crystalbennettmed.weebly.com · web viewi teach at woodstock elementary school which is a title i...

Running Head: IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSIS 1

Impact on Student Learning Analysis for Gifted Space Unit

Crystal Bennett

Kennesaw State University

IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSIS 2

Impact on Student Learning Analysis

Introduction and Demographics

I teach at Woodstock Elementary School which is a Title I school with a vast majority of

learners and ethnicities that without a doubt impacts the learning environment. Woodstock is part

of Cherokee County School District and strives to maintain high performance despite the

socioeconomically issues in the community. With 47% of students on free and reduced meals,

technology resources in the home are limited (CCSD, 2015). Over the past year, our community

has developed multi-million dollar neighborhood homes, and this has caused a large gap in

economic status among students and their access to technology at home. Moreover, the gap is

being noticed more by students. At Field Day, we sell snacks for the students to purchase and

parents are always invited to attend. One of my wealthy parents noticed students that did not

have any money to spend, and she gave them each two dollars to spend at the concession stand.

This kind gesture brought a discussion into my classroom as to why some students do not have

as much money as others. In an effort to keep up with technology, some schools in my district

have piloted a Bring Your Own Learning Device program where students are allowed to bring

technology into the classroom. I cannot help but imagine the emotional impact that will happen

to students of lower economic status. With such a large difference in social classes, I feel this is

my biggest obstacle in the classroom. In fact, “family incomes is now a better predictor of

children’s success in school than race” (Reardon, 2013). Despite, the growing gap in academics,

experiences, and success of different economic classes, I hope to try new, proven methods to

help close the achievement gap among my different socio-economical students. Unlike in the

past, we are gaining students that are gifted, typically not of economic disadvantage, at the same

rate as students qualifying for EIP services, typically of economic disadvantage. Differentiated


instruction is no longer optional; it is a must. “Differentiated instructions (for gifted) include

modification of all the parts of curriculum, it means its content, process, product, environment,

and evaluation (Machů, 2015, p.2)." In previous years, our gifted population was a fraction of

what it is now. This continued increase in gifted learners only encourages me more to use

differentiated instruction as my gifted are nearly half of two out of three of the classes I teach. In

fact, we have two cluster groups that cannot legally obtain any additional gifted students.

Thankfully, we have other certified gifted teachers that are still well below the 49% ratio, but this

is a new, but good, issue arising in our title one school.

Our school is fortunate to be so diverse and embrace our cultures. We have 60% white,

19% Hispanic, 13% black, 2% Asian, 1% Native American, and 5% multiracial (Report Card,

2015). Our Title I parent facilitator coordinates an international festival each year for parents and

students to showcase the many countries our school calls home. This event has really been

successful in teaching students how to respect and understand other cultures. As a teacher, it

allows me to learn more about my students and the ideas they value.

My school currently houses 1,111 students, and we are projected to continue to grow in

size as our community grows (CCSD, 2015). This year we went well over what the country

projected our numbers to be, and we were fortunate to gain additional staff to support our both

our EIP and Gifted population. Our gifted students are able to receive a gifted class one day a

week and are given at least four gifted segments by certified gifted teachers. I teach a total of

three separate ninety-minute classes. Two of my cluster classes contain gifted students. Due to

our large size of gifted this year, we were tasked with dividing our gifted among two groups. We

looked at student motivation to divide the students into two groups. Both classes have 14 gifted

students each for a total of 28 gifted. Interestingly, four of the gifted are newly identified and


qualified based on COGAT that was given in the fall. It is my job to provide all of these students

with differentiated tasks and settings to meet their individual needs.

With so many varied student needs, I have attempted to analyze the demographics and

learning styles of my students. I have researched ways to educate a classroom setting and create

projects that are fair with such varied economic, language, and support status. Last year, the state

launched a program called Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) in an effort to allow

teachers to make data-driven decisions to improve student learning. This program has aided in

my research of students because it offers valuable information that directly impacts academics.

In the SLDS website, a teacher can view the movement of the students, the academic grades,

standardized testing results, and any socio-economical barriers that might impact learning.

Previously, teachers had to wait on cumulative folders from schools to be mailed, but now we are

granted a direct portfolio on our child. Another feature that I have found valuable is the ability to

look at all previous years. However, my favorite feature is the ability to select a group of

students and the system will tell you that groups strengths, absenteeism, weaknesses, averages

scores, average demographics, and other valuable personal information. Knowing all these

factors about my students allows me to plan instructional assignments and settings that will best

meet their needs.

During my analysis, I looked forward to conducting research among my gifted students

to see what instructional plan best meets their needs. In my analysis, I studied my 28 gifted

students, divided among two separate classes. All lessons began with whole-group motivation

and introduction, partner work, small-group work and individual work. However, each element

of instruction included various forms of technology, diverse tasks, and different platforms. My

Impact on Student Learning Analysis focused on evaluating the impact of differentiated


instruction and tasks of a thematic math unit based on the idea of space. Fortunately, I was able

to collaborate with my peer teacher’s instruction so that the students also studied space within

their other subject areas. In math, students were given a cumulating task to assess their

understanding of space as it relates to area and perimeter. In addition, students were also asked to

apply the concept of space as it relates to place value and measurement. Pre and posttest were

given for all students to assess academic growth. In this impact analysis, I used assessment

results detailed in my unit plan to show my instructional impact on my gifted students’ learning.

Curriculum and Learner Outcomes:

Learner Outcomes: This space unit is taught in conjunction with our math series, GO

Math, and our daily math warm-up activity. Students are presented real-world material in spiral

review manner during warm-up, and they are taught more in-depth concepts through GO Math.

Each day, students were presented with progressive, real-world tasks to gain knowledge of 4th

grade Georgia Standards of Excellence. The following standards were addressed in my unit:

4.MD.A.3: Apply the area and perimeter formulas for rectangles in real world and

mathematical problems.

4.MD.2 Use the four operations to solve word problems involving distances, intervals of

time, liquid volumes, masses of objects, and money, including problems involving simple

fractions or decimals, and problems that require expressing measurements given in a

larger unit in terms of a smaller unit. Represent measurement quantities using diagrams

such as number line diagrams that feature a measurement scale.

4.NBT.2 Read and write multi-digit whole numbers using base-ten numerals, number

names, and expanded form. Compare two multi-digit numbers based on meanings of the

digits in each place, using >, =, and < symbols to record the results of comparisons.


More details of the curriculum taught, assessments used, and differentiated lessons are detailed

within my unit plan. As noted, I used this curriculum taught, along with its assessments to

analyze my gifted students’ growth. Much of the instruction was completed in small groups. A

pretest was given to see where the students are and what they remember before teaching the unit.

Then, students were placed into groups based on their ability. My ability groups are not static,

they are flexible to allow students support and acceleration as needed. Ability grouping has been

a common form of differentiation in education. However, if educators are static in their grouping

and not flexible, it will not be successful. On the contrary, when flexible ability grouping is used

appropriately and effectively, students win. Researcher and professor, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius,

president of the National Association for Gifted Children, reports many of the benefits and

research promoting ability grouping in her 2013, Education Weekly Article. “They receive the

right content at the right time from teachers better able to direct their instruction to a smaller

group of students. Additionally, because the students are concentrated with others who have

similar levels of knowledge and learning rates and clear learning goals, they can better challenge

one another to grow further. The latest evidence makes clear that flexible ability grouping is

effective, enabling students to make the types of gains all educators should desire and expect

(Olszewski-Kubilius, 2013).” Hence, students were not always working with the same gifted

grouped. This was to further assess and analyze the use of flexible grouping within my subgroup

of gifted students.

Analyzing and Reporting the Data:

The data from the pre and post-test is thoroughly analyzed using multiple statistical

techniques and representations. This analysis is focused on 28 fourth grade gifted math students.


The data seeks to look at the impact of technology led instruction for area and perimeter within

various groups.

In my whole group analysis, I looked at the comparison of pre and post test results and

noted the growth points between the two tests. The mean score for the pretest was 37.68 percent

and 82.68 percent for the posttest. There was an average increase of 45 points between pre and

posttest results. In looking at the standard deviation of 16.139 in my post-test, I feel that it is an

appropriate deviation due to the varied learners within the classroom. I was shocked by the lack

of previous knowledge of area, perimeter, and capacity. Although, the fourth grade standard does

require students to formulate an equation to solve for missing sides, I thought more of my gifted

would perform higher. With that in mind, I feel that all students made significant gains, but some

students still needed additional support in order to master the concept. With a mean score of

82.68 percent on posttest, there is certainly overall room for continued growth. These scores

were to be expected based on low pretest scores that indicated a lack of prior knowledge. Due to

the high rigor and difficulty of area and perimeter concepts, I continue to use daily warm up

exercises, spiral review choice boards, projects, technology, and centers that focus on this key

standard. A whole group comparison model as well as the raw data scores are shown below.


0102030405060708090

100

Space Unit Test Scores

Pre Test Post Test

Student

Scor

e

Space Unit Raw DataStudent Pre-Test Post-Test Growth Points

Student 1 0 60 60Student 2 20 100 80Student 3 5 55 50Student 4 10 80 70Student 5 35 90 55Student 6 75 100 25Student 7 70 95 25Student 8 65 85 20Student 9 55 100 45Student 10 40 85 45Student 11 15 50 35Student 12 25 80 55Student 13 70 100 30Student 14 30 65 35Student 15 30 70 40Student 16 45 95 50Student 17 50 85 35Student 18 60 100 40Student 19 65 75 10Student 20 70 95 25Student 21 25 60 35Student 22 0 50 50Student 23 20 85 65Student 24 10 85 75Student 25 35 90 55Student 26 40 85 45Student 27 40 100 60Student 28 50 95 45AVERAGE 37.68% 82.68% +45


In my first sub group analysis, I compared my gifted students that were considered

economically disadvantaged to the other students not considered economically disadvantaged.

As noted in my introduction, my school is a Title I school and in previous years most of our

gifted were not considered economically disadvantaged. However there is a continuous growth

of students from diverse economic backgrounds entering our gifted program. In comparing the

data, it is quickly noticeable the difference among the two groups. The economically

disadvantaged average a 20 point deficit among the two assessments, but surprisingly, they show

similar growth rates. This information is extremely valuable in the support of prior knowledge

when introducing new concepts. Prior knowledge is extremely valuable in mathematics because

each concepts builds on previous skills and transfers to an understanding of new concepts.

“Without prior knowledge, learners may not have a mental model to map the base and target

problems and thus, may be unable to transfer” (Dinsmore, Baggetta, Doyle & Loughlin, 2014).

The fact that my economically disadvantaged students are not only in poverty, they are also

lacking prior skill sets needed to be successful in the classroom. A clear difference among the

two groups is the support they receive at home and student access to technology within the

home. I use Khan Academy, Learn Zillion, and Temarks to allow my gifted students enrichment

activities as an alternate to our math series homework. Most of my economically disadvantaged

do not have current computer software to support these instructional technology pieces.

However, it is very encouraging to see similar growth rates among the students. This shows their

ability to learn with the differentiated, enrichment opportunities did provide growth in education.

The data analyzed for my economically disadvantaged subgroup can be seen below.


1 2 3

23.75

66.88

43.1343.25

89.00

45.75

Economically Disadvantaged Vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged

Economically Disadvantaged Mean Not Economically Disadvantaged Mean

In my individual analysis, I looked at two students that represented two different

performance levels based on student giftedness and motivation. Student 6, a highly motivated

gifted learner, had the highest score on the pretest, a 75, and he made a 100 on the posttest,

resulting in a 25 point growth score. I compared his achievement with a less motivated gifted

student 22, also labeled economically disadvantaged, and I compiled the evidence in a bar data

chart shown below. Student 6 scored 75 points higher on the pretest and 50 points higher on the

posttest when compared to student 22. Due to the fact that student 6 scored so high on the

pretest, 75, he only had a chance of 25 growth points. However, student 22 scored a 0 on the

pretest and had the chance to have a change of 100 growth points, but he only gained 50 points.

The results support my initial introductory thoughts and demographics that there is clearly a gap

among my varied socioeconomically students and motivation levels. Hence, a continued needed

to not only differentiate instruction for all of my gifted students, but to further differentiate

instruction to encourage motivation of learning within both groups.

1= Pretest2= Posttest3= Growth Scores


1 2 3

75

100

25

0

50 50

Comparing Two Students

Student 6 Student 22

Reporting Data

Students took the pretest and a posttest using their assigned laptop on GO Math: Personal

Math Trainer (see Appendix A for a preview of the GO Math testing platform). This program

automatically shows the score and data to the student upon completion. Then, the program

emails a copy of the report to the parents. For parents that do not have internet or email access, I

printed scores and sent home. Also, after taking the pretest I sent home the GO Math School

Home Letter in both English (see Appendix C) and Spanish (See Appendix D). To further illicit

a strong understanding of Area and Perimeter, students worked on a home connection project to

bridge an understanding of mathematics and how it relates to the real-world (see Appendix B for

more information on the Home Connection project). Also, I offered before school and after

school tutoring sessions in my classroom to assist with test corrections. On behalf of students

that could not come in early or stay late, I pulled during our homeroom study time. All students

that did not score a 100 percent were asked to make test corrections to encourage mastery of the

standard. In their test corrections they had to identify their error and then solve the problem

correctly. All students that scored below 75 percent were given the option to retest after


receiving two tutoring sessions with me or complete an additional cumulating task to show

understanding.

Reflecting on the Data and What Students Learned:

After analyzing and reporting the data, I feel that the lesson and the use of integrated

technology aided in my students ability to understand such a difficult concept. All students

improved on the posttest, and the data charts supported my previous thoughts and notions stated

in my introductory. This shows students were able to see correlation of space as it relates to area

and perimeter, place value, and capacity. I feel that my whole-group then transition to small-

group instructional strategy benefited this lesson because I was able to differentiate concepts on

student levels. This helped with student motivation because the gifted felt challenged and able to

use different technology pieces based on their knowledge level. In asking my students what they

liked most about the lesson, most stated the interactive Padlet to reflect upon space. Hence, my

desire to include more instructional strategies that cater to the use of technology not only by the

teacher but also by the students. Also, students favored the choice board given for the home

connection project. In reflecting, I feel that it is because my technology savvy students were able

to use programs that they enjoyed, while my students that did not have technology were still able

to present the material in a neat manner. Students were able to flourish their creativity into the

lesson. One of my students used spaghetti noodles to make a model of his home. Another student

used Geo Sketchpad, converted it to Paint, and created a replica of his 6 favorite rooms at our

school. My math class was one of his rooms; I was honored and impressed by his use of

technology. “Technology not only allows teachers to provide differentiated instruction for gifted

children and adolescents, but also serves as an educational and creative outlet for some of the

best and brightest minds in the world” (Periathiruvadi, Rinn, 2012). I feel that not only can I use


the technology in the classroom, but I can also allow students to create even more home

connection projects using technology. As a teacher, I enjoyed the variety in creative

presentations, and the fact that my students were eager to apply the theme of space to more

concepts. Those that appeared to be highly motivated with prerequisite knowledge had the

highest posttest scores. Without a doubt, “Motivation plays an essential role in learning and it

affects various fields of education” (Kahveci, 2010). Subsequently, I will immediately plan to

implement more motivational introductions to lessons, and research games and outside

technology integration that supports the curriculum.

Also, when considering the individual items on the assessment that most of my students

struggled with I can reflect and plan instructional warm ups that address their need. When given

simple area or perimeter questions such as, “The length is 4. The width is 2. What is the area and

perimeter?” my students did well. However, when given the total area or perimeter my students

struggled with working backwards to find missing sides. This concept has been notoriously

difficult in previous years among all learners, especially those with a lack of prior knowledge of

area and perimeter. However, I found that when I modeled the scenarios with Legos, students

were able to break down the elements and work it out. Hence, I feel I need to spend more time on

this part of the standard to help my students reach the mastery they need to be successful.

Additionally, I will use the online computer program called Tenmarks to continue to

collect data on my students understanding of these concepts. Within the Amazon created

website, students are asked to solve open ended questions, and they are offered hints, videos, and

tutorials on how to solve it. This is a great extension tool, and it is also a successfully tool in

continuing spiral, cumulative assessments of standards taught. Moreover, it breaks down the

problems and does the data collection and analysis for me. Therefore, I can use that data to know


exactly what part of the standard my students are still struggling with and can immediately

implement appropriate instructional strategies to aid students. For my students that have

mastered the standard, I can provide more enrichment activities that deal with more irregular

shapes, higher place values, and multi-step capacity conversions.

In moving forward, there is always future action for improved practice to allow me to

gain the professional growth desired. In a review of this lesson, I have three professional learning

goals that emerged based upon my insights and experiences. First, I want to develop more home

connection projects that allow students the chance to use technology as a presentation tool, but I

also want to continue to provide materials and ideas to students without technology in the home.

Secondly, I want to continue to serve students with some amount of small-group instruction

based on academic levels. I want my groups to continue to stay static and flexible so that true

differentiation can occur based on pretest results. Thirdly, I want find additional motivational

activities to encourage all of my gifted learners to want to learn. Effective immediately, I will

offer all students without technology in the home, with the intent of targeting those considered

economically disadvantaged, with before school, after school, and study hall time to access

technology games, databases, and programs to gain skills to feel successful in using technology.

Also, not only am I going to have students explore the technology, I am going to have students

creating interactive Padlets to discussing themes that emerge within the learning. By allowing

these students a chance to have some prior knowledge of content before it is taught and

collaboration with peers of current knowledge, more cohesive themes and connections can be

made. Through these goals, I will continue to collect data and change my instructional practices

to better reach the needs of my diverse learners.


References

CCSD: Cherokee County School District. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2015, from

http://www.cherokee.k12.ga.us/

Dinsmore, D. L., Baggetta, P., Doyle, S., & Loughlin, S. M. (2014). The Role of Initial Learning,

Problem Features, Prior Knowledge, and Pattern Recognition on Transfer Success.

Journal Of Experimental Education, 82(1), 121-141. Retrieved November 7, 2015 from

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=91735228&site=eds-live&scope=site

Kahveci Murat. (2010). Student’s Perceptions to Use Technology for Learning: Measurement

Integrity of The Modified Fennema-Sherman Attitudes Scales. The Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (1) , 185-201. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ875782.pdf

Machů, E. (2015). Analyzing differentiated instructions in inclusive education of gifted

preschoolers. Procedia - social and behavioral sciences, 171 (5th ICEEPSY International

Conference on Education & Educational Psychology), 1147-1155.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.224 Retrieved November 7, 2015, from


direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1877042815002542&site=eds-live&scope=site

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2013, May 20). Setting the Record Straight on Ability Grouping.

Education Week. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2013/05/20/fp_olszewski.html

Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in Gifted Education: A Review of Best

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2013/05/20/fp_olszewski.html

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1877042815002542&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1877042815002542&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ875782.pdf

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=91735228&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=91735228&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://www.cherokee.k12.ga.us/


Practices and Empirical Research. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education

(International Society For Technology In Education), 45(2), 153-169. Retrieved

November 8, 2015, from


direct=true&db=cph&AN=84296839&site=eds-live&scope=site

Reardon, S. F. (2013, April 27). No rich child left behind. The New York Times. Retrieved

November 7, 2015, from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-

left-behind

The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement: Report Card. (n.d.). Retrieved November

8,2015,from https://gaawards.gosa.ga.gov/analytics/K12ReportCard

https://gaawards.gosa.ga.gov/analytics/K12ReportCard

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cph&AN=84296839&site=eds-live&scope=site

http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cph&AN=84296839&site=eds-live&scope=site


Appendix A

GO Math Assessment Preview

This is a sample shot of the platform for the online 20 question pre and post assessments students take in their GO Math: Personal Math Trainer. In accordance to copyright laws, and HMH policy, only samples can be shown.


Appendix B

Area and Perimeter Home Connection Project

Directions: Students will create a floor plan of their house, or favorite location, and measure

lengths to solve area and perimeter of at least 6 rooms. Students may decide what presentation

tool or method they would like to use to display their project using the choice board below.

Additional information on Area and Perimeter can be found on Mrs. Bennett’s website, the GO

Math online portal, and the GO Math text.

Presentation Choice Board (Please choose one tool)

Geo Sketchpad PowerPoint Google Slides

Sketch and Calc Lucid Chart Paint

Cacoo Shoebox Display Poster Board

Twiddla Dabbleboard *Student Choice (Must be approved by teacher)

Scoring Requirements

No Credit (0) Partial Credit (5) Full Credit (10)

Student does not use appropriate presentation tool.

Students uses a presentation tool, but does not use all

elements in a creative manner.

Student uses presentation tool thoroughly, creativity, and

appropriately.

Student does not find area and perimeter.

Student finds area or perimeter but not both. OR

Student does not find the area and perimeter of all 6 rooms.

Student finds and displays area and perimeter of 6

rooms.

Student shares presentation with little confidence and understanding of Area and Perimeter concepts.

Student shares presentation with some confidence and understanding of Area and

Perimeter concepts.

Student shares presentation with strong confidence and understanding of Area and

Perimeter concepts.

Due: Thursday, September 17, 2015 *Presentations will occur Thursday and Friday in class.


Appendix C

Area and Perimeter School Home Letter


Appendix D

Area and Perimeter School Home Letter (Spanish Version)

crystalbennettmed.weebly.com · web viewi teach at woodstock elementary school which is a title i...

Documents