Prior to administering the pre-test to my students, my mentor and I discussed several potential Social Studies topics that needed to be taught this quarter. We eventually determined that the introduction of goods and services would be the most beneficial. I administered the pre-test to all seventeen students on October 26, 2017. This test was given in a small group setting with approximately five students completing it at a time. There were eleven questions on the test. Later that evening, I graded the students' tests and analyzed the corresponding data. The test asked a series of questions about whether something is good or a service, the definition of a good and service, and to identify a person who makes goods. The class average on the pre-test was a seventy percent. The first thing I noticed while analyzing the data was that only four of the seventeen students correctly identified the profession (baker) that made goods. The other answer responses for this question were librarian, police officer, and teacher. Of the answers the thirteen incorrect students gave, there was an even mix of all three other professions. I found this quite puzzling. I was also drawn to the tests of some of my lowest performers (Kharina and Santiago). Kharina is a Level 4 English language learner and struggles at times with what test questions are asking. As I made sure to keep this in mind, her results did not seem too far-fetched, and I could think of several strategies to ensure she would understand more of the material before the execution of the post-test. Santiago's test score, on the other hand, was a bit surprising. He is one of our better readers and has quite an extensive vocabulary. His low score perplexed me, and as a result, I resolved to monitor his progress very closely during the lessons. I began to plan several lessons that would hone my students' skills and increase the accuracy with which they could identify goods and services as well as those who provide them. With such a high pre-test score, I wanted to ensure that there would be visible growth when the students took their post-test. I knew that in order to increase my students' understanding I would need to approach the activities I chose in an engaging and interactive way. The first small group lesson I designed centered around the game "Heads Up." This popular tablet and Smart phone application is held up on one player's forehead, and the other participants must provide clues to help them guess the word. I chose a deck that included professions, foods, and toys. After the guesser identified the word, they had to also articulate whether it was a good or a service. The students loved this game! It was hard for them to keep their excitement and noise level in check. This game allowed them the opportunity to discuss the differences between goods and services in an exciting way. Next, we created a goods and services classifying map. As we were doing so, I addressed the misconception (from the pre-test) that librarians, police officers, and teachers provide us with a "good." I reiterated that a good is something you can hold in your hand and that a service is something someone does for you. I believe this distinction helped to provide clarity. Finally, as a part of whole group instruction, we played Goods and Services Charades. Each student got a turn to select a slip of paper that had either a good or a service on it. The student, then, had to decide to act it out alone or employ the help of up to two other students. After acting out their good or service, the remaining students took turns guessing and identifying whether the clue was a good or a service. This activity went over very well. The students really committed to it and performed to their fullest. I administered the post-test on November 1, 2017. The class average was a ninety percent. Seven of the seventeen students scored a one hundred percent, and fourteen of the seventeen students showed growth. Only one student's score went down, and knowing the student as I do, I can most likely conclude that his higher score on the pre-test was the result of quality guesswork. When analyzing the post-test data, I was pleased to see that fifteen of the seventeen students correctly identified the baker as the person who provides us with goods. By administering a pre-test before beginning this unit, I was able to be better prepared for what my students did not know and not waste our time on areas where my students were already proficient. I was also able to deduce that this topic (goods and services) directly correlates with others that will be taught this quarter like wants and needs. This wealth of data will allow me to enhance my instruction and improve my students' experience.