Brittany Lord

FRIT 7236
KA 2

Subject: Math
Grade: 5

Section 1: Students

There are 16 students represented in the given assessment data. These students are part of an
one school district in which they currently are in a regular education fifth grade classroom. There
ages range from 10-12. The chart below breaks down the students more thoroughly including
race,gender, and classifications groupings.

Gender

Male 8

Female 8

Race

African American 7

White 9

Classifications

No classification 7

Gifted 2

Tier 2 RTI 3

Tier 3 RTI 2

Section 2: Course

The data is representative of students working towards mastering 5th grade mathematics
standards as outlined by the Georgia Department of Education Frameworks. This is a
summative assessment given to students addressing the following standards :
● MGSE5.NF.1 Add and subtract fractions and mixed numbers with unlike denominators
by finding a common denominator and equivalent fractions to produce like
denominators.
● MGSE5.NF.2 Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions,
including cases of unlike denominators (e.g., by using visual fraction models or
equations to represent the problem). Use benchmark fractions and number sense of
fractions to estimate mentally and assess the reasonableness of answers. For example,
recognize an incorrect result 2/5 + ½ = 3/7, by observing that 3/7 < ½.

Section 3: Descriptive Analysis

❏ Mean: 65.63
❏ Median: 62.50
❏ Standard Deviation: 21.76
❏ When analyzing the questions individually, I noticed that the problems dealing with
computation only had higher correct responses. For example, questions 1-5, 14, and 16
were expressions that required no real world context or comprehension in order to solve.
Question two had a lower correct percentage, but the students that were incorrect did
not simplify the answer completely. Therefore, this marked their answer incorrect
because it was directly indicated within the problem for answer to be simplified as much
as possible.
❏ Questions, 10 and 12 were multi-step word problems. They have the lowest correct
percentage. I expected this as many students only perform half of necessary functions
here before selecting an answer.
❏
Spearman-Brown Formula

Standard Deviation of Odd Questions 2.176

Standard Deviation of Even Questions 1.749

Mean of Odd Questions 5.13

Mean of Even Questions 5.0625

Sum of Product of zO and zE 12.70

N 16

Rnn 0.794

Reliability 0.885
After calculating the reliability using the Spearman-Brown formula, I believe that my test is
reliable. The number given for reliability seems high, but I would honestly like to see it higher. I
want to look into the odd questions before using this assessment again. I’d also like to look
further into questions 10 and 12 as they were the weakest according to the chart below.

Section 4: Student Analysis

I think that my students have a strength in computation of fractions, but they are weaker in the
application to word problems. The reliability of the assessment seems to be decent, but I do see
great weakness related directly to problems that require comprehension of a scenario before
computation can be done. This mathematical comprehension issue has been consistent
throughout the year with application of mathematics into real world scenarios. Since the
standard directly calls for the application of the skill, this is an area we need to dig deeper into. I
do think we definitely have a strength of computation. I would relate directly to the intervention
process I have implemented currently. Students are constantly formatively assessed for
grouping and intervention reasons. I think my focus on computation during these interventions
has contributed to the application weakness. I foresee my putting more word problem scenarios
in place from here on out.

Section 5: Improvement Plan

As far as instruction, I would like to implement more project based learning to the classroom so
that students become familiar with putting themselves into the situation so that they are better
able to comprehend. I feel as a teacher I have a weakness of leaning towards computation
instead of application. If students are not familiar with computation, they cannot solve the
problem regardless if they can identify which operation is necessary. As I mentioned in the
previous section, I think the students need more applicative practice. I am interested to see the
difference in performance once this is implemented.