Summative Assessment Analysis (SAA)

ISTE Assignment #4
ITEC 7305
Name: Meredith Beard

Date: February 26, 2024

ISTE standards addressed

7b Use technology to design and implement a variety of formative and summative assessments

that accommodate learner needs, provide timely feedback to students and inform instruction.

(ISTE-E 7b)

7c Use assessments and other qualitative and quantitative data to guide progress and

communicate with students, parents and education stakeholders to build student self direction.

(ISTE-E 7c)

Description of the Summative Assessment

This assessment was given as an end-of-unit summative assessment to my 19 2nd graders

based on the concept of 3-digit addition and subtraction. Our grade level gives an assessment to

each student at the end of each math unit, and this test marked the end of Unit 5. Students were

tested on the standards 2.NR.1 and 2.NR.2. The standards are listed below:
2.NR.1: Using the place value structure, explore the count sequences to represent, read, write,

and compare numerical values to 1000 and describe basic place-value relationships and

structures.

2.NR.2: Apply multiple part-whole strategies, properties of operations and place value

understanding to solve real-life, mathematical problems involving addition and subtraction

within 1,000.

The purpose of this assessment is to test student mastery of the standard, measure growth

from previous assessments, assess student understanding, and use as assessment data to inform

teachers on what students still need help with. Our goal is to have students scoring in the

“proficient” range (80% or higher) and above by the end of each math unit.

The assessment was administered during our math block, and students were given

approximately 60 minutes to complete the assessment. The assessment was taken on student

computers via a website called Formative. Students were given scratch paper and required to

show their work on paper before inputting their answers into Formative. The assessment was

made up of 6 multiple choice questions and 9 short answer questions, for a total 15 questions.

Each multiple choice question (#1-6) was worth 1 point, 4 of the short answer questions (#7-11)

were worth 1 point, and the other 5 short answer questions (#11-15) were worth 2 points. We

allowed students to receive half credit on questions #11-15 if they showed their work on paper.
 Visual Representation of the Data

Question # Correct # Incorrect

1. 100 more than 217 is_______ (1 point) 19 0

2. 100 less than 403 is________ (1 point) 19 0

3. 456 is 10 more than________ (1 point) 15 4

4. 989 is 10 less than_________ (1 point) 14 5

5. Which 3 numbers complete the number sentence 19 0

521, 421, 321, ____, ______, ____ (1 point)

6. Which 3 numbers complete the number sentence 8 11

_____, ____, ____, 219, 229, 239 (1 point)

7. 25 tens - 15 tens = _______ tens (1 point) 14 5

8. 26 tens + 11 tens = _________ tens (1 point) 16 3

9. What is the value of 19 tens? (1 point) 17 2

10. What is the value of 24 tens and 12 ones? (1 point) 10 9

11. 356 + 397 = _________ (2 points) 16 3

(3 received half credit)

12. 809 - 147 = _________ (2 points) 17 2

(2 received half credit)

13. 600 - 283 = _________ (2 points) 17 2

(2 received half credit)

14. There were 459 students at VHE in the Fall. 87 more enrolled. How 15 4
many students are at VHE now? (2 points) (4 received half credit)

15. The chefs at the bakery baked 460 cinnamon rolls at 8:00 am and 11 8
728 cinnamon rolls at 5:00 am. How many fewer cinnamon rolls did (8 received half credit)

they bake at 8:00 am than at 5:00 am? (2 points)

Figure 1
 Figure 2

FIgure 3 Figure 4
 Figure 5

Analysis of the Data

The three questions the students struggled with the most were questions #4, #6 and #10.

Students’ mean score on question #4 was 0.74 points/1 point. Students’ mean score on question

#6 was 0.42/1. Students’ mean score on #10 was 0.53/1. After further analyzing these three

questions, I realized that the wording/formatting of the questions may be what caused the

students to struggle. #4 asked students “989 is 10 less than ____. They are used to answering

direct questions such as “10 less than 387 is ____”, but this question was reversed so it was

tricky for some of them. #6 asks the students to identify the numbers that complete the number

sentence, but it was tricky because unlike the previous question, they had to identify the numbers

ahead of the given numbers. The previous question asked them to identify the numbers after the

given numbers, which is much more straightforward. #10 asked the students to identify the value
of 24 tens + 12 ones. I think the students struggled with this one because they read it as 24 tens +

12 tens instead of recognizing that the question involved both tens and ones.

The three questions the students performed the best on were #1, #2, and #5.​​ The mean

score of these three questions was 1 point/1 point. I believe part of the reason students were so

successful on these questions was because they were direct questions that were not worded

trickily. The students had a lot of practice answering questions like these in the classroom as I

was teaching the material.

As a whole class the students achieved a mean score of 85/100. Additionally, according

to Figure 1, 15/19 students, or 79.4% of students, scored 80% or above. 15 students achieved the

goal of scoring proficient or above and 4 did not.

Figure 3 and 4 demonstrate the data among the general education students (15) and the ESOL

program students (4). The mean score of general education students was 83.3/100. The mean

score of ESOL program students was 90/100. Figure 5 demonstrates the score data of general

education students (2) that are currently enrolled in our EIP (Early Intervention) Program. The

mean score of these students was 57.5/100. This data shows that the ESOL students had higher

mean scores than the general education students, while the EIP students had much lower mean

scores than both the ESOL students and the general education program. Interpretation of this

data would show that the ESOL students are learning on-track with the other students, and their

ESOL services are helping them continue to do so.

Changes to Improve Instruction

The data in Figure 5 shows that students receiving EIP services scored significantly lower

than the students who are not. This shows me that I and the EIP teachers need to further

differentiate instruction to meet these students where they are and fill in gaps of prior knowledge
in order to ensure that these students are being given the instruction they need to be successful. I

will place an emphasis on those students practicing basic addition and subtraction facts, as I

think one area they struggled in was completing the addition and subtraction problems with 3

digits that require more application and knowledge of basic facts using the standard algorithm.

Another change to my instruction that I should have implemented and will implement in the

future is more practice with problems that are not given in the tradition format, such as #4, #6,

and #10. I believe the students know how to solve these problems, but many of them were

tricked by the wording and format. Exposing them to these types of problems at a higher

frequency will ensure that they are able to demonstrate their knowledge of the concept in

different ways. Finally, the third change I will make to my instruction is giving students more

opportunities to view problems on their computers, work them out on paper, and input the

answer into the computer. By doing this, they will become more efficient at this type of

formatting, and it will help them when they use computers to take high-stake standardized tests

beginning next year and on.

Reporting results to Students and/or other stakeholders

To effectively communicate assessment data to students, I will use a two-part approach

that combines whole-class review and small group discussions. Initially, I will conduct a

whole-class review of each question, in which I will display each question, talk through it /work

it out, and give students a similar problem to work out at their seats. This whole-class review will

serve as an opportunity for students to reflect on their performance. Following this, I will break

the class into smaller groups to dive deeper into specific assessment-based content areas. I will

review the questions related to the identified content with each group,providing an opportunity

for students to clarify any questions they may have about a particular topic that their assessment
data didn’t reflect an understanding of. Additionally, to ensure that my math instructional coach

is informed of student performance, I will grant her access to the assessment in my Formative

account where assessment scores are automatically displayed. By providing access to assessment

data, my instructional coach can offer interventions and strategies to meet students’ learning

needs by analyzing both my data and that of other 2nd grade teachers on my team. Per our

school-wide policy, students who scored a 75 or below will be given an opportunity to retake the

assessment to earn half credit back for each question.

Reflection

While reflecting on this summative assessment on 3-digit addition and subtraction for

my 19 second-grade students, I've learned valuable lessons. While most students did well

overall, some struggled with specific questions, particularly #4, #6, and #10 due to tricky

wording. On the other hand, questions #1, #2, and #5 were easier for students because they

were more straightforward and asked in a format that we reviewed consistently. Our class

mean score was 85/100, with 15 out of 19 students scoring proficient or above. ESOL

students scored higher than general education students, but those in the EIP program scored

lower. To improve, I plan to focus on practicing basic math facts, use various problem

formats, and integrate computer-based assessments more frequently. I will also strive to

cultivate a data-focused environment in my classroom in which students become comfortable

discussing and analyzing their own data to help them set growth goals. My biggest takeaway

from this experience is the importance of recognizing and addressing student needs through

targeted and differentiated instruction, and consistently keeping an eye on those needs leading

up to the assessment so that I don’t have to spend additional time correcting misconceptions

after the assessment. Additionally, I now understand at a higher level the significance of
ongoing assessment and data analysis to guide instructional decisions effectively. Overall,

this experience highlights the importance of continuous assessment data, both formative and

summative, and differentiated instruction to support student learning.