The District Diagnostic Math Assessment is given in a one-on-one setting three times per year. The test remains the same throughout the year. The purpose of this diagnostic is to see how close students are to achieving the end of kindergarten standard at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year. I use this data to determine student readiness at the beginning of the year, and to continually check up on student progress.
Below I have included class wide results from the beginning of the year assessment and how I have used these results to inform my instruction over the past few months. I have also included two individual examples to explain how I have supported and intend to support these individual students with their goals.
In this section I detail how I assessed class results as a whole, and how this analysis was used to inform my future whole group math practices.
When this diagnostic was first given two weeks into the school year, I took the data provided by the test and created a class spreadsheet so that I could evaluate each child's incoming level. I found that 13 out of 24 students earned 75% or above, signaling a high level of previous knowledge. Of the remaining students, 9 earned scores between 75-50% accuracy, meaning they had some previous knowledge, and 2 earned scores of less than 50%, meaning they likely had little previous math instruction.
Considering this information, I created table groups and carpet partners of mixed level ability. Since we do much of our instruction on the carpet using manipulatives, I made partner pairs that I believe will work well together, with higher level partners being paired with medium or high level partners, and lower level partners being paired with medium level partners. I did not pair high and low partners together as they are unlikely to share the cognitive lift evenly.
When creating this spreadsheet, I also looked at individual points of data for the class as a whole and found that most students were struggling with patterns and counting to 20. I added elements of both of these into my calendar math time to provide daily remediation and a chance for extra practice. Each morning, my students help me count to what day of the month it is, count how many days we have been in school, and predict the next color or shape in our pattern as we reveal the date. I call on a different child to predict the answers to some of these questions for us each day to allow a wide variety of practice.
While it is important to assess the class' abilities as a whole, particularly at the beginning of the year, it is also important to consider student results individually so that I can make intentional instructional choices. One example of this includes how I can group students so that they benefit from peer feedback and support. Below is an example of a relatively high student's diagnostic results, and what that means for how I can support them academically throughout the year.
This diagnostic math assessment is given orally one on one, similar to our Mid-Module and End of Module Assessments. Our benchmark assessment, however, is entirely written responses. This variety of assessments from the beginning of the year onward helps me see how students can express their learning in a variety of ways. Overall, my students performed well on this oral diagnostic, suggesting that most of them have had some previous math instruction and exposure to general concepts such as object counting and number recognition. Considering this benchmark data as a whole, I can inform my instruction from the very beginning of the year by creating centers that are aligned to basic skills my students may need additional practice with. I can also use intentional grouping to partner students with peers who may be able to help them broaden their math understanding through peer coaching. Since students in general performed better on the diagnostic than they did on the benchmark, I can also conclude that these students may need extra practice expressing their ideas in writing rather than through oral responses.