507- TWS 4&5

Teaching Work Sample

Factors 4&5

Angel Winslow

Mississippi Valley State University

Course: 507- Dimensions Learning/Internship

Date Due: November 15, 2021

Design for Instruction

In my classroom 21 students that took the pre-assessment. None of these students met the criteria for mastery. The highest grade on the pretest was 8 out of 14. The overall class average was 2.9% out of the 14 points, or 21%. 6 students scored 1 out of 14, which was the lowest score. There were several students who scored 2's, 3's, or 4's, and one student who scored a 7. Only one student achieved mastery for LG 1, and the average score for this goal was 2.3 out of 7 points, or 33 %. None of the students reached mastery for LG2 or LG3. The average score for LG2 was 0.24 out of 3 possible points, or 8%, and the average score for LG3 was 0. 38 out of 4 possible points, or 9.5%. The results of Joey pretest led to several conclusions. The students clearly do not have a good understanding of the concepts on the pretest. in-depth instruction will be needed concerning all three learning goals. The unit will cover eight days, with a new concept being introduced each day, while building on previously learned material. The students collectively scored best on LG 1 questions; however, 34% is far from mastery. They majority of the instruction, as reflected on the pre-assessment, will focus on LG1 because it is broader than the other two goals. One child did reach mastery for this goal, so concepts will be enhanced, and new material will be covered to accommodate this student.

Unit Overview

Day	Lesson Title	Instructional Strategies/Activities	Learning Goal Addressed	Assessment
Day 1	What is a President?		Learning Goal 1
Day 2	What is Presidents’ Day?	Presidents' Day introductory video from United Streaming * Whole-group discussion: why and when is it celebrated?	Learning Goal 2	Writing Prompt (with scoring rubric)- What is President’s day? and Why do we celebrate it?
Day 3	All About George Washington
Day 4	All About Abraham Lincoln
Day 5	Comparing & Contrasting Abraham Lincoln and George Washington

Activity One:

The first activity demonstrates several of instructional strategies/techniques which occurs on Day 1. In the lesson it covers what a president is. The activities were chosen because the unit will focus on a number of important presidents who have impacted our nation. However, in order for students to understand the significance of these presidents, they must first understand what a president is. This includes: their roles, responsibilities, and based on the results of their pre-assessments, the students have very little understanding in this area. This set of activities correlates with LG 1. The book “Teacher for President” will be read aloud, in which a student explains to a news station why they feel their teacher would make a great president, because of the roles she fills and the qualities she possesses. Based on the information from the book as well as additional tactors, the students will complete a concept chart entitled "What is a President?" as a whole group. Then, the students will learn about how a president is elected by the people of the United States who vote, and a mock election will be held, voting for the class's favorite kind of ice cream. This will model a simplified version of the election process for the students. Finally, students will be assessed by completing the writing prompt "If I were president, I would..." Students must consider actual roles and responsibilities the president has when responding; and their answers will show whether they truly grasp what the president does.

Activity Two:

In this second activity, students are learning to compare and contrast characteristics of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. However, based on their pretests, the students have little background knowledge about the two presidents. They also have not looked at similarities and differences between the two. These activities relate to LG1 as well and provide a variety of hands-on activities for students. This lesson would begin with review of important facts about the two presidents. Then, as a whole group the students would complete a Venn Diagram pocket chart. As the students present an idea or fact, I will write it on a sentence strip and we will place it in the appropriate column of the diagram. Then, students would complete a handout, in which a fact is read and they must color to signify if it corresponds with Lincoln, Washington, or both. Finally, additional assessment would be provided as students would construct a puppet of Lincoln and Washington. When a fact is read, they must hold up the puppet that corresponds; it may be about Washington, Lincoln, both, or neither. Anecdotal notes and observations would rye utiiized. To provide additional reinforcement, the students might go to the Venn Diagram pocket chart as a center, and sort all of the sentence strip facts into the appropriate column.

Activity Three:

A third activity that will be used, which correlates with LG3, occurs on Day 6 of the lesson, which covers Mount Rushmore. Based on the pretest, the students have no prior knowledge on this subject. The lesson would begin with a video clip from United Streaming. This clip was chosen because it really shows the construction process of the monument, as well as its scale. There is even one portion that shows one of the workers scaling down one of the sculptures' noses. A whole-group discussion will be conducted is to review the history of the monument, as well as how it was constructed and why. We will discuss how all of this hard work was done to honor these presidents, and what exactly this means. Next, a big book about Mount Rushmore will be read, which gives an overview of the four presidents who appear on it. This is great review of Lincoln and Washington, and an introduction is provided of Roosevelt and Jefferson, who will be covered more in depth on the following day. The students will be assessed by observation and anecdotal notes during discussion. They will also be assessed by completing a handout, which has pictures of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore. I will read a few facts about a president and identify their name, then the students will write the number I give them for that president beside their picture.

Use of Technology

Technology will be greatly utilized for planning and implementing this unit. First of all, i will use the Internet to research concepts that will be taught and find materials to be used during instruction. I will also incorporate video clips into instruction; these tools can demonstrate some concepts (such as the scale of monuments) visually. The videos will be shown using a projector onto the Smart Board. The Smart Board will also be used to show pictures of presidents, symbols, or landmarks.

Instructional Decision Making

There are many times during teaching where one must alter their original plans to meet the learning needs of all students. The first instructional decision occurred during Day 2 over what a president is. We were briefly discussing hov-1 our president is chosen, how the people of the United States vote for and elect the president. We had a classroom election over the group's favorite kind of ice cream to model the process, and most of the students seemed to be grasping the concept. However, at the end of our discussion, one student raised her hand and said, "I thought the president was picked by those little rooms our mommies and daddies go in." I asked her what she meant, and she said, "You know, those little rooms our parents go in to pick the president." The other students nodded their heads, and signaled that they, too, knew about these "little rooms." I realized that she was talking about voting booths, and that even though I had explained that the president was elected by votes, I had not explained the process of voting. We then had a class discussion about how to vote, and who is eligible to vote. It is easy to assume that our students have mastered some of these abstract concepts, but in this case, there was confusion between how going in that "little room" meant that you had voted. Just as we had put our heads down on our desks and secretly voted for our favorite ice cream, adults vote privately as well in these booths. I explained to students that this would ensure that everyone could vote for whom they truly thought was right for the job. After our discussion, the students fully understood this concept. I'he second instructional decision made occurred on Day 5, when comparing and contrasting Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. We were working on completing the Venn Diagram pocket chart, and I was calling on students to explain a fact that they had learned and tell where it went on the chart. One student that I called on said, "Washington and Lincoln were friends." I asked the students, "Did Washington and Lincoln live at the same time ' F to which they answered in unison, "Yes!- I realized that this Concept had not been thoroughly explainer) during niter lessons on the two presidents. The students' ideas of "long ago" all fell into the same time period, and they thought that Lincoln and Washington had lived at the same time. I explained to students that this was not so; Lincoln was president several years after Washington had died, and although he greatly looked up to and admired Washington, the two had never met and therefore could not have been friends. The students' misconceptions were cleared up after that. A few days earlier, when we had our Lincoln guest speaker, one of the students had asked, "Why didn't you bring Washington with you?" At the time, I hadn't realized this was such a misconception the whole class possessed, but after our discussion, it was cleared up.

Analysis of Learning

After completing both the pre- and post-assessments, several conclusions could be drawn concerning student progress. Graph A (below) shows the results for the pretest and posttest for the whole group, which consisted of 21 students.

Graph A (below) shows the results for the pretest and posttest for the whole group

Insert Graph/Chart A

None of the students reached mastery on the pretest; however, on the posttest 19 students met mastery, or 90% of the whole group. Two of the students (Students H and S) did not meet mastery, or 10% of the class. All students except one showed significant growth on the posttest. The average student score for the pretest was a 2.9 out of the possible 14 points, or 21 %. The average student score for the posttest was 11.52 out of 14 points, or

82%. This means that the students scored an average of 8.62 points higher on the posttest, or improved by 61%. There were only 58 correct responses out of the possible 294 on the pretest, while on the posttest there were 242. The range of the pretest (the highest score of 8 minus the lowest score of a 0) was 8. The range of the posttest (14-5) was 9.

Graph B (below) shows whole group results for the pretest and posttest for LG 1

Insert Graph/Chart B

Only one student reached mastery of LG 1 on the pretest; however, on the posttest 17 students, or 81% of the whole group, met mastery. All of the students made progress on this goal. The average student score for LG1 on the pretest was 2.19 out of 7 points, or 31 %. The average student score for LG 1 on the posttest was 6.29, or 90%. This means that the students scored an average of 4.1 points higher on the posttest, or improved by 58.6%.

Graph C (below) shows whole group results for the pretest and posttest for LG2.

Insert Graph/Chart C

None of the students reached mastery on the pretest for LG2; however, on the posttest 20 students, or 95.2%, met mastery. All of the students made progress on this goal. The average student score for LG2 on the pretest was 0.24 out of 3 points, or 0.08%. The average student score for LG2 on the posttest was 2.67, or 89%. This means that the students scored an average of 2.43 points higher on the posttest, or improved by 81 %.

Graph D (below) shows whole group results for the pretest and posttest for LG3.

Insert Graph/Chart D

None of the students reached mastery on the pretest for LG3; however, on the posttest 14 students, or 66.67%, met mastery. All of the students made progress on this goal. The average student score for LG3 on the pretest was 0.33 out of 4 points, or 0.08%. The average student score for LG3 on the posttest was 2.57, or 64.3%. This means that the students scored an average of 2.24 points higher on the posttest, or improved by 56%. 23 WKU 9014 Students who had attended educational preschool were selected as a subgroup. These students were chosen because the background knowledge they attained from preschool might have a significant effect on their performance .

Graph E (below) shows subgroup results for the pretest and posttest for LG 1.

Insert Graph/Chart E

The students in the subgroup had greatly varying scores on the pretest, ranging from a 1 to a 6. Only one student met mastery for this goal on the pretest; however, 5 of the 6 students, or 83.3%, in the subgroup met mastery for LGI on the posttest. All of the students who had attended preschool made significant progress on this goal. The average score for the subgroup for LG 1 on the pretest was 2.83 out of 7, or 40.4%, while on the posttest it was 6.5, or 92.9%. This means that the subgroup students scored an average of 3.67 points, or 52.4%, higher on this goal on the posttest. Compared with the whole group, students in the subgroup scored slightly higher on the pretest and posttest; however, their growth on this goal increased by a slightly lower amount. Students N and S were chosen to individually evaluate because they represent two levels of performance, high and low. It is important to understand the learning of these particular students because they represent how in a classroom you have students on multiple levels; sometimes even, as in this case, from one extreme to the other. 24 WKU 9014 Regardless of their "level," teachers are responsible for meeting the needs of all students and teaching them important content. On the pretest, Student N scored 4 out of 14, or a 28.8%; however, on the posttest she scored 14 out of 14, or 100%. She did not master any of the learning goals on the pretest, but mastered all 3 on the posttest. Her score improved by 10 points, or 71.2%. Student S scored a I out of 14 on the pretest, or 7.1 %, and 8 out of 14 on the posttest, or 57%. He too did not master any of the learning goals on the pretest, but mastered LG2 on the posttest. His score improved by 7 points, or 50%. Although both students showed progress with this new material, their scores are very different. Student N is a highachieving student, while Student S often struggles. He is in special education classes for a large part of the day, and lessons in this unit were designed to be especially engaging to help keep his attention. During formative assessments, Student N was almost always on track and greatly participated in classroom discussion. Student S would frequently be off task, and his attention would have to be regained. Also, instructions would have to be repeated for Student S, and often he would have to redo assignments because he would rush through them simply trying to get finished, even though he knew a lot of the material.

(See below for samples of Student N's work) (See below for samples of Student S's work)

Reflection and Seif-Evaluation

The learning goal where my students were most successful was LG2. 95.2% of the whole group met mastery criteria for this goal, significant growth considering none of g none of them mastered this goal on the pretest. The students improved their scored for this goal by an average of 81%. The students had no prior knowledge on these concepts, including the historical significance of Presidents' Day. Their growth may have been a result of engaging activities incorporated into this lesson, such as a video clip from United Streaming, as well as the use of scaffolding. The remainder of the unit somewhat built upon this goal. The learning goal where students were least successful was LG3. 66.67% of the students met mastery for this goal on the posttest, which was significant growth since none of them mastered it on the posttest. The students improved their performance in this goal by an average of 56%, but this was the lowest percent increase among the goals. This may have been a result of not having as many hands-on, extending activities, as well as not going quite as in depth with this content. In the future, to improve student performance, I would spend more time on this goal, perhaps extending my unit for another day or so. We really just got to focus on identifying key symbols and monuments and their historical significance. I think that if we spent more time on them individually and had more hands-on experiences, the students would get a more in-depth understanding and retain more of the information. Throughout the process of completing this unit, I learned many valuable lessons. This was great practice in building and developing assessments that are appropriate for all students. Authentically assessing students is vital to student success and decisionmaking, and 1 would like to continue to improve in this area. Aiso, New Teacher Standards II and III (Creates/Maintains Learning Environment and Implements/Manages Instruction) are two professional areas in which I would like to continue to grow in order to improve my ability.