Item Analysis

For this item analysis of my Pre/Post Assessments, the tables below are provided. The tables
shown are the grading charts used for each group of students during both the pre- and post-test.

Group A:

Measure # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Say It
Play It
With the Met?

Group B:

Measure # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Say It
Play It
With the Met?

Each aspect of the tables shown above (say it, play it, with the met.) coincides with a different
standard that I am assess through this unit. Being that Group B is the returning group and that
their assigned rhythm unit (Rhythm Unit 10) is more challenging, the lines on this page are
organized six measures at a time rather than 8 measures.

Pre/Post-Test Data Analysis

When creating inputting the data for my class in the GraphMaker, I had to adjust my data
collection to be done in two separate GraphMaker’s. You will see below that my graphs will be
shown in two sections: the data analysis for Group A and then for Group B. Each graph will still
have the data analyzed across the board but know that there will be duplicates of each graph
pertaining to one of the two groups (they will be properly labeled as such as well).
 Pre/Post-Assessment Scores for Group A
100.0%

83.3%

95.8%
79.2%

79.2%
90.0%

95.8%
95.8%

91.7%
80.0%
70.0%

54.2%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%

10.0%
0.0%
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7
Pre% Post%

Pre/Post-Assessment Scores for Group B

94.4%
100.0% 83.3%
90.0%
77.8%

77.8%

94.4%

72.2%
80.0%
61.1%

70.0%
50.0%

60.0%

44.4%
50.0%
33.3%

40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

0.0%
B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

Pre% Post%

The Graphs shown above are the Pre/Post Assessment Scores for Group A and B. By the end of
the Unit, you can see that many students grew substantially in Group B compared to Group A.
All students reached a proficiency by the end of the Unit. A large majority of all students reached
100% proficiency and for those that didn’t, these students still reached proficiency of at least
90%.
 Pre/Post Assessment Averages for Group A
98.2%
100.0%
90.0% 83.9%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Pre % Post %

Pre % Post %

Pre/Post Assessment Averages for Group B

98.6%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0% 62.5%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Pre % Post %

Pre % Post %

The Graphs shown above reflect the Pre/Post Assessment averages for each group. Group A’s
graph shows that most were at a proficient level at the Pre-Test, but through the Unit we worked
on reinforcing these concepts so that they were well above proficiency and much closer towards
100% by the Post-Test. With Group B, you can see that this group did not start at a proficient
level when doing the Pre-Test, but by the end of the Unit there was not only much improvement
that was well over proficiency, but this group ended at a proficiency level that was still higher
than the other group. Group B was given harder material to work on, but due to their high
playing ability as well they were able to internalize the concepts and show greater growth in the
end of our Unit.
 Percent of Group A Demonstrating Overall
Proficiency After Instruction
100.0%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
Post-Assessment

Proficient on None Proficient on Some Proficient on All

Percent of Group B Demonstrating Overall

Proficiency After Instruction
100.0%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
Post-Assessment
Proficient on None Proficient on Some Proficient on All

The graphs above show the percentage of students that were able to demonstrate overall
proficiency by the end of the Unit through the Post-Test. As seen through these graphs, all
students were able to reach overall proficiency in each of the standards assessed by the Post-
Test. As seen from the graphs earlier in this section, each of the students was able to reach
proficiency and have at least a 90% on their grade for the Post-Assessment.
 Pre/Post Assessment Averages by Gender in
Group A
91.7% 100.0% 96.9%
100.0%
90.0%
78.1%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Female Male
Pre % Post %

Pre/Post Assessment Averages by Gender in

Group B
100.0% 98.4%
100.0%
90.0%
77.8%
80.0%
70.0% 60.3%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Female Male
Pre % Post %

The graphs above show the Pre/Post-Assessment Averages categorized by the gender of the
students in each group. What can be seen here is the females not only start out a higher average
on the Pre-Test, but also end with a higher average than the males do in the Post-Test. Something
to keep in mind about this class is that there is only one female in Group B and two females in
Group A. Both females in Group A are of a higher playing ability and the one female in Group B
is also able to understand concepts at a faster pace than the males in her group. Looking at the
data from the males, you can see that the Group B males were well under proficiency on the Pre-
Test compared to their Group A counterparts. Group A was above proficiency when doing the
Pre-Test, but there was still necessary growth to be made to get them much higher in
understanding these concepts/standards.
 Percent of Students Demonstrating Overall
Proficiency by Gender in Group A
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Female Male
Proficient on None Proficient on Some Proficient on All

Percent of Students Demonstrating Overall

Proficiency by Gender in Group B
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

10.0%
0.0%
Female Male
Proficient on None Proficient on Some Proficient on All

The graphs above show the percent of students that demonstrated overall proficiency in the unit
by Gender form Group A to B. Both graphs show that regardless of gender all students were able
to reach overall proficiency in the Unit.
 Pre/Post Assessment Averages by Ethnicity in

100.0%

100.0%
Group A

97.5%
95.8%

82.5%
100.0%

79.2%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino/Latina White, Non-Hispanic
Pre % Post %

Pre/Post Assessment Averages by Ethnicity

100.0%

Group B

97.8%
100.0%
90.0%
70.4%

80.0%
57.8%

70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Hispanic or Latino/Latina White, Non-Hispanic
Pre % Post %

The graphs above show the Pre/Post-Assessment averages of the students if you were to look at
it by ethnicity. Keep in mind that in Group B there are any students that identify as Asian or
Pacific Islander, but in Group A there is. In Group B, there is only one student that is identified
as Asian or of Pacific Islander decent. What can also be seen here is that Hispanic or Latinx
students in both groups reached 100% in their Post-Assessment by the end of the Unit. White,
Non-Hispanic students in each group still scored well above proficiency in the Unit by the Post-
test, but not at 100%. What should still be recognized is the large growth in averages for their
students and that their averages were still at least 95%.
 Percent of Students Demonstrating Overall
Proficiency by Ethnicity for Group A
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino/Latina White, Non-Hispanic
Proficient on None Proficient on Some Proficient on All

Percent of Students Demonstrating Overall

Proficiency by Ethnicity for Group B
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

10.0%
0.0%
Hispanic or Latino/Latina White, Non-Hispanic
Proficient on None Proficient on Some Proficient on All

Seen above is the percent of students that demonstrated proficiency according to ethnicity in both
groups. It is seen here that all group, regardless of ethnicity, were able to reach proficiency at
100% overall.
 Pre/Post Assessment Average by Disability Status
for Group A (ONLY)
100.0% 91.7%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0% 54.2%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
Students w/ No Disability Students w/ a Disability
Pre % Post %

Percent of Student Demonstrating Overall

Proficiency by Disability Status for Group A

100.0%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

10.0%
0.0%
Students w/ No Disability Students w/ a Disability
Proficient on None Proficient on Some Proficient on All

Above are two graphs of data on students with a disability status in this class for the Unit. Group
A is the only group in this class that has a student with a disability. The topmost graph shows the
Pre/Post-Assessment average for this student. Although this student started with a below
proficiency leveled average from the Pre-Test, by the end of the Unit this student still showed
that they reached proficiency by the end of Unit. Even more so you can see the large growth of
improvement from the beginning of the Unit to the Post-test.
 Pre/Post Assessment Scores by Standard in Group A
100.0% 96.4% 94.6%
89.3%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0% 66.1%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ST1 ST2 ST3
Pre % Post %

Pre/Post Assessment Scores by Standard in Group B

97.9% 97.9%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0% 72.9%
70.0% 66.7%
60.0%
47.9%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ST1 ST2 ST3
Pre % Post %

Above are the Pre/Post Assessment scores of each group recorded by standard. Each standard
used correlates with a one of the categories that I am grading them on in the Assessment. ST1,2,
and 3 correlate with say it, play it, and play it with the metronome respectively. The direct
correlation for what each standard correlates to can be found above under Assessment
Strategies and Data Collection. What can be seen from these graphs is that each group was able
to play the rhythm correctly (ST2), but when it came to playing with the metronome (ST3) there
were still some students that were having one or two measures where they weren’t playing with
the metronome. Although Group A was a bit lower in ST3 than Group B was, Group A was still
able to have 100% scores on ST1. Group B in this area, saying the rhythm (ST1), was still a little
less than 100% due to two students not being able to say one measure each in their assigned line.
Keep in mind that Group B’s Rhythm Unit was much higher difficulty compared to Group A’s.
 Students Showing Proficiency by Standard in Group A
100.0%
90.0% 85.7%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0% 42.9%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
ST1 ST2 ST3
Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment

Students Showing Proficiency by Standard in Group B

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0% 62.5%
60.0% 50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% 12.5%
10.0%
0.0%
ST1 ST2 ST3
Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment

Shown above are the percentages of students showing proficiency in each standard across each
group. As seen from the graphs, all students were able to reach proficiency by the of the Unit
taught in both groups. In Group A, there was minimal growth in the amount students at
proficiency for ST1. For ST2, there was no growth at all because they were already proficient in
this area. ST3 for Group A had the least number of students at proficiency at the Pre-Test. This
shows that some students were still struggling with saying the rhythm, but a large majority of
them in Group A were not able to play with the metronome during the Pre-Test at 80 bpm. Keep
in mind that the Post-Test is given at 110 bpm. When looking at Group B, ST1 had the least
number of students at proficiency for the Pre-Test. The rhythms for Group B are complicated and
tricky to understand without the process taught through the Unit. There were more students at
proficiency with ST2 and ST3 for Group B than with ST1. This shows that saying the rhythm
(ST1) was much harder for Group B compared to Group A, this is also because their rhythms are
more challenging.