Nicole Snider-Rodriguez

Analysis of Student Learning & Instruction: Narrative

I saw much improvement throughout the whole class from the start of the pre-assessment
to the end of the post-assessment. The class average was below the criterion, 85%, on the preassessments, 77%; however, they rose the class average on the post assessment to 86%.* The
class managed to raise the average a total of nine percentage points. The subgroups of the class
that is consider is dealing with ethnicity. Five students manage to be above the criterion for the
pre-assessment and nine students were above the criterion for the post-assessment. Ten students
raised their scores from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment while two students scores
decrease and one stay the same. What caused the large number of people to increase their scores
was for the fact that the students had the application Nearpod which allows the student to interact
with the instructor while giving the lesson. It kept students involved throughout the entirety of
the lesson. Because of this, the students remember the material so when it was time for the
formative assessment, the students were able to recall the material that was taught to them. Also,
there where periodic question thrown in the lesson that was not graded just so the student
maintain a critical thinking mindset. Now the objectives that the students excelled in were
objective two and objective three. Objective 2 raised the average score by 27% from the preassessment to make the post-assessment average 92%, which is above criterion. Where objective
three had an even bigger average score increase of 41% to post-assessment average of 100%.
Objective one had some increase, 8%, which made the post-assessment score 85%. Now
objective four average actually decrease by 4%, to make the post-assessment average 64%.*
There is three questions that cover both objective one and four in the pre-assessment and one in
the post-assessment. The rest of the questions covered both objective two and three. Five of the
students got above 85% for objective one pre-assessment but the post-assessment increases to

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez

six. On objective two only one person was above the criterion for the pre-assessment but
increases to 11 students on the post-assessment. Even though there were a lot of question on this
objective, the answers were easy for the students to get correct. Objective three had not one
person get above criterion for the pre-assessment but the post-assessment had all thirteen
students get 100%. There was not as many question on this objective than the others- that is how
everyone was able to get a perfect score. Now objective four is the least successful objective.
The pre-assessment had one student get above criterion and another student get above criterion
on the post-assessment.*
As stated earlier the subgroups are based on ethnicity. The class consisted on three
groups, African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian. The two sub-groups that I compared were
African-American and Hispanic. For the pre-assessment, the Caucasians got an average of 84%,
Hispanics had 83%, and African-American had 64%. On the post-assessment scores, the
Caucasians increase to 90%, Hispanics to 91%, and African-American to 75%.* Since the
percentage increase from pre-assessment to post-assessment, we can conclude that having the
application Nearpod and the formative assessment helped elevate the scores. Eight students did
not meet the criterion while five students did for the pre-assessment. Now the post-assessment
has a reverse role where nine students meet the criterion and four did not. Now to get even more
specific, focusing on the two sub-groups stated earlier, 75% of African-Americans fell below the
criterion on the pre-assessment where the post-assessment had 50% above the criterion.*
Hispanics had 50% above the criterion on the pre-assessment and 75% above the criterion on the
post-assessment.* The same score from African-Americans was 100% in both pre-assessment
and post-assessment. For the other two ethnicities, it is not the same story. 60% of Caucasians
increases between the two assessments, 20% stayed the same, and 20% decreases. For Hispanics,

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez

75% increased and 25% decreased between both assessments. African-Americans outperformed
the other subgroups because they had everyone increased their scores and that is what I see as a
sub-group who outperformed the others. The Caucasians got the highest average score in the preassessment and the Hispanics got the highest average score in the post-assessment. Objective one
was tied between the Caucasian and Hispanic sub-groups as the highest score in the preassessment but the Hispanic sub-group has the highest average post-assessment score out of the
three sub-groups. Objective two came out to have the Hispanic sub-group outscoring the other
two in the pre-assessment however; the Caucasian sub-group got the highest average for the
post-assessment. Objective three is interesting in the fact that the Hispanic sub-group has the
highest score in the pre-assessment but all of the sub-groups have the same score for the postassessment. For the final objective, it switches off again between the Hispanic sub-group and the
Caucasian sub-group of pre-assessment and post-assessment respectively.* All three sub-groups
did excellent on majority of the objectives and assessment.
Now comparing two students, I chose the two students who had the highest grades;
student E and student L. Student E had the highest grade in the pre-assessment and had the same
grade as student L in post-assessment. Student L had the second highest score in the preassessment behind student E. Student E is a Caucasian female and student L is an AfricanAmerican male. Student E made a 100% on the pre-assessment and also the post-assessment
whereas student L made a 95% on the pre-assessment and a 100% on the post-assessment.*
Student E maintain her perfect score and student L increased his average up 5%. Both of these
students showed a high level of performance to get such a high score. Overall all the students did
a tremendous job increasing in at least one objective. The students who decrease show a lack of

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez

effort and made simple mistake. I was very impressed though with the student who drastically
improved like student C or G.

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez

APPENDIX
Full Class info

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez
Analysis by Objective

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Average

Students

African-American
Caucasian
Caucasian
Hispanic
Caucasian
African-American
African-American
Hispanic
Caucasian
Caucasian
Hispanic
African-American
Hispanic

Subgroup

Pre-Test
Obj. #1

Pre-Test
Score as a
%

Explain
(Criterion is
significance
85%)
of years

Post-Test
Obj. #1
(Criterion is
85%)

Post-Test
Score as a
%
Identify
People

Pre-Test
Obj. #2
(Criterion is
85%)

Pre-Test
Score as a
%

Post-Test
Obj. #2

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Pre-Test
Post-Test
Pre-Test
Score as a
Score as a
Obj. #4
Obj. #3
Obj. #3
Why its
im portant

Post-Test
Score as a
%

(Criterion
is 85%)
Locating
countries

(Criterion
is 85%)
(Criterion is
85%)

Post-Test
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Score as
Score as
Obj. #4
a%
a%

10
80%

80%

100%
6

60%

50%

80%

10

10

90%

70%

90%

100%

100%

30%

10%

40%

80%

70%

60%

80%

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

90%

60%

50%

50%

70%

80%

60%

70%

80%

70%

50%

40%

70%

50%

60%

60%

50%

(Criterion
is 85%)

80%
8

60%

60%

50%

(Criterion
is 85%)

90%
6

70%

100%

10pts

8
60%
90%

20%

10

100%

10pts

9
9
100%

80%

10

10pts

6
60%
10
50%

70%

10pts

6
80%
5

80%

10pts

8
30%
8

70%

10pts

3
70%
7

10pts

7
80%

70%

10pts

80%

60%

70%

90%

80%

64%

80%

60%

6.4

100%

70%

100%

68%

10

100%

10

100%

6.8

70%

10

100%

70%

10

100%

60%

10

80%

10.0

90%

70%

100%

59%

100%

10
10

100%

5.9

60%

10

92%

90%

80%
90%

6
9

60%

9.2

8
6

65%

60%

80%
100%

100%

10

80%

6.5

8
8

85%

100%

10

90%

10

70%

9
100%

8.5

100%

10

77%

90%

10

7.7

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez
Pre-assessment % Sub-group Graphs

Pre-assessment %
Number of
African-American Sub-group
African-American
Above Criterion

25%

Number of
African-American
Below Criterion

75%

Pre-assessment %
Hispanic
Sub-group
Number of Hispanic
Above Criterion
Number of50%
Hispanic50%
below Criterion

Pre-assessment %
Caucasian Sub-group

Number of
Caucasian Above
Criterion

20%

Number of
Caucasian below
Criterion
80%

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez
Post-assessment % Sub-group Graphs

Post-assessment %
Caucasian Sub-group
Number of
Caucasian Above
Criterion
Number of
Caucasian below
Criterion

20%

80%

Post-assessment %
Hispanic Sub-group
Number of Hispanic
Above Criterion
Number of Hispanic
below Criterion

25%
75%

Post-assessment %
African-American Sub-group
Number of AfricanAmerican Above
Criterion

50%

50%

Number of AfricanAmerican Below

Criterion

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data

Nicole Snider-Rodriguez

* indicates a graph or table in the appendix that correlates to the data