VI: Assessment Data and Analysis
Assessment Grading Criteria:
The pre and post assessment were both multiple-choice tests. There
were two parts to both tests. Part one was multiple-choice questions,
all with four possible answers to choose from. The second part was a
matching section with vocabulary words, important figures, and
historical events. Every question on both tests was worth 1 point. The
pre and the posttest had 38 questions, and were worth 38 points. I
have decided to calculate students grades in terms of percentages.
This will make it easier to see their growth and how well they
performed on both tests. For example, if a student got 31 out of 38 on
the posttest, this would equal an 82 percent.
Below is a graph showing the individual results for students pre and
posttests. Again, both the pre and post-assessment had 38 questions,
and were worth 38 points. I converted the scores into percentages.
The average score on the pre-test was a 39 percent. The average
score on the posttest was an 86 percent. Every student improved
between their pre and posttest, demonstrating that every student
experienced growth in this unit. The X-axis represents students, and
the Y-axis represents students score on the assessments.
Student Scores on the Pre- and Post-Assessment for the
Roaring Twenties Unit
100
90
80
70
60
50
Pre-Test
40
Posttest
30
20
10
0
The graph below shows pre- and post-assessment scores based on
gender. The average pre-test score for males was 36 percent, while
the average score for females was 42 percent. Both groups made
huge improvements, and based on where they started, they improved
at almost the exact rate. The average post-assessment score for
males was 85 percent, and for females it was 89 percent. These
results are not entirely surprising. Females tend to perform better at
social sciences, while males tend to perform better at math and
science. However, regardless of these stereotypes, both groups made
huge improvements between the pre- and post-assessment.
Average Score by Gender for Pre- and Post-Assessment
100
90
80
70
60
Pre-Test
50
Post-Test
40
30
20
10
0
Female
Male
The next subgrouping that was analyzed was ethnicity. This class is
not very diverse, but I am able to look at the data with two groups.
The first group is Caucasian students and the second group in
nonwhite students. The nonwhite group is composed of six Hispanic
students and one Middle Eastern student. The average pre-test score
for Caucasian students was a 39 percent. The average pre-test score
for the nonwhite students was a 42 percent. As you can see, the
nonwhite subgroup had a better grasp of the information before the
unit began. While it was a small lead over the Caucasian group, it was
a lead nonetheless. My only explanation for this is that the nonwhite
group has travelled more and has more world experiences. I know
about half of the nonwhite students have lived in different parts of the
world and all over the United States, so they may have gained more
knowledge in this way. The average post-assessment score for the
nonwhite group was an 85 percent, while it was an 87 percent for the
Caucasian students. Both groups made tremendous gains, which
means that they learned a lot over the course of the unit. However, it
is troubling that the nonwhite students had a smaller gain than the
Caucasian students. One possible explanation is that the Caucasian
group studied more because they were not as comfortable with the
material as the nonwhite group. Another possible explanation is that I
did not differentiate enough for the nonwhite students to motivate
them and challenge them to continue growth.
Average Score by Ethnicity for Pre- and Post-Assessment
100
90
80
70
60
Pre-Test
50
Posttest
40
30
20
10
0
Caucasian
Nonwhite
This last graph shows gain scores by each subgrouping. I found the
gain score by taking the post-assessment score and subtracting it from
the pre-assessment score. Based on this information, the subgroup
with the greatest gain was the male students at 49 percent. The males
had more room to improve, so it makes sense that they would have a
greater gain score. The females were just behind them, with a gain of
47 percent. The nonwhite students made the smallest gain with 43
percent. Again, these students started out with a better understanding
of the content, and several factors could have played into their gain
scores. The Caucasian students gain score was 48 percent, so five
points better than the nonwhite group. Again, they had more room to
improve and could have put in more time studying because they had
less background knowledge than the nonwhites. Lastly, I included the
individual average gain score. The average gain score among
individuals as a whole was 47 percent. This makes sense and it fits in
perfectly with the average gain scores of the other subgroups.
Gain Score by Grouping
Individual
Caucasian
Average Gain
Nonwhite
Female
Male
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
All of the above results show that learning did occur for every student
in this unit. Every student made tremendous gains from the preassessment to the post-assessment. Aforementioned, the average
gain score for students was a 47 percent, or, students answered 18
more questions correctly between the pre- and post-assessment. The
greatest individual gain score for a student was 79 percent, or 30 more
questions answered correctly. The lowest gain score for a student was
18 percent, or 7 more questions answered correctly. However, it is
important to note that this student scored an 82 percent on the preassessment and a 100 percent on the post-assessment. Again, the
average score on the post-assessment was an 86 percent. The lowest
score on the post-assessment was a 71 percent. However, this student
originally scored a 29 percent on the pre-test, so he made a
tremendous gain from the beginning of the unit to the end. There is
absolutely room for improvement, and I hope that next time I am able
to get the average student score to at least a 90 percent to show
mastery of the concepts. Overall, the pre- and post-assessment are
evidence that every student demonstrated learning and growth from
this unit.
I believe that there are several strengths and weaknesses to this
assessment plan. The pre- and the post-assessment were clearly
aligned with almost every objective and allowed students to showcase
their knowledge in those areas. The assessments allowed me to see if
students understood the big ideas and concepts from the unit and that
learning and growth were evident throughout the unit. However, the
assessments were multiple-choice and it did not necessarily allow
students to demonstrate their higher order thinking skills. Another
issue is that students might not have necessarily known all the
answers, but used their best guesses to find the right answer. If the
assessment had been short answer, I believe it would have been more
accurate in evaluating the learning and growth that occurred
throughout the unit. Unfortunately, multiple-choice tests are the most
efficient way to collect and analyze data on student growth in a short
period of time. However, in order to alleviate these deficiencies, I
assigned students a project that would be completed throughout the
unit. This project also acted as a summative assessment and allowed
students to use creativity, collaboration, and technology to synthesize,
evaluate, and analyze the content that they learned throughout the
unit. I was very impressed with the quality of work that students
turned in and it was evident that students not only gained content
knowledge, but also improved in their higher order thinking skills. If I
were to modify the assessment plan for next time, I would add a short
answer section. I believe that a short answer section would be an
excellent way to ensure that every objective is addressed in the
assessments. It would also include literacy and allow students to
articulate their thoughts on the content.
