Bondurant-Farrar Community Schools

Artifact
Artifact Title: Chapter 3 Math Test Analysis
Portfolio Author: Christina Cornia
Date: October 27, 2015
Iowa Teaching Standard 4 Uses strategies to deliver instruction that meets the multiple learning needs of
students.

a. Aligns classroom instruction with local standards and district curriculum.

b. Uses research based instructional strategies that address the full range of cognitive levels.
c. Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness in adjusting instruction to meet
student needs.
d. Engages students in varied experiences that meet diverse needs and promote social,
emotional, and academic growth.
e. Connects students prior knowledge, life experiences, and interests in the instructional
process.
f. Uses available resources, including technologies, in the delivery of instruction.

I chose this artifact to show:

X strength and competency in this standard
Evidence to support attainment of this standard:

Description of artifact and how the artifact meets the standard:

This chapter test analysis is from our third chapter of the year, Multiplying by a 2-Digit Number. The students
learned four strategies during this chapter. As a class we spent at least one day per strategy in order for all
students to have at least one strategy they could successfully use to find the product. On this chapter test
students were allowed to use any of these strategies. Twenty of my twenty-four students are in my general
education room for math. I give my students a percentage on their work, but we also use standards based
grading. This artifact reflects both the scores of my class in percentage form as well as standards based scores.
These scores show me how students understood the material, areas where multiple students struggled, and
skills, if any, I need to reteach.

Reflection on artifact:
Overall I was pleased with my students scores. Just over half of my students earned an eighty percent or
higher; in terms of standard based, all but one student earned a two or three. These scores are encouraging.
When I looked at where errors came from I was surprised at how evenly spread the errors were. I anticipated a
larger percentage of fact errors or method errors. I was disappointed to see how high the number of missed
problems was when students misread the problem or didnt finish the problems steps.
My student Jaden scored much lower than I expected. When I looked at his test specifically I found that his
errors primarily came from the twelve computation problems. Jaden had been successful with the magic box
strategy throughout the chapter and on the story problems piece of the test. When it was time to do these final
twelve problems he switched to the traditional method. Unfortunately he does not have a solid understanding
of this method and was unable to use it correctly. This resulted in him missing ten problems. When I had him
make corrections, I instructed him to use the method he had been successful with. He was able to fix many of
his errors and bring his score up. In the future I will be sure to reiterate to students to choose one strategy and
stick with it throughout their work.