There were some students that took up to thirty
or thirty-five minutes to complete the test. Each student completed the entire test and attempted
all of the questions. I believe that the time given was adequate. Each student had enough time to
complete the test and there were not any students that were unable to finish.

Table by Standard

Standard CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4

Test Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Table by Test Items

Test Items Standard

1 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
2 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
3 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
4 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
5 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
6 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
7 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
8 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
9 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
10 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7
11 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
12 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
13 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
14 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
15 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
16 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
17 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
18 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
19 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
20 CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4
Reflections- What would you change about the post assessment and why?

I believe that the post assessment was able to show us what many of the students had
learned. The expectations of the post assessment were met by two of the students who answered
all of the questions correctly and one of the other students showed that they could likely meet the
expectations by getting eighty percent of the questions correct. Two of the students seemed to
struggle with the post assessment. I think there was need for practicing multiplication more
before the test was given. I would allow the students to use manipulatives on the test in the future
so they can see the groups to find the answer. I would also provide space for drawing groups for
the students to solve the problem. One of the students seemed to rush through the assessment in
answering the questions in order to join the activities taking place with those who had finished
the assessment. I would emphasize the importance of taking our time and checking our answers
with manipulatives or drawings before finishing. I would also take the activity to another room if
possible so the students were able to finish their test quietly and not become distracted or rushed
to finish in order to join the activity. I would also discuss with my co-teacher about not assisting
the students on the test with answers and allowing them to try their best on their own so we can
get a true measurement of what they know and have learned.
Post Assessment Results

Range of Scores: Mean, Median, and Mode

Mean: 14.4
Median: 16
Mode: 20

Analysis of the Data

The data showed that three of the students scored above average in their scores. Two of
the students had perfect scores by having twenty out of twenty of the problems correct. One of
the students received a score of sixteen out of twenty on the post assessment. This is a score that
is above average for the scores. The average of the test was 14.4 out of twenty. This is an average
of 72% which is higher than the pre-assessment average for the same group of students. The
middle point score is also closer to the perfect score. The mode for the test is a perfect score of
all of the problems correct. Two students received this score. There was an outlier of six out of
twenty correct that is substantially below the average.

Summarize What the Data Demonstrates

The data shows that some of the students have a strong understanding of the concepts
taught within the lessons. Two of the students received a perfect score by answering all of the
problems correctly. There is one student who received a score above average and shows
understanding of the concepts taught within the lessons. Two of the students scored below the
average which shows a need for further instruction. The data demonstrates that over half of the
group has an understanding of multiplication and finding the unknown, with part of the group
needing further instruction to gain understanding. The average shows a score that is below
mastery level. The data could possibly be skewed due to the scores received by some of the
students. There was a score that was an outlier. It is also questioned whether all of the scores
show each students knowledge, because some of the students may have guessed in order to
finish quicker. Overall the data demonstrates both understanding and a need for further
instruction and practice to become completely proficient.

Reflection of Results

The results of the post assessment were expected in some ways and also surprising in
other ways. There were two students of the five that got a perfect score on the post assessment.
These students were Bruce and Micah. I was able to teach these two students in the lessons that
we taught in the classroom. Through the activities and independent practice they both showed a
firm understanding of the concepts being taught and were able to complete the problems
independently and receive correct answers. I expected these students to do well on the post
assessment and their results reflected just that. I was surprised by some of the results on the post
assessment as well. One of the students from the group I instructed only got six out of twenty of
the problems correct. This was Maria. This surprised me because she excelled in the lessons,
activities, and independent practice. She showed a firm understanding of multiplication and
finding the unknown. She also showed a firm understanding of the relationship between
multiplication and division. I was surprised that she received such a low score. I did notice as I
was taking part in an activity with others who had finished the assessment that she quickly
finished and came to join the activity. It is possibly that she rushed to finish the problems so she
could join the activities. This influenced her results. I also noticed that one of the students named
Luca did substantially better on the post-assessment as compared to the pre-assessment. He
showed growth in the pre-assessment after being instructed on the concepts. One of the students
named Jacob still seemed to struggle with some of the multiplication problems. He solved more
of the finding the unknown problems correctly. He did attempt all of the problems which was an
improvement from the pre-assessment. Overall, many of the students seemed to show growth
from the lessons in their post assessments, but a few will require further instruction and practice
with these concepts.