0% found this document useful (0 votes)
79 views10 pages

Unit Analysis

This document contains summaries of a teacher's analysis of student assessment data, observations of individual student learning, comparisons between different classes, reflections on classroom management strategies, and analysis of a genetics unit plan. Key points include: - The average pre-assessment score was 67% and average post-assessment score was 90.8%, showing overall student growth. - One student with IEPs improved from 44% on the pre-assessment to 83% on the post-assessment, surpassing their target score. - Different class compositions and needs were observed, but most classes had mostly A's and B's and over 79% of students met target scores. - Whole-class discussions and scaffolding small group work helped

Uploaded by

api-665575780
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
79 views10 pages

Unit Analysis

This document contains summaries of a teacher's analysis of student assessment data, observations of individual student learning, comparisons between different classes, reflections on classroom management strategies, and analysis of a genetics unit plan. Key points include: - The average pre-assessment score was 67% and average post-assessment score was 90.8%, showing overall student growth. - One student with IEPs improved from 44% on the pre-assessment to 83% on the post-assessment, surpassing their target score. - Different class compositions and needs were observed, but most classes had mostly A's and B's and over 79% of students met target scores. - Whole-class discussions and scaffolding small group work helped

Uploaded by

api-665575780
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10

Inquiry into Student Learning

Class Assessment Data Analysis


For the whole class analysis, only 4 out of the 5 classes took the pretest due to the
phenomena introduction video playing too long in one class, giving students all of the
information that the pre-test was asking them to provide. Therefore, we have 89 students
to analyze in terms of assessment data. With the one class omitted from the data, the
students who completed the pre-test had an overall average of 67%. The average target
score for the post-assessment was 83.5% and for the whole class data for the
post-assessment, the overall average was 90.8%. A vast majority of students met their
target scores which indicate to me that they learned. Students with IEPs were only tested
on the questions they answered or the questions regarding the pedigree. This showed that
there truly was growth from the beginning of the unit to the end for all students. Those
who did not truly meet the target were only off by one or two points. The students
highlighted in yellow are students whose tests are incomplete or still need to be taken.
Individual Learner Analysis
There was one student that caught my eye throughout this unit. This student has an IEP
for Autism and ADHD. Throughout the unit, I noticed that the student struggled to stay
focused and on-task. The student tended to get distracted by drawing or fidgeting with
something. Although I made a consistent effort to redirect the student, I was worried
about how their off-task behaviors would impact their understanding. However, towards
the end of the unit, as we began to review, this student’s group members took it upon
themselves to help the student in their explanation of the phenomenon. Not only did this
warm my heart, but it also quieted my worries about how the student would perform on
the assessment. On the student’s preassessment, they scored a 44%. For the
post-assessment, their target score was a 72% and they scored an 83%. Not only did the
student meet their target score, but they surpassed it by over 10%! I truly underestimated
this student’s ability and I feel bad for worrying about their understanding. This student
was challenged academically and made significant progress throughout the unit,
especially when it became time to prepare for the test.
Class Comparison
When looking at my relationships and all of the ways I have taught these lessons, I can
generate some patterns and ways to handle these classes. This part was interesting to me
since this way of teaching is so responsive. While the content and activities were the
same, the way we all came to the same conclusion was different. For example, the ⅚
classes on both days have highly math-focused minds, this meant that the discussion was
always rooted in math to help them make sense of the passing of genetics. With both ⅞
classes, the classes are always very engaged, there are never any behavior problems, and
students are constantly working on the task at hand by providing ideas that go above and
beyond expectations. Whereas with the 1/2B class, there are a lot of IEPs where students
need extra support. While the lesson sequence does not change more of my back-pocket
questions are used.

In terms of performance, all classes had mostly As and Bs, with 7/8B having a couple of
Cs. In terms of reaching target scores, 79% of students in 1/2A reached their target score,
100% of students in 5/6A reached their target score, 84% of students in7/8A reached their
target score, and 91% of students in 7/8B reached their target scores. All classes did very
well, but based on my knowledge of my classes and students, these results do not surprise
me.
Classroom Management Reflection

Whole class discussions

An area where I feel that I need to progress is leading whole class discussions. With AST,
I think leading whole-class discussions can be quite technical and intimidating, but from
a classroom management standpoint, I have found that whole-class discussions are
effective in keeping all students on task and engaged in the content. Whole class
discussions allow the students to talk to one another but in an on-task manner. To keep
whole class discussions running smoothly, it is established early on in the year that when
a student is talking, the rest of the class is actively listening and considering what they are
sharing. If another student has something they would like to add, they will raise their
hand and politely wait until the other student is finished. If a student does talk over
another student or disrupts the whole class discussion, I will briefly remind them that
another student is speaking and that we will all have a chance to share our ideas. By
establishing that every table will have the opportunity to share out, students might feel
more inclined to listen to others rather than speak over one another.

However, if students are not on-task during small group discussions, whole class
discussions will not run smoothly or effectively. To ensure that whole class discussions
are academically engaging and challenging for students, I need to make sure that students
are preparing themselves for the discussion in their small groups. If I notice that there is a
group that is not on-task during small group discussions, I will notify them that I will be
calling on them to share during the whole class discussion. This tactic motivates students
to get back on task and provides them time to ask any clarifying questions to prepare an
answer to share during the whole class discussion. I prefer this tactic over cold calling
during the whole class discussion because it avoids embarrassing students in front of their
peers or causing them to shut down from further class engagement.
Small group work/discussions

I found that I am challenged the most, classroom management-wise, during small group
discussions. It can be difficult to monitor every table to ensure that all students are
on-task. I have noticed that if I spend too much time talking to one specific table, other
tables then either get behind or off task. Also, when I am talking at a table, I need to
position myself strategically so that I still have a view of the rest of the class. I do not
want my back on students if I can prevent it. Another classroom management strategy
that I use during small group discussions is proximity control. The effectiveness of
positioning yourself near a table that you notice is off task is incredible. It redirects
student attention back to the content without having to say anything or bring possible
embarrassing attention to their off-task behavior.

Something else I have learned that tends to keep small group discussions productive and
on-task is by providing a lot of scaffolding for students. I do this by starting with a broad
question for students to talk about for about 2-3 minutes. This provides students with a bit
of flexibility in their discussion and doesn’t confine their ideas. It also limits the amount
of time they have to talk about it so they are more motivated to figure out what they want
to share and don’t have much time to have off-task conversations. Then, I ask a more
specific question for students to discuss and consider that they might not have talked
about before and again, limit their time to do so. By repeating this pattern and keeping
questions clear and intentional, students will know what they are expected to talk about in
their small group discussions.

Laboratory investigations/hands-on activities

With laboratory investigations, I have learned that classroom management strategies are
extremely important in keeping students not only on-task but safe. I think the first and
most important strategy is prevention. A few ways I try to prevent students from getting
off-task, disrupting the lab, or possibly causing a safety hazard is by emphasizing the
seriousness and importance of lab safety. Talking to students about the possible hazards
of the lab and how to prevent and protect ourselves from those hazards is especially
important. I also try to keep groups small and prevent the amount of movement around
the room they might have to do. Lastly, I make sure that I remove any materials students
no longer need for the lab. During the starch amylase lab, students were playing with the
different substances and moving around the room a lot. This led to glassware breaking
and materials being used in an unsafe manner. By removing materials from students after
they’ve used them purposefully and limiting the amount of movement and interaction
with peers, the lab began to run more efficiently and safely.
Reflective Analysis
Unit Plan
Strengths
Overall, I feel that this unit was very strong for it being undeveloped. The lessons we
chose to implement were very intentional and thorough. One strength of this unit was its
responsiveness. We revised and reworked this unit daily to ensure that it was as effective
and responsive for students’ understanding. Almost every lesson went through multiple
revisions. By the end of a lesson, the lesson itself looked very different from its original
structure and plan. Although it was much more work on our part, it allowed to students to
develop a true understanding of scientific principles related to genetics through
academically stimulating and challenging lessons. Another strength of this unit was its
ability to teach certain scientific principles through lessons that were not connected to the
Fugates at all. This unit could apply to so many other genetic phenomena. It was a bit of a
struggle for students to keep their faith throughout this unit as they kept convincing
themselves that they did not know anything and would not be able to explain why the
Fugates are blue. However, once we started the test review and revisited some of the
takeaways that we developed from each lesson, it was like a lightbulb went off in
students’ heads. It suddenly made so much sense for them and they realized that
everything we did was intentional and helpful to their understanding and explanation. All
of the lessons did connect to the Fugates, it was just hard for them to realize until they
saw the whole picture of the unit.
Weaknesses
There were a few weaknesses in this unit. As I stated before, this unit was very
undeveloped compared to some of the other 8th-grade units students have experienced.
Because the unit was very undeveloped and the kinks had not been ironed out over the
years, we were having to iron out those kinks regularly. We ran into a lot of issues with
multiple lessons that we had to dig ourselves out of. We could not have anticipated the
issues we ran into no matter how much we tried to consider every possible route students
might take. This led to us getting confused and in turn, also caused students to get
confused at points. If the unit would’ve been more developed, we probably would’ve
been able to anticipate some of these problems. Another weakness of the unit was we
struggled with seeing the scope of things in some lessons. We realized that as thorough as
we wanted to be, we did not have to go as in-depth for some lessons. This led to students
getting burnt out and going in circles over details that were not necessary to their overall
understanding of the unit.
Improvements
Since this unit is undeveloped, there are a few improvements that would be implemented
to the unit to make it more refined. In my unit overview, I have left comments about
certain lessons whether it be cutting the lessons, combining the lessons, or changing the
order of the lessons. For example, we did not do the DNA Analysis lesson by the time we
reached it in the unit timeline because, at that point in the unit, we did not find it
especially useful. That lesson would be more effective at the beginning of the unit. Also,
by the time we got to the end of the unit, we realized we had not touched on inbreeding
and its role in the phenomena. We decided to add a Dog Breeding lesson at the very end
of the unit, however, it should not stay there. The Dog Breeding lesson should occur after
the CGS lessons after they’ve developed how genetic information is passed on. Another
improvement that should be applied to the unit is changing the traits that students work
with within the CGSs. I think switching out one of the plant traits with a mammalian
cross would help them in their understanding and application.

Personal
Domain A
Strength
One strength of this unit plan and my implementation of it is: A5- Designs
coherent short-range and long-range opportunities for student learning and
assessment. The unit was designed to provide congruent short-range and
long-range opportunities for student learning. The goals of the lessons are
directly connected and addressed through the data or activities that
students engage in for each lesson. The takeaways from each lesson
(short-range opportunities for student learning) build upon one another to
help students develop a gapless explanation of the unit phenomena
(long-range). Everything that students do in the unit is intentional and
congruent. The lessons and their takeaways connect to the anchoring
phenomena. The developed takeaways from each lesson provide
short-range opportunities to assess student understanding and the
culmination of these takeaways to explain the phenomena on the test
provides a long-range opportunity for assessment.
Weakness
One limitation of the unit and my implementation of it is: A3- Uses
relevant community, district, school, and classroom factors and
characteristics in planning. In this unit, there were not many opportunities
to use local school or community resources in planning. We also did not
use knowledge of the community to customize lessons. I think a genetics
unit is a unique opportunity to connect students to the lessons, but it is also
a fragile and sensitive topic for some students. I almost did not want to
touch on familial genetics because although I know my students, I don’t
know what might upset them.
Domain B
Strength
One strength of this unit plan and my implementation of it is B1: Actively
and effectively engages all learners. This unit and my teaching of it
actively engaged learners in the content. Throughout the unit, lessons built
upon one another, using understandings they have already developed to
develop new understandings in later lessons. For some lessons, students
called upon prior knowledge to make sense of new information. Also, as
I’ve stated in earlier reflections, our lessons were constantly being revised
and reworked to adjust instruction in response to learner needs. Our
lessons were responsive to student understanding. Our lessons were also
very flexible to spontaneous events that we could not have anticipated
since the unit was undeveloped. Every lesson provided the opportunity for
small and large group discussions, which encouraged student engagement
and participation.
Weakness
One limitation of the unit and my implementation of it is B2- Assesses
student learning in multiple ways to monitor student learning, assist
students in understanding their progress, and report student progress.
Something that I wish we would’ve done more consistently is provide
actual feedback to individual students. In this unit, we formally assessed
students through questioning and their development of the lesson
takeaway. However, it was hard to tell if certain shyer students actually
understood the content. Yes, we assessed students through bell ringers and
questioning and used their answers to adjust instruction, but we did not
have individual student data to analyze throughout the unit. The only times
we had student data were for the pre-assessments and post-assessments.
We did not have periodic assessments where students could have written
CERs for each lesson and where we could’ve gauged their understanding.
Domain C
Strength
One strength of this unit plan and my implementation of it is: C- Monitors
and adjusts instructional and assessment strategies during teaching. As I
keep mentioning, there was not a day in this unit when we did not adjust
something. Almost every lesson underwent some revision in response to
student understanding and engagement. Even the test was revised about 5
or 6 times before we landed on a final draft, and even still I think it could
be reworked more to thoroughly and effectively assess student
understanding of the unit. What was so interesting about teaching an
undeveloped unit like this one was being able to experience having to
adjust instructional and assessment strategies to a more extreme extent. I
spent so much time thinking about how students responded to certain
activities and questions and what I could do better to help them understand
more effectively.
Weakness
One limitation of the unit and my implementation of it is: C2-
Systematically analyzes assessment data to characterize the whole class
and relevant sub-groups of students. The reason I picked this as the
weakness for Domain C is almost the same reason that I chose B2 as a
weakness: we only collected assessment data twice throughout the whole
unit. The only opportunities we had to analyze assessment data were for
the pre-assessment and post-assessment. As much as I am against
homework, I wish we would've had students complete a CER for every
unit for us to collect and assess throughout the unit.

You might also like