Chris Bang

BRMS TWS
Section IV: Assessment Tools
Introduction:
My assessment tools are not good indicators of the growth of reading skills. The pre-assessment was decided after we began which
assessed reading, and the final assessment were designed with the LDC rubric in mind, yet modified to fit a creative final project. I
am not trying to say that there wasnt learning taking place; however, it is hard to assess what took place. The pre- and postassessment are hardly identical, or similar, yet I compared the data anyway. I will go into further depth of what the data outcomes
wear in Section VI, but in this section I will explain the assessments alignment with goals in objectives, the disparity between my preand post-assessment, and present all the data I collected for this unit.
The Pre-assessment:
The pre-assessment was just a question on the District Reading Assessment. I realized now how little the scope of this pre-assessment
affected the interpretations of my data analysis. That said, it was on the district designed so its legitimacy is very credible. The
question (insert here) aligns with the CCSS 2.1.a. i-ii: which assess how they can find details and make inferences, and determine a
theme. The post-assignment does align with this assessment, but their identities as forms of assessment are tentative at best.
Furthermore, I do not recall what the I am realizing how my lack of the beginning of this unit with the end in mind has caused my data
to be tentative as well. Regardless I have collected and compared the results of the District Assessment. Question 19:
Chart 1: Question 19 Options
As
Bs
Cs
Ds
Multiple Answers
Chart 2: Overall Assignment Scores
Overall Assignment Average
Percentage Correct on Question 19
Average Assignment Score of Those Who Got 19 Correct
Average Assignment Score of Those Who Got 19 Incorrect

Total
73
11
3
13
1
Percentages
63
72
68
49

Graph 1: Question 19 Answers

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Total A's

Total B's

Total C's

Total D's

Total multiple Answer

Graph 2: Overall Assignment Scores

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Total Average

19 Correct Percentage

Average Overall Score: 19 correct

Average Overall Score: 19 incorrect

Pre-Assessment Continued:
What the comparison of the pre- and post-assessment indicates is that those that got the right answer on the district assignment got an
above average score on the averaged grades of all the assessments of the unit. Whereas, those that failed to get Question 19 correct
also failed to meet the average and show growth. Like I stated earlier, I realize how these figures are inconclusive of showing real
growth, I have data later comparing each assignment of the post-assessments compared with the data pertaining to Question 19 in
Section VI. As I have tried to convey, my data is lacking in credibility, but I have taken steps to prove that I know how to collect
valuable data. Students did not know that this question would be the pretest, and there was no option to not take the test.
Unfortunately, I have completed the unit and cannot redesign the unit.
Post-Assessments:
The Final Project:
This activity was the culmination of the unit on Twelfth Night, it assessed how well students were satisfying
CCSS 2.1.a. i-ii. This was the assessment that aligns most directly with the pre-assessment. Therefore, it is the only focus on this
section of the post-assessment tools. I analyze other assessments in Section VI: Data Analysis. But In this section I will focus simple
on this assessment, and talk about the figures alignment with the post-assessment as a whole and individually. The final project was
comprised of three products. Each student had to make either 2 visual products, or creative writing products, or one of each, and then
write an artist statement about one of those products.
Note on accuracy of grading:
In Core 1: 5 students data was removed overall to prevent outliers because of missing data.
In Core 2: 4 students data was removed overall to prevent outliers because of missing data.
In Core 3: 5 students data was removed overall to prevent outliers because of missing data.
In Core 4: 6 students data was removed overall to prevent outliers because of missing data
In addition, the grading took place after the passing of one of our eighth grade students, so the grading of the projects was lenient to
say the least.

Chart 4: All Cores

Averages
90.2
87.7
87.3
85.2

Creative Product 1
Creative Product 2
Artist Statement
Overall Class Grade

Graph 4: Overall Averages

90.5
90
89.5
89
88.5
88
87.5
87
86.5
86
85.5
Creative Product 1 Average

Creative Product 2 Average

Artist Statement Average

Chart 4 shows the average of each product throughout my four classes. The data implies that there is a large amount of growth,
because 72% of students got Question 19 correct (Chart 1). The artist statement, which displays the inclusion of the CCSS reading
standard and CCSS writing standard 3.2.a.i, vi, & xi. In this assignment students had to explain what through a multipara graph essay
how they were answering the overarching question: how does the author use character to develop a theme. This leads me to Chart 5,
which displays the class averages that each class got on the Artist Statement. Graph 4 is just a visual representation of Chart 4.

Chart 5: Artist Statement

Averages
86.4
97.7
83.5
81.6

Core 1
Core 2
Core 3
Core 4

The data shows, with outliers omitted, Core 2 received the highest average score. This does not come as a surprise, because this core
is filled with several high achieving students. Core 4 came as a surprise to being the lowest achieving; even with one fifth of the
sample removed they were the lowest achieving. I say this come as a surprise, because although Core 3 similarly had 22.7% of its
sample sized removed, it is filled with more of the students that I would need to modify the instruction for. Core 4 is filled with more
students that wont do the assignment, but can. Whereas, Core 3 has a good amount of students that struggle to do the assignment, but
will actually do it. The amount of outliers removed is inconsistent with my observations, but that is what I have noticed between the
two classes. Now I will look at the data for creative products.

Graph 5: Creative Product 1

98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
Core 1

Core 2

Core 3

Core 4

Graph 5: Shows the same observations as I had with the artist statement. With this data Core 3 even shows better performance than
Core 1 in this portion of the final. That said, Core 2 still has the highest scores comparatively. For the second creative product,
overall grades decreased, yet the overall trends remained the same. This can be seen in when comparing Charts 6 & 7.
Chart 6 Creative Product 1
Core 1
Core 2
Core 3
Core 4

Averages
88.6
96.2
90.9
85.2

Core 1
Core 2
Core 3
Core 4

Averages
86.9
95.2
87.4
81.3

Chart 7 Creative Product 2

Conclusion:
It is hard to show the types of assessments that took place throughout this unit. Question 19 is a traditional form of assessment, and I
graded the all three components of the post-assessment with the studentso, there was an element of self-assessment there.
Furthermore, the creative products could be completed in duos, or groups (the amount of products increased as the amount of students
did) so there was some peer-assessment as well when it came to the grading process that I carried out. This is some of the data I
collected. To view more data see the data analysis section of this TWS. To view all my raw and aggregated data view the reference
section of this TWS.