Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Analysis of Student Learning

    Uploaded by

    api-399189761
    This document analyzes student learning and performance in a poetry unit. It provides a scoring guide and then details student performance on various assessments throughout the unit, including a pre-assessment, three lesson assessments, a first draft, peer editing, a quiz, and final draft. Overall, the teacher was disappointed that most students did not meet the learning goals, which they believe was due to factors like absences, lack of work ethic, and disruptions to the schedule. The final assessment of student poems showed that too few students produced work that met expectations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Analysis of Student Learning

    Uploaded by

    api-399189761
    46 views4 pages
    This document analyzes student learning and performance in a poetry unit. It provides a scoring guide and then details student performance on various assessments throughout the unit, including a pre-assessment, three lesson assessments, a first draft, peer editing, a quiz, and final draft. Overall, the teacher was disappointed that most students did not meet the learning goals, which they believe was due to factors like absences, lack of work ethic, and disruptions to the schedule. The final assessment of student poems showed that too few students produced work that met expectations.

    Original Title

    analysis of student learning

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document analyzes student learning and performance in a poetry unit. It provides a scoring guide and then details student performance on various assessments throughout the unit, including a pre-assessment, three lesson assessments, a first draft, peer editing, a quiz, and final draft. Overall, the teacher was disappointed that most students did not meet the learning goals, which they believe was due to factors like absences, lack of work ethic, and disruptions to the schedule. The final assessment of student poems showed that too few students produced work that met expectations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    46 views4 pages

    Analysis of Student Learning

    Uploaded by

    api-399189761
    This document analyzes student learning and performance in a poetry unit. It provides a scoring guide and then details student performance on various assessments throughout the unit, including a pre-assessment, three lesson assessments, a first draft, peer editing, a quiz, and final draft. Overall, the teacher was disappointed that most students did not meet the learning goals, which they believe was due to factors like absences, lack of work ethic, and disruptions to the schedule. The final assessment of student poems showed that too few students produced work that met expectations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    Analysis of Student Learning 

    Scoring Guide 

    Rubric Scoring  DNM   PM  M  E 


           
    No work  Some or all work  All work  All work 
    completed  completed but  completed to a  completed to an 
      not to  satisfactory  exceptional 
    satisfactory  level  level. 
    levels 

    ✔, ✔+, ✔-  0  ✔-  ✔  ✔+ 


    Scoring 

    ✔ or “No”  No  \  ✔  \ 

    Absent= Ab         

    Student  Pre  Pear  Limerick  Illustration  1st  Peer  Kahoot  Final  Completed 
    Name:  (LG 2)  Deck  (LG 1, 3)  (LG 2)  Draft  Edit  (LG 2)  Draft  Goals: 
    (LG 2)  (LG  (LG  (LG 1,  1| 2| 3 
    1, 2,  3)  2, 3) 
    3) 

    JA  6/11  0/5  No  ✔-  ✔  ✔  11/21  PM  PM| PM| PM 
    ✔  (2.8) 

    JB  4/11   2/5  No  ✔-  ✔  ✔  9/21   M  PM| PM| M 


    (3.2) 

    KB  7/11  0/5  ✔  Missing  Miss no*   17/21  PM  M| PM| PM 
    ✔  ing  ✔  (2.8) 

    HB  7/11  5/5 ✔


    ​   ✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  17/21  M  M| M| M 
    ✔  ✔  (3.2) 

    GB  Ab  2/5  ✔  ✔  ✔  no*  19/21  M  M| M| M 


    ✔  (3.1) 

    AC  5/11  4/5 ✔


    ​   ✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  15/21  PM  PM| M| PM 
    ✔  (2.8) 
    GC  7/11  3/5 ✔
    ​   ✔  ✔  Miss no*  12/21  Ab  M| M| PM 
    ✔  ing  ✔ 

    EF  Ab  ​   No 


    4/5 ✔ ✔-  ✔  no*  10/21  DNM  PM| PM| 
    (1.9)  DNM 

    KF  9/11  2/5  ✔  ✔-  ✔  ✔  13/21  PM  M| M| PM 


    ✔  ✔  (2.6) 

    AG  3/11  4/5​✔  ✔  Missing  ✔  ✔  5/21  PM  PM| PM| PM 


    (2.8) 

    MG  6/11  0/5  ✔  Missing  ✔  ✔  12/21  PM  M| M| PM 


    ✔  ✔  (2.6) 

    IH  4/11  3/5​✔  No  Missing  ✔  no*  9/21  PM (2)  DNM| PM| 
    PM 

    LH  10/11  5/5​✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  20/21  M  M| E| M 


    ✔  ✔  (3.2) 

    JJ  2/11  3/5​✔  No  ✔-  ✔  ✔  9/21  PM  PM| PM| PM 
    (2.8) 

    SK  8/11  5/5​✔  ✔  ✔  Miss no*  9/21  PM  PM| PM| PM 
    ✔  ing  (2.9) 

    ML  8/11  3/5​✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  no*  Ab  Ab  PM| PM| M 


    ✔ 

    TM  9/11  4/5​✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  15/21  M (3)  PM| M| M 


    ✔  ✔ 

    BM  7/11  3/5​✔  No  ✔-  ✔  ✔  9/21  M  PM| M| M 


    ✔  (3.1) 

    OM  7/11  4/5​✔  ✔  ✔-  ✔  ✔  14/21  M  M| M| M 


    ✔  ✔  (3.2) 

    OR  Ab  3/5​✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  ✔  9/21  Ab  PM| PM| PM 

    CW  5/11  3/5​✔  No  ✔  ✔  ✔  16/21  PM  PM| M| PM 


    ✔  (2.8) 

    JW  5/11  2/5  No  ✔-  ✔  ✔  10/21  PM  PM| PM| PM 
    (2.1) 
    * “No” with an asterisk means that those students were not allowed to peer edit (or in GB’s case 
    chose not to) because their rough draft was not completed by that day.  

    Pre Assessment:  

    Based on iReady scores and conversations with students and mentor the results of the 
    pre-assessment were better than expected. I imagined that most students would not meet the 
    goal of 50% correct that I set. The pre assessment focused on learning goal #2 mainly; I wanted 
    to determine first what their knowledge of figurative language was and if they could find 
    examples of figurative language in poems. The results show that 12/22 students met the first 
    learning goal.  

    Lesson #1:  

    While examining the pre assessment I noticed a few misconceptions about some figurative 
    devices. I chose to re-teach a select number of figurative devices to my students for the first 
    half of this lesson. 15/22 students met my participation goal, though I would say students did 
    not try to their full potential during this lesson; 5/22 students attempted to write correct 
    answers. Therefore only five students met LG 2 during this lesson.  

    Lesson #2:  

    In lesson two students were asked to read and write limericks. This required them to 
    understand the structure of a limerick. A total of 14/22 students wrote and completed a 
    limerick. This result was upsetting for me as I was not grading the limericks; the only goal was 
    to write a limerick that looked like a limerick and had the correct rhyme scheme.  

    Lesson #3: 

    Lesson three focused on finding imagery in poetry. We read a few poems and imagined what 
    the poet was trying to describe. Students then chose a stanza in a poem I picked out and 
    illustrated said stanza. The requirements were that they use detail and color and that they write 
    and underline the imagery that they used to create their illustration. If students did not complete 
    ​ -. If they went above 
    one of these requirements but handed in an illustration they recieved a ✔
    and beyond with their illustration they recieved a ✔+. 8/22 students received a ✔-. 
    10/22 students received a ✔, and four students never handed in their assignment. No 
    students from this group received a ✔+. The goal was to receive an illustration that 
    somewhat resembled the stanza they chose. I was disappointed that I never received an 
    illustration from four students, especially since I gave them an extra week to complete 
    the illustration. 

    Students were handed back their illustrations with their grade.  

    Lesson #4: 

    Students wrote their first draft. They were given a brainstorming worksheet and a rubric. 
    I expected students to have some completed work that resembled a poem passed in on 
    the due date. I am still missing three first drafts.  

    I gave either written or oral feedback to students who handed in their first draft poems 
    on time.  

    Lesson #4: 

    This lesson resulted in three assessments: one was the peer edit worksheet, another 
    was a Kahoot quiz, and the third was their final draft. The final draft of the poem was 
    graded using the rubric. All students except those not completed with their rough draft 
    at the beginning of class completed the peer editing process. 11/22 students met 
    expectations on the Kahoot quiz, and seven students have received a “Meets” on their 
    poems. My students have little to no accountability or work ethic. It was incredibly 
    disappointing to me to see that even with due date extensions my students failed to 
    complete their work or if it was completed few actually took the time to make their work 
    presentable. I know according to iReady and observations of other assignments that my 
    students are capable of creating satisfactory work. 

    Students were handed back a graded rubric for their poems and kept their peer editing 
    feedback. 

    Reflection: 

    Overall, not enough of my students met my learning goals for me to believe that this unit 
    was successful. I believe this was due to many factors including multiple snow days 
    and field trips, student absences, and lack of work ethic. The summative assessment 
    was their final poem and I am not happy with the work I was given. Those students who 
    passed in a poem that either Partially Meets or Does Not Meet will be required to keep 
    working on their poems or accept a failing grade.  

    You might also like