Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 1

Planning, Preparation, Instruction, and Assessment of Learners

Jessica A. Moran

Regent University

In partial fulfillment of EFND 596 Field Experience/Student Teaching ePortfolio, Spring 2017
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 2

Introduction

Assessment is a significant piece of a teacher and students time in the classroom.

However, it is useless to either party when the focus is solely on the results rather than on

efficient instruction and the process of learning along the way (Waugh & Gronlund, 2013). It is a

dynamic system which involves planning, preparation, and differentiated teaching that must in

turn align with state and local standards. Intention must be placed behind the selection of the

formative and summative assessment tool so that its evidence indicates that students have

attained mastery and no further instruction is needed (Chappuis, 2015, p. 5). Evidence can be

collected in multiple formats throughout the process, thus both quantitative results and analysis

of the pre- and post-assessment data must be used to drive further planning and remediation. For

the above to succeed, it is essential for the teacher to maintain a disposition of reflection and

growth for their own sake and the students. The following process was prepared for a week-long

study of Math SOL K.3 which states, The student, given an ordered set of ten objects and/or

pictures, will indicate the ordinal position of each object, first through tenth, and the ordered

position of each object (VDOE).

Rationale for Selection of Artifacts

The first artifact is a series of pre- and post-assessment samples which compare data from

the same group of students. The assessment tool is a worksheet which requires students to color a

fish by the ordinal position it is in on the paper; this demonstrates their knowledge and mastery

of the skill to indicate ordinal position (Math SOL K.3, VDOE). Students were continually being

assessed to first determine any prior knowledge or misconceptions, secondly to establish clear

learning targets and plan for future instruction or remediation, and finally to ascertain the level of

the objectives mastery (Chappuis, 2015). The samples contain evidence from three students
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 3

including: one below grade level and currently receiving interventions, another on grade level,

and a higher performing student; this is done intentionally to demonstrate a range of proficiency.

Upon receiving the initial worksheet, the students had not received any prior instruction on

ordinal numbers. However, students had been working consistently throughout the year on their

number sense, particularly counting in order from zero to twenty (SOL K.2/VBO K.1.2-4,

VDOE).

As an introduction to the standard, the students and I discussed who entered the

classroom first, second, and third that day; these students then lined up in order on the carpet.

After the pre-assessment and throughout the remainder of the week, students were using audio,

visual, and technological tools, kinesthetic movement, manipulatives, and cooperative learning

structures to support and develop understanding of the objectives. In the afternoons, I and the

Teachers Assistant (TA) designed and worked on remediation in small groups with the students

who had received Ns on the pre-assessment. On the day prior to the post-assessment, I had

students participate in a series of differentiated math centers which focused on ordinal numbers.

The day of the post-assessment contained a brief review as I gave each student a secret post-it

note with an ordinal number, and called each position to have them line up.

The second artifact contains my quantitative data record and analysis which is indicative

of my planning, preparation, instruction, and assessment. Per the pre-assessment, over half of the

class received a Novice (N) score, with four students receiving an Advanced Proficiency (AP);

this was largely a result of students associating each line of texts color word with the order of

coloring the fish, as well as little prompting on my part. As I discovered that the students had

also struggled in relation to their reading level, I chose to read each statement aloud during the

post-assessment to provide a fairer chance of success. This will of course effect the true accuracy
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 4

of the data, however Assessment is most effective when the assessments are designed to fit the

relevant student characteristics and are fair to everyone (Waugh & Gronlund, p.3). As a result,

the post-assessment determined that more than half of the class had received Proficient (P) or AP

scores, with four at Developing Proficiency (DP) and one N; it should be noted that the student

who received the latter had been absent for the first three days of instruction, and received

further remediation. Two of the DP students currently receive both response to intervention (RTI)

and Special Education services, thus I was pleased with their progress. The data shows that

students grasp the general concept of ordinal numbers, however many required my reading aloud

in correlation with verbal prompting to look at each statement and count carefully; this would

align with designing developmentally appropriate instruction in my future planning.

Reflection on Theory and Practice

An ongoing accumulation and analysis of quantitative student data is necessary to ensure

measurable goals are being developed for the individual. As a future educator, it is significant for

me to refer to this accumulated evidence to diagnose needs for, differentiate, and drive

future instruction (Chappuis, 2015, p. ix). In upholding these principles within the evidence

acquired above and the examination of my daily anecdotal notes, I believe the selected artifacts

and assessments manifest my understanding and application of the standard The student, given

an ordered set of ten objects and/or pictures, will indicate the ordinal position of each object, first

through tenth, and the ordered position of each object (VDOE). Jan Chappuis, author of Seven

Strategies of Assessment for Learning remarks

When we teach thoughtfully, we actively seek evidence of what students do not get. We

use assessment processes and instruments with sufficient instructional traction to identify
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 5

specific learning needs for each student throughout a unit or teaching cycle. And we

make sure our diagnostic assessments dont just tell us Do something. We ensure they

help us answer the question Do what? (p. 203)

Answering this question encourages me to reach beyond teaching to the test, and to the

individual student. This became evident in my design and implementation of differentiated

remediation for students in their progress toward mastering the standard. A teacher must be

aware of not only what their students know, but what they are struggling with. Within this

struggle is where students are more likely to construct their learning and understanding as seen in

Vygotskys Socio-Cultural Theory of social constructivism (Bergin & Bergin, 2015, pp. 127-

131). Within my future career, I must be intentional with providing a safe and open space for

students to inquire, create, and direct their learning.

The above assessment provided students the opportunity to show me what they knew, and

thus provided the platform from which I developed the rest of their learning. I could use my data

analysis to determine which students needed further or a different modality of instruction, which

group required remediation, and those who were ready to extend their knowledge. As I develop

my eye for data, it has been exciting to see the different levels clearly and to strategize for an

individual student. Waugh and Gronlund (2013) emphasize that The teacher must be a

researcher who analyzes, interprets, and makes judgments about the data gathered through

assessmentto make informed decisions (p. 223). It is imperative for a teacher to determine

what to do next if an intervention is not effective rather than assuming the student is not capable

(Waugh & Gronlund, 2013, p. 242). When the teacher demonstrates a steadfast belief in their
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT 6

students abilities, communicates this to the student, and tries whatever is necessary to help them

arrive where they need to be, the student is far more likely to not merely try, but want to try.

References

Bergin, C.C. and Bergin, D.A. (2015). Child and Adolescent Development in Your Classroom
(2nd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies of assessment for learning (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson

Publishing.

Waugh, C. K. & Gronlund, N. E. (2013). Assessment of student achievement (10th ed.). Hoboken,

NJ: Pearson Publishing.

VDOE. (2009). Mathematics Standards of Learning: Curriculum Framework Kindergarten.

Standards of Learning (SOL) & Testing. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/frameworks/mathematics_framewks/2009/frame

wk_mathk.pdf