Analysis of Student Learning

*All of the data is the percentage that the students earned on a particular
objective or assignment.
Overall Grades for each assessment used:
Student

PreAssessm
ent
1
60
2
60
3
52
4
52
5
28
6
52
7
36
8
52
9
44
10
60
11
52
12
68
13
28
14
44
Average
49

Classwo
rk 1

Classwo
rk 2

Classwo
rk 3

Quiz

Test

94
70
88
82
100
100
88
76
76
82
85
94
94
64
85

100
78
96
80
94
79
83
89
87
100
98
81
86
84
88

100
100
100
89
94
89
98
96
92
100
95
100
80
89
94

100
94
92
89
98
100
98
83
77
100
92
93
69
50
88

91
90
87
89
96
94
95
83
85
94
90
92
95
62
88

Unit Objectives:
1. When given a positive whole number the students will find the prime
factorization, and when given two positive whole numbers the students
will identify the greatest common factor with 80% accuracy.
2. When given a polynomial expression, and when given a polynomial of
four terms the students will factor with 80% accuracy.
2
3. When given a quadratic expression of the form x + bx+ c , the students
will factor the expression with 80% accuracy.

Whole Class

Studen
Pre-Assessment
Objectiv Objectiv Objectiv
t
e1
e2
e3
1
75
67
40
2
75
0
80
3
50
67
40
4
50
0
80
5
50
0
40
6
75
33
40
7
25
33
40
8
75
33
40
9
75
0
40
10
75
33
60
11
100
33
20
12
75
67
60
13
25
0
40
14
25
33
60
Averag
61
29
49
e

Objective 1
Pre-Assessment
Percent

Post-Assessment

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Student

Objective 2
PreAssessment
Percent
0 5 10 15
Student

PostAssessment

Post-Assessment

Objective
1
75
80
90
88
90
100
85
80
90
80
80
90
100
90
87

Objective
2
100
97
96
85
97
92
97
68
82
100
94
93
94
50
89

Objective
3
92
88
63
79
100
88
100
75
75
100
92
88
88
54
84

Objective 3
PreAssessment
Percent
0 10 20

PostAssessment

Student

Overall, the class significantly improved their performance on every

objective. The averages of 87, 89, and 84 tell me that the class met the goal
of completing each task with 80% accuracy. It is clear that the students
learned the objectives they were given.
Individuals

Stud
ent

Performance
Level

14
4
10

Low
Average
High

PreAssessment
Objectives
1
2
3
25
33
60
88
85
79
75
33
60

PostAssessment
Objectives
1
2
3
90
50
54
88
85
79
80
100 100

The student who I chose as my high performer was always very involved in
the lesson. She worked very hard during every class, asked questions when
she needed to, and came to class with all her homework finished. I never
had to redirect her focus towards the lesson; she was always on task and
took note of every example we worked through. All of these most likely
contributed to her success in each objective. Her scores indicate that she
had a great grasp on the second and third objective. Her performance on
the first objective was right at the target goal, which shows that she had a
good understanding of this objective as well.
The student who I chose as my average performer attempted all of the work
in class, asked questions when he needed to, and had all his homework.
There were also a few times when I had to ask him to focus on the work
instead of talking with his friend, and he did not always want to think about
the problem before blurting out a question and saying, I dont know what
you did. His first two objectives were above the target goal, and his third
objective was just barely below the goal. All three scores are fairly close to
80%, so his understanding of the material was about the same for all three.

The student who I chose as my low performer did not attempt all of the
problems presented in class, did not have all of the homework assignments,
and never asked me any questions. She would ask her friend for help
sometimes, but the friend did not understand the material either. Her focus
had to be redirected towards the work at least once a day, and she often had
to be told to stop talking or giggling. She took minimal notes during the
lessons and could not answer many of the questions I asked during class.
She did exceed the goal for the first objective, but her second and third
objectives were significantly lower than they should have been.