MASTER’S PORTFOLIO: BRASHAR 1

The penultimate goal of all education is student learning (the ultimate goal, of course, is

the formation of decent human beings). A teacher’s job, therefore, is largely to ensure that her

students not only perform within the context of her classroom but also make measurable

advancement in academic understanding. The ability of a teacher to measure those gains is

crucially important, as without an interest in and dedication to understanding what practices do

and do not result in actual student learning, an educator cannot be expected to improve overall

outcomes for her students. This teacher work sample demonstrates one teacher’s ability to

teach for and measure student learning over the course of a mathematics unit.

This unit begins with initial assessments of student ability, allowing the teacher to

demonstrate the change in student abilities over the course of her instruction. Assessments,

before, during, and after the unit demonstrate student progress clearly. Formative assessment,

in which students are given feedback on their work and allowed to develop ideas and concepts

based on their own understandings is used extensively as a teaching tool and as a measure of

advancement within this unit. Formative assessment has been shown to improve student

learning (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009).

Since students were assessed before the unit began, the teacher was in a position to

provide differentiation based on student levels and misconceptions. Research shows that

differentiation in instruction benefits students academically (Tomlinson, Brighton, Hertberg,

Callahan, Moon, Brimijoim, Conover, & Reynolds, 2003). Teachers often do not make proactive

modifications for diverse ability levels by failing to assess students’ individual abilities, however

this unit provides a framework for differentiation that allows students to work at their own

level within groups and individually (Tomlinson et al.,2003).

MASTER’S PORTFOLIO: BRASHAR 2

Class groupings, like the ones used in this unit, are particularly effective in mathematics

instruction (Slavin, 1987). In a mixed ability group such as the one to whom this unit was

taught, students who are paired with peers of similar levels can be attended to more closely by

their instructor. Their needs and interests are more likely to be shared across their group,

making a system of in-class grouping useful in terms of individualized instruction on time with

the teacher in a small group or individual setting (Tomlinson et al., 2003).

When an educator structures her class in such a way that she is afforded more time with

individual students, she is more able to get an accurate idea of their interests and needs. A

deeper understanding of students leads to more engaging instruction (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, &

Paris, 2004). Instruction within this unit was adjusted to enhance student understanding

through vocabulary pre-teaching, which shows an understanding of student learning. Students

who are better able to access instruction are more likely to be engaged, and thus more likely to

learn (Fredricks et al., 2004).

When working to improve student access to materials, a teacher must be aware of

student motivation. Setting goals, like those set in this unit, is an effective motivator of students

(Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Students are most motivated in environments that

emphasize mastery, understanding, and improving skills and knowledge (Meece et al., 2006).

This unit focuses on individual understandings and improvements and avoids pressuring

students to compete, which is negatively correlated with student learning (Meece et al., 2003).

This unit concluded with an assessment that showed significant student improvement,

demonstrating the teacher’s ability to teach for student learning and to accurately assess

learning goals and gains.

MASTER’S PORTFOLIO: BRASHAR 3

References:

Dunn, K. E. & Mulvenon S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative

assessment: the limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in

education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14 (7). Retrieved from [PDF]

researchgate.net

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74 (1). Retrieved from

https:doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E, M., & Anderman L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student

motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 487-503.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258

Slavin, R. J. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: a best-

evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research 57 (3). Retrieved from

https:doi.org/10.3102/00346543057003293

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover

L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness,

interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27 (2-3). Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203