IV: Assessment
Assessment Plan
· Before the sea creature unit was taught, an extensive amount of collaboration (between teachers and paraprofessionals) had to take place, in order to determine what information students already knew and/or what skills they could already perform. This collaboration centered on whole class objectives, as well as individual objectives for each student. For instance, with the sea creature sorting activity, the instructors and paraprofessionals agreed that students should be familiar with the concept of sorting, and be ready to move on into sorting through different techniques. This conclusion was made based on how students performed during an insect unit that was taught previously during the year. Another example of collaboration can be identified in the pre/post assessment data and the scoring checklist. For both the pre and post assessments of the unit, students were expected to follow the same guidelines as they were given during Writer’s Workshop, and they were expected to demonstrate “quality work” (which is described in the scoring checklist) for each assessment. Those guidelines were kept the same because the instructors and paraprofessionals agreed that the students were capable of meeting the objectives, and by remaining consistent, students knew what was expected of them.
· The pre assessment data significantly influenced the planning of the unit in the type of content that was to be taught. For instance, during the pre assessment, students were permitted to write in any genre they wished, so long as they wrote three or more sentences about sea creatures. By allowing students to select the genre they chose to write about, it became apparent to the instructors that many students wrote about personal pets or shows about sea creatures, but few wrote factual, non-fiction pieces. When asked about their genre selection, many students explained that they had not known enough facts about sea creatures to write a non-fiction piece. Because of this information, the instructors made the decision to teach “quick facts” about a wider array of animals. In order to do this, the instructors created fact cards (of the animals that interested students most), and checked the cards out to students, so they could become an “expert” and share their knowledge with peers. Additionally, the pre assessment responses were also used to determine what types of experiences students had already had with sea creatures, and who would likely wish to share their experiences. This information led to sharing circles, in which students could bring in artifacts and share personal accounts, an activity students particularly enjoyed.
· The criteria/indicators for assessing students’ work was comprised of a scoring guide. The scoring guide, with a total of 10 possible points, focused on students’ ability to write their name (without prompting), three or more complete sentences, draw an illustration (with three or more colors), and to submit their work into the finished box on time (without prompting). The objective for this scoring guide was to promote and reinforce the basic concepts/goals as they were being taught in Writer’s Workshop, while also enabling students to write about the thematic unit they were being taught. This pairing of new content material and familiar writing requirements was intended to spark student interest in such a way as to generate “quality” written work. With regard to the scale itself, a score of 6 was considered to be “achieving” the objective, as students would have had to write at least one complete sentence (in addition to meeting the other criteria), in order to receive a score of 6. Any score higher than 6 would be deemed as “exceeding” the objective goal, as this would mean that students wrote two or more complete sentences, thus meeting/exceeding the common core state standard for kindergarten writing.
Assessing Whether Students Achieved the Outcomes/Objectives Addressed in Teaching
· In order to determine what students knew and/or could do following the teaching of the unit, students were given the same format for their post assessment as with their pre assessment, and similarly to their pre assessment, students did not receive any help in completing their work. This assessment tool can be found here. The rationale behind the expectation of independent work was to determine what students knew on their own, as well as to allow for students to write about any animal they wished, in a genre that suited their learning preferences and style. This flexibility in writing style served to benefit students who have difficult time writing to a preset topic and/or with a preset genre, and it allowed for expressive creativity.
· The criteria and indicators for assessing students’ work (as noted above) showed that, by the end of the unit, every student achieved the set objectives, and most students exceeded the unit objectives. This can be concluded because every student in the class received a score of 6 or higher, meaning every student met the scoring guide criteria and wrote at least one or more complete sentences about sea creatures. This result (as expressed in the graphs) shows a vast improvement from the pre assessment data.
Whole Class and Individual Students’ Learning Gains
· The pre-to-post assessment reflects exceptional student learning gains because it visually represents students’ increased ability to follow directions, complete work in a timely manner, and to produce quality work. When comparing the scores for both assessments, nearly every student showed improvement. Note: This will be discussed further under "Analysis of Student Learning".
· In order to communicate assessment data to others, the individual student scores (pre and post) have been shown in the data chart, Star Chart, and on the corresponding graphs. This data was used to assess student progress in the areas of writing and mathematics (ability to sort and distinguish patterns), and it was also used when evaluating student behavior/conduct within the classroom. For example, the Star Chart was used in determining whether students were identified as satisfactory, needs improvement, etc, on the progress report card. This information was also discussed in parent-teacher conferences, so the parents, students, and instructors could collaborate on how to best meet the needs of each student.
· Before the sea creature unit was taught, an extensive amount of collaboration (between teachers and paraprofessionals) had to take place, in order to determine what information students already knew and/or what skills they could already perform. This collaboration centered on whole class objectives, as well as individual objectives for each student. For instance, with the sea creature sorting activity, the instructors and paraprofessionals agreed that students should be familiar with the concept of sorting, and be ready to move on into sorting through different techniques. This conclusion was made based on how students performed during an insect unit that was taught previously during the year. Another example of collaboration can be identified in the pre/post assessment data and the scoring checklist. For both the pre and post assessments of the unit, students were expected to follow the same guidelines as they were given during Writer’s Workshop, and they were expected to demonstrate “quality work” (which is described in the scoring checklist) for each assessment. Those guidelines were kept the same because the instructors and paraprofessionals agreed that the students were capable of meeting the objectives, and by remaining consistent, students knew what was expected of them.
· The pre assessment data significantly influenced the planning of the unit in the type of content that was to be taught. For instance, during the pre assessment, students were permitted to write in any genre they wished, so long as they wrote three or more sentences about sea creatures. By allowing students to select the genre they chose to write about, it became apparent to the instructors that many students wrote about personal pets or shows about sea creatures, but few wrote factual, non-fiction pieces. When asked about their genre selection, many students explained that they had not known enough facts about sea creatures to write a non-fiction piece. Because of this information, the instructors made the decision to teach “quick facts” about a wider array of animals. In order to do this, the instructors created fact cards (of the animals that interested students most), and checked the cards out to students, so they could become an “expert” and share their knowledge with peers. Additionally, the pre assessment responses were also used to determine what types of experiences students had already had with sea creatures, and who would likely wish to share their experiences. This information led to sharing circles, in which students could bring in artifacts and share personal accounts, an activity students particularly enjoyed.
· The criteria/indicators for assessing students’ work was comprised of a scoring guide. The scoring guide, with a total of 10 possible points, focused on students’ ability to write their name (without prompting), three or more complete sentences, draw an illustration (with three or more colors), and to submit their work into the finished box on time (without prompting). The objective for this scoring guide was to promote and reinforce the basic concepts/goals as they were being taught in Writer’s Workshop, while also enabling students to write about the thematic unit they were being taught. This pairing of new content material and familiar writing requirements was intended to spark student interest in such a way as to generate “quality” written work. With regard to the scale itself, a score of 6 was considered to be “achieving” the objective, as students would have had to write at least one complete sentence (in addition to meeting the other criteria), in order to receive a score of 6. Any score higher than 6 would be deemed as “exceeding” the objective goal, as this would mean that students wrote two or more complete sentences, thus meeting/exceeding the common core state standard for kindergarten writing.
Assessing Whether Students Achieved the Outcomes/Objectives Addressed in Teaching
· In order to determine what students knew and/or could do following the teaching of the unit, students were given the same format for their post assessment as with their pre assessment, and similarly to their pre assessment, students did not receive any help in completing their work. This assessment tool can be found here. The rationale behind the expectation of independent work was to determine what students knew on their own, as well as to allow for students to write about any animal they wished, in a genre that suited their learning preferences and style. This flexibility in writing style served to benefit students who have difficult time writing to a preset topic and/or with a preset genre, and it allowed for expressive creativity.
· The criteria and indicators for assessing students’ work (as noted above) showed that, by the end of the unit, every student achieved the set objectives, and most students exceeded the unit objectives. This can be concluded because every student in the class received a score of 6 or higher, meaning every student met the scoring guide criteria and wrote at least one or more complete sentences about sea creatures. This result (as expressed in the graphs) shows a vast improvement from the pre assessment data.
Whole Class and Individual Students’ Learning Gains
· The pre-to-post assessment reflects exceptional student learning gains because it visually represents students’ increased ability to follow directions, complete work in a timely manner, and to produce quality work. When comparing the scores for both assessments, nearly every student showed improvement. Note: This will be discussed further under "Analysis of Student Learning".
· In order to communicate assessment data to others, the individual student scores (pre and post) have been shown in the data chart, Star Chart, and on the corresponding graphs. This data was used to assess student progress in the areas of writing and mathematics (ability to sort and distinguish patterns), and it was also used when evaluating student behavior/conduct within the classroom. For example, the Star Chart was used in determining whether students were identified as satisfactory, needs improvement, etc, on the progress report card. This information was also discussed in parent-teacher conferences, so the parents, students, and instructors could collaborate on how to best meet the needs of each student.
This chart (shown on left) illustrates student pre and post assessment scores for the Sea Creatures Unit. · In order to keep track of, use, and display assessment data, students’ pre and post assessment scores have been placed in a spreadsheet, ranging from students who had the most difficulty with the pre assessment, to the students who had the least difficulty in completing the pre assessment. After creating the spreadsheet, the data was then converted into two subsequent charts (below). One chart represents individual growth, and the other chart represents overall class growth, from the pre-post assessment. By charting the data, it is easier for the instructor(s) to address individual student concerns, and it is easier to determine who may benefit from additional instruction or who may be capable of producing more. Likewise, having a graph that represents overall scores for the class is beneficial in addressing whether or not the unit objectives were met. |
|
The 'Star Chart' (shown on left) was used to record formative assessment data for
the Sea Creatures Unit. · Formative assessment data for the sea creature unit was taken on the students’ “Star Chart.” The Star Chart, as has been used throughout the year, is a piece of grid paper that has been labeled with the student-seating chart. Under each student’s name, the instructor(s) place one star (for on-task behavior) or one check (for off-task behavior), for activities throughout the day. The intention of the Star Chart is not to punish students who are having a difficult time following directions or remaining on task, but it is instead used to allow students to “check in” with themselves. When they are given a star, for instance, the students knows that they have modeled “five star” listening, followed directions, and participated in the class activity/lesson. On the other hand, when a student receives a tally, he/she knows that they need to check in with their behavior and make a different choice, with regard to the actions he/she is exhibiting. This chart has been highly successful in encouraging students to self regulate and take responsibility for their own actions. Please note: Each lesson plan includes examples in which the Star Chart would be used, as well as what the criteria for earning a star and/or tally would be. |
Analysis of Student Learning
· After reviewing the pre and post assessments, Star Chart, and compilation of student work from the sea creature unit, it is clear that students met the objectives for the unit, both as individuals and as a class. This is a clear conclusion to make when looking at the data because all but one student showed improvement in scores from pre-to-post assessment. Also, when looking at individual student scores, it is apparent that some students tripled their scores during their post assessment. For instance, Zennan, who scored a three on the pre assessment, increased his score to a nine during the post assessment. This improvement means that Zennan exceeded the objectives, by writing at least three complete sentences, turning his work in on time, writing his name without being prompted to do so, and drawing an illustration (with three or more colors), where in the pre assessment, Zennan did not write anything on his paper.
· While every student met the expectations of the unit, there was one student who did not exceed expectations, and he instead received a lower score on his post assessment than his pre assessment. This change in scores can be linked to the fact that this student, Brayden, was having a difficult time focusing during the day of the post assessment, and by the time he began the post assessment, his classmates were finishing up. Feeling behind, Brayden was discouraged and reluctant to complete the assessment. During the scheduled “Brain Break” for the class, Brayden was given the opportunity to stay in to complete his assessment or to attend Brain Break. Brayden chose to go to brain break (and while he was not penalized for doing so), he did not finish his assessment. He earned a score of six out of nine, based on his ability to write one complete sentence, and based on his ability to complete the other criteria on the scoring checklist. Please note, in the future, pre and post assessments will be given on more than one occasion, as to account for the students who are either absent during the administration of the assessment, or who would benefit from having additional time to convey their knowledge and/or demonstration of skills.
· The data that has been collected will now be used as a tool for instructors, parents, and caregivers to better address the areas of strengths and/or weaknesses for each student. For example, if students completed the criteria of the scoring checklist, but did not write more than one sentence, than that could become an area for students to work on in the future, and it could be used as a goal for the student. This data could also be used to identify students who are exceeding expectations and could easily write four or five sentences or could include more detail in their writing/illustrating. Because every student is working and his/her own level, the data is highly important in developing and implementing curriculum in a way that serves to meet individual needs.
Feedback Given to Promote Student Learning
· Throughout the unit, students were frequently given feedback in the form of encouragement and questions. They were encouraged, in that, when they turned in their best work, the instructor(s) praised their accomplishment and thanked them taking the time to submit something they deemed as “quality work”. Students were questioned, in that they were expected to provide an explanation or rationale for their thinking. An example of this occurred frequently during the sea creature problem creating. During this activity, students had to create a problem about sea creatures, solve the problem, and then explain their steps for solving, as well as other techniques someone could have used to solve the problem. This extra step in defining how and why they solved in a particular way allowed for the instructor(s) and paraprofessionals to better understand the level at which each student was comprehending the material/assignment.
Informing Parents/Caregivers about Student Performance
· Parents/caregivers were informed of their student’s performance during the unit, as any work students did not complete was given to them as a take-home activity, and following the unit, as parents were informed of student progress during parent-teacher conferences. Because the sea creature unit was highlighted in the class newsletter; however, most parents/students discussed the daily activities and assignments with the instructor(s) and paraprofessionals throughout the three-week implementation of the unit. Please note, there was only one student who had a difficult time completing his required work for the unit, so the instructor spoke with he and his mother after school, and he did not fall behind on the material, but he instead completed his work over the weekend.