Dramatic Academic Growth
Standard: Academic gains are the ultimate door opener—they are the foundation of a truly transformational teacher. Students make dramatic levels of academic growth (that is measurable and rigorous). Families know the level of rigor necessary for college career readiness in the 21st century.
​
Student learning and mastery of rigorous learning goals is evident when they are making academic gains. Quantitative and qualitative data are both necessary to promote and measure student growth over time. When paired together, these types of assessments allow me to gain a holistic view of student performance.
​
Quantifiable data helps me identify where my students are academically and what they need to focus on next. When I analyze quantifiable assessments, I clearly see what learning objectives my students are mastering and what skills and concepts they need additional support in developing. Analyzing students' performance on assessments also enables me to target my instruction to ensure I am meeting the needs of every learner.
​
Analyzing qualitative data provides me with additional insights about student’s higher-level thinking skills and ability to develop their ideas in a clear manor. In my classroom, students produce multiple short answer responses throughout a unit. Writing short answer responses allows students to demonstrate their learning through writing. Students are given a clear prompt and grading rubric to ensure that they understand the success criteria. Consistently using the same rubric throughout the school year allows me to clearly see students' growth over time and overall level of mastery.
​
​
Below you will find evidence of how I use quantitative and qualitative data to measure my student’s academic growth. Each assessment is used to ensure that I am effectively instructing my students, and successfully helping them develop the 21st century skills they need to attain success.
Quantitative Data
The following teacher-created assessments demonstrate the academic growth of my students in five English language arts standards. Both the pre- and post-multiple choice assessments served the purpose of measuring student’s proficiency in reading and analyzing fiction and non-fiction texts. The pre-assessment data was useful because it helped me identify where students were in their learning. I used this knowledge to promote measurable and rigorous academic growth in subsequent units by creating targeted, differentiated instruction around the tested standards. This knowledge enabled me to create learning activities that focused on the specific skills students needed additional support in to achieve proficiency. After utilizing the data from the pre-assessment, the post-assessment was given to students in February. In the section below you will find examples of the teacher-created assessments, further details about the scoring, and an analysis of specific data points that show student growth and proficiency.
Overview of Assessments
The pre- and post-assessment allowed students to demonstrate their academic readiness on two essential skills needed to analyze literary writing, two essential skills needed to analyze non-fiction writing, and the skill of making complex inferences about what they are reading. The two literary standards discussed in this section are: analyzing how a character influences the plot of a fictional text and analyzing linear plot development. The two non-fiction standards discussed in this section are: analyzing an author’s purpose and determining the main idea of a text. I selected to prioritize these specific five standards because the learning goals that were associated with them were continuously referenced and developed throughout the school year. For example, the level of thinking students practiced when analyzing characterization and providing textual evidence to support their understanding transferred over to helping them determine and analyze themes in poetry. In addition, analyzing an author’s purpose supports students’ analysis of an author’s craft and development of their ideas. Because these standards are consistently addressed throughout the school year, it was crucial that I develop a baseline understanding of my students' academic performance. In sum, assessing students' proficiency in these five standards helped me make informed instructional decisions in subsequent units.
​
Below you will see a sample of the pre-and post-assessments. I included the examples in order to highlight their close alignment to one another. For example, question 9 on the pre-assessment and question 10 on the post-assessment both require students to make a complex inference about the characters in the passage. Strictly aligning the assessments allowed me to more effectively measure student growth. In addition to measuring student growth over time, each assessment is closely aligned to the lessons and learning activities that students participated in throughout the school year.
Pre-Assessment
The pre-assessment contained one fiction passage and one non-fiction passage. There were six questions that tested literary analysis, two questions that tested author’s purpose in a non-fiction passage, and three questions that explicitly tested inferencing skills.
Post-Assessment
The post-assessment contained one fiction passage, one poem, and two non-fiction passages. There were three questions that tested literary analysis, four questions that tested author’s purpose in a non-fiction passage, four questions that tested main idea in a non-fiction passage, and six questions that tested inferencing skills. It is important to note the data I am selecting to showcase is taken from a larger assessment that tested additional standards not included on the pre-assessment. Therefore, in the example above, you will see blue boxes that indicate questions which are not included in my data analysis.
High-Level Summary of Data Presented in Evidence
​
At a high-level, the pre-assessment results demonstrate that students were approaching proficiency in all the literary and non-fiction standards. Student performance on the pre-assessment indicates students were developing their understanding of analyzing and critically thinking about literary elements. More specifically, students struggled with analyzing conflict development in a fictional text and how characters influenced the plot. When looking at the non-fiction standards, the skill that challenged students the most was summarizing main ideas and creating connections between ideas. After using the pre-assessment data to inform my instructional decisions, student performance on all standards increased. The post-assessment highlights that students are proficient in both the fiction standards and the inferencing standard. The post-assessment data also highlights that students grew by at least ten percent in all standards.
Assessment Scoring Rubric
​
I referenced the Texas standardized test, STAAR, Raw Score Conversion Table in order to determine if students did not meet standard, were developing, were proficient, or were masters of the standards I tested. The Conversion Table identifies the percent that students needed to attain in order to meet state requirements on the June 2017 administration. The state of Texas only releases the passing rate of previous tests. Therefore, referencing the Conversion Table for the test administered in June of 2017 allowed me to make informed instructional decisions about how to effectively address what skills and concepts students needed reinforced in order for them to succeed on high-stakes testing.
​
Below you will see a side-by-side table that compares the percentages that the state used to determine proficiency to the percentages I used to determine proficiency on the pre-and post-assessments. By reviewing the table, it is clear that I categorize scores into 4 different percentage groups that closely align to the state passing rate. However, because I want to hold my students to rigorous learning goals that will ensure success, my passing rates are slightly higher than you see on the STAAR Conversion Table. In addition, the state slightly increases the passing rate every year. Therefore, I wanted to account for this expected increase.
Student Exemplar
​
Included below are student exemplars for the pre- and post-assessments.
The pre-assessment was scored and given back to students to review their performance. After taking the pre-assessment, students corrected the mistakes they made, and then they had a conference to discuss what they need to work on to reach proficiency. In the exemplar above, you see student made corrections and teacher feedback provided during the conference.
The post-assessment was also scored and given back to students to review their performance. In the unit following the post-assessment, students had additional time to practice and improve the standards they did not master.
Data and Analysis
​
Below, I have included the numerical data of my students’ pre-and post-assessment results. The data illustrates significant academic gains in the five English language arts standards that were assessed. On average, across all five standards, the number of students who fell in proficient or advanced increased from 48% pre-assessment to 76% post-assessment. This demonstrates a growth rate of 28%. In addition, students’ ability to proficiently analyze a literary passage and non-fiction passage grew respectfully by 36% and 34%. Students’ inferencing skills grew by 14%. By the middle of the year, the class average for all five of the measured standards reached proficiency.
​
​
​
More specifically, as indicated by the table below, nine students moved from below or developing into either advanced or proficient in the 8.6A fiction standard and seven in 8.6B fiction standard; combining for an average of 36% growth within the two fiction standards. Within the non-fiction standards, standards 8.9 and 8.10A had an increase of five and ten students from developing of below to proficient or above; totally for an average increase of 34%. The fifth standard, inferencing (Fig 19 D), showed improvement of 3 students who’s scores increased from developing or below to proficient or advanced, totally a 14% increase.
Individual Student Analysis
​
Analyzing pre- and post-assessment results allows me to see how my targeted instruction impacted individual student growth over time. For example, see the highlights below for an analysis of student 20 and 16:
​
Student 20 (Pre-AP Student):
-
Pre-assessment: only proficient in two standards
-
Post-assessment: progressed at least one scoring category for each tested standard
-
Across standards, on average, this student demonstrated 33% growth
​
Student 16 (Intermediate English Language Learner (ELL)):​
-
Pre-assessment data: only proficient in two out of the five standards.
-
Unlike student 20, however, this student was in the lowest scoring category for three out of the five standards.
-
-
The post-assessment data: proficient or advanced in three standards.
-
Across standards, on average, this student grew by 42%.
-
If the student continues to grow at their current rate, they are projected to obtain proficiency in 8.10A and, at minimum, move up to developing in 8.9.
-
​
The above individual student analysis demonstrates that regardless of a student’s individual learning needs and placement in low-achieving categories when first assessed, they were able to demonstrate dramatic academic growth over time.
Individual Student Performance Key
Teacher Reflection
​
Utilizing quantitative data helped me effectively meet the academic needs of my students. Analyzing the five English language arts standards whole class and individually supported my understanding of how to target instruction to achieve measurable and rigorous academic growth. On average, the number of students who fell in proficient or advanced increased from 48% pre-assessment to 76% post-assessment. This growth rate of 28% demonstrates the dramatic academic growth that occurred between the assessments. While working to reach proficiency, students were developing and continuously refining the academic and 21st century skills s that will open doors of opportunities. Students have the academic knowledge to further their success in high school and beyond.
Qualitative Data
Qualitative data provides additional evidence about student performance. In order to provide students with multiple ways to demonstrate their understanding of content knowledge, I provide them with the opportunity to respond to what they are reading by writing short answer responses. Writing short answer responses supports students’ development of critical thinking and their ability to clearly communicate their thoughts and ideas in an academic tone. I selected to showcase specific student’s growth in writing short answer response because they give a vivid snapshot of how students are making meaning of a text. Analyzing student work samples, therefore, gives me valuable insight about their academic growth.
Promoting Measurable and Rigorous Academic Gains
​
Promoting measurable and rigorous academic gains for my students required me to utilize the above quantitative data to drive my instruction. For example, 8.10A was a challenging non-fiction standard for my students on the pre-assessment. Students focused too heavily on specific details in a paragraph and did not relate them to the overall main idea. Therefore, in subsequent units I planned instruction and learning activities that focused on looking at specific paragraphs in a text and determining how they impact the overall main idea of the text.
Looking at individual student performance in the fiction standards allowed me to identify the students who needed additional support in analyzing plot and character development. After the pre-assessment, students who were at the developing or proficient level participated in differentiated learning activities that focused specifically on understanding and analyzing linear plot development. During the targeted instruction across the fiction and non-fiction standards, I was mindful to embed inferencing practice. Students’ inferencing skills increased as they further developed their analysis skills.
Explanation of Assignment
Below is the first short answer response assignment I gave to students. The purpose of this assignment was to gather evidence of students’ prior knowledge about conflict and characterization. In addition, this assignment was also intended to gather evidence about students’ ability to respond to a prompt in a clear way, provide textual evidence, and explain their thinking.
​
Students were instructed to annotate the fictional passage for conflict development and characterization. After they finished reading and annotating, they were instructed to respond to the prompts on the following page. The directions given to students were limited in nature because I wanted them to be able to authentically demonstrate what they knew. Below you will see the annotation prompts and directions that were available for students to reference throughout the assignment.
Below is the rubric I used to review student work. The rubric is divided into three separate categories: developing, proficient, and advanced. Each category has specific components I was looking for when reviewing short answer responses. This rubric is intended to assess a student’s ability to clearly respond to a prompt using academic vocabulary, textual evidence that supports their response, and their ability to apply higher-level thinking skills when responding to a text.
Student Work Samples: Beginning of the Unit
​
Located below are student work samples from two students. Each sample contains an annotated fictional story, completed short answer response, and a scored rubric indicating if they are developing, proficient or advanced.
Student A is a pre-AP student. Student A’s initial response indicates they are at the developing level. This student was thoughtfully able to annotate a text. For example, every check-mark I placed by an annotation indicates that the student identified an event or character trait that influenced the plot. More specifically, this student was able to use academic language in their annotations. They identified a character emotion that "leads us to the conflict". However, they were not able to transfer this knowledge to their response in a clear and concise manor. My comments on response one demonstrate that portions of the student’s response do not clearly demonstrate accurate higher-level thinking that can be supported by ideas in the text. In addition, this student was not able to consistently use academic vocabulary throughout their responses.
Student B is an on-level student. Student B is able to thoughtfully annotate a text for plot elements. This can be seen by the circled academic vocabulary on the fictional story. In addition, this student understands there is a relationship between character and plot elements. However, their analysis of the events and character are incorrect. Student B also is still developing when it comes to responding to a prompt about a text. This student was able to respond to the prompt with evidence, but their answer was not supported by sound textual evidence that demonstrated accurate higher-level thinking about what they were reading.
Student Work Samples: End of Unit
​
Below are writing samples that students completed after the unit about plot, character, and theme. In order to effectively answer this short answer response about theme, students needed to be able to identify the conflict and analyze how it was developed throughout the story. To promote student growth from the beginning to end of the unit, students received instruction and completed multiple learning activities that explicitly taught and reinforced the skill of analyzing how linear plot development and characters work together to create theme. To strengthen their ability to write a short answer response, students participated in multiple pre-writing activities. Each pre-writing activity served the purpose of helping students organize their thoughts, develop clear answers, and think through how they will support their thinking.
​
After reading and annotating a fictional text, students completed a “Hexagonal Thinking” graphic organizer. This graphic organizer was intended to serve as students pre-writing activity that would help them access the higher-level thinking that would be needed to fully respond to the prompt. In this activity, students were asked to analyze four literary elements, make a personal connection, and evaluate the text. Before completing the “Hexagonal Thinking” graphic organizer, students participated in a mini-lesson that reviewed literary elements and explained how to complete the pre-writing activity. After the mini-lesson, students applied their learning to the graphic organizer and wrote their short answer response. I used the same rubric to assess students short answer response. The samples below indicate that both students were able to clearly respond to a prompt using academic vocabulary, textual evidence that supports their response, and apply higher-level thinking skills when responding to a text.
Student A moved from developing to proficient. This student was able to successfully use textual evidence to support their answer and explain how the evidence supported their response. In addition, this student was consistently able to use academic vocabulary and attain an academic tone.
On page six, you will find a side-by-side comparison of Student A's short answer response from the beginning of the unit to the end of the unit. Unlike the beginning of the unit sample, the student A was able to provide valid text evidence that support their answer. The answer, text evidence, and explanation of text evidence demonstrate a correct analysis of the fictional story.
Similar to student A, student B moved from developing to proficient. Student B was able to demonstrate evidence of higher-level thinking about the text that was supported by textual evidence. This student also effectively used academic vocabulary and maintained an academic tone. However, student B would have had a stronger response if they would have fully explained all the pieces of textual evidence they used and their connection back to the theme.
On page six, you will find a side-by-side comparison of Student B's short answer response from the beginning of the unit to the end of the unit. At the beginning of the unit, student B was unable to correctly analyze the relationship between character and plot elements. However, due to the targeted instruction discussed above, the end of the unit sample highlights the growth that occurred within student B's higher-level thinking skills. They provided a correct analysis that thoughtfully articulated how character influenced the development of the overall theme.
Teacher Reflection
​
The academic growth that students made is apparent when comparing the student work samples from the beginning of the unit to the end of the unit. At the beginning of the unit, students had a challenging time developing their ideas and supporting them with higher-level thinking skills. However, the end of the unit samples indicate that the targeted instruction they received allowed them to develop and strengthen the level of thinking needed to proficiently complete a short answer response.
Conclusion
In order to effectively understand how to meet the needs of my students, I need to utilize both quantitative and qualitative data. Utilizing multiple sources of assessments gives me a holistic view of what skills and concepts my students are truly proficient at. The quantitative and qualitative data that I included above demonstrates that I was able to provide the necessary instruction that was needed in order to close knowledge gaps.
With my support, students achieved measurable and rigorous academic growth. Students were able to develop and strengthen the 21st century skills that are fundamental to their future. This dramatic academic growth will lead them to future opportunities that will open many doors.