Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rhode Island Department of Education & the National Center for the Improvement of
Educational Assessment, Inc.
Page|2
Overview
The Student Work Analysis Protocol presented here provides a process that groups of
educators can use to discuss and analyze student work. It is intended to be applicable across
subjects and grades, including literacy, mathematics, science, the arts, and others. Examples of
student work that can be used as practice for analyzing are included as appendices.
Analyzing student work gives educators information about students understanding of concepts
and skills and can help them make instructional decisions for improving student learning. The
success of this process is dependent on a culture in which all educators are collaborative and
focused on reflective practice to improve student learning.
Contents
Overview................................................................................................................... 2
Terminology............................................................................................................ 3
Why Analyze Student Work?................................................................................... 3
Formative Analysis of Student Work..........................................................................4
Student Work Analysis Process............................................................................... 4
Student Work Analysis Protocol................................................................................. 6
Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 9
Terminology
The following provides a clarification of some of the terms used in this document:
Assessment an instrument or process for documenting in measurable terms what students
know and can do. Educational assessments can take many forms, including but not limited to,
written tests and assignments, performance tasks, and portfolios.
Educator indicates those individuals who are analyzing student work during a student work
analysis session. This can include a classroom teacher, content area teacher, administrator,
special education teacher, and specialists (reading, media, speech pathologists, etc.).
Protocol a vehicle for building the skills and culture necessary for collaborative work. It can
help to ensure equity and parity thus allowing groups to build trust by actually doing substantive
work together. Protocols create a structure for asking and responding to challenging questions,
reflecting on an issue or dilemma, and gaining differing perspectives and new insights.
Student Work the students response to the task.
Page|3
Task refers to any assignment that requires a response from students. This may be in the
form of a constructed response, problem solving, or performance.
What are my students strengths with regard to the required knowledge and skills?
What are my students learning needs with regard to the required knowledge and skills?
Do students have sufficient foundational content and process skills to approach new learning?
How can I support student learning through scaffolding and differentiation?
The most important benefit of analyzing student work is improved student learning. According to
Langer, Colton, and Goff (2003), the most important benefit of collaboratively analyzing student
learning is that at-risk students learn more. In addition, through a student work analysis,
students and teachers have increased clarity about intended outcomes.
Other benefits for teachers and educational organizations that have been identified include:
Higher consistency of curriculum alignment within and across grade levels are established.
School improvement goals and resource allocation are driven by classroom data.
Page|4
Low
Expected
High
Of course, in any given classroom there may be many, few, or no students in each of these
categories. The use of the Analysis of Student Work Protocol will help determine the levels of
preparedness both as baseline information, as well as to monitor student progress throughout
the interval of instruction.1
1 For more information on baseline data and setting SLO targets see: Using Baseline Data and
Information to Set SLO Targets: A Part of the Assessment Toolkit, www.ride.ri.gov/EdEval-OnlineModules
2 If a rubric is not available, an effort should be made to create an applicable rubric for scoring
the student work before undertaking the Student Work Analysis process or attempting to score
the student work.
Page|5
Students are expected to solve for a variable in an equation with and without absolute values,
graph inequalities on a number line with and without absolute values, and solve word problems
relating to these concepts.
Colorado Math Standard: Solve equations and inequalities in one variable. (CCSS: A-REI)
On this particular assessment, a proficient response would be an algebraically reduced equation
or graph of an algebraically reduced inequality. Students must specifically identify the correct
value for the given variable.
While the assessment allowed students to demonstrate their abilities to complete an algorithm, it
is difficult to tell whether students actually understand what theyre doing or if they are simply
memorizing arbitrary steps.
___20-25___% OF CLASS
___25-30__% OF CLASS
___45-55___% OF CLASS
(Due to limited sample size, percentages are generated by extrapolation with consideration of related
assessments.)
Adapted by the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment from the (add in citation for Maryland doc) and
the Center for Collaborative Education (2012).(Permission to reproduce and use is given when authorship is fully cited.)
Page|6
D. Using the reviewed samples from each level, discuss and identify the misconceptions, wrong information,
and what students did not demonstrate that was expected.
HIGH
(Objectives met)
D.M. ran into difficulty with
word/application problems.
This indicates that the
student has difficulty
translating situations
involving quantities into
algebraic expressions. This
is evident from the mistake
that twice a number is at
least 15 can be written as
2a15 instead of , the
partial process on problem 4,
and the blank problem 6.
EXPECTED
(Objectives partially met)
M.L. was missing key parts
of his understanding on a
few different concepts. This
is evident from only giving
one answer on absolute
value problems, placing an
extra point on inequality
graphs, and subtracting
away a scaling factor rather
than dividing. This indicates
a partial understanding of
processes without
conceptual understanding.
LOW
(Objectives not met)
E.B. struggled greatly with
absolute value problems, and
oftentimes treated absolute
value marks purely as
parenthesis. Regarding
inequalities, the student did
not flip the inequality sign
when multiplying/dividing
both sides by a negative
number. This indicates a
lack of understanding of both
processes and conceptual
understanding.
Page|7
Based on the teams diagnosis of student responses at the high, expected, and low levels, what
instructional strategies will students at each level benefit from?
HIGH
(Objectives met)
A couple students in this
category could benefit from
an activity based around
interpreting story problems
in order to identify
relationships between
quantities. Or, put more
simply, how to see an
equation when given words.
EXPECTED
(Objectives partially met)
These students are the ones
that would benefit most from
the use of activities based
around multiple
representations. Simply
going back over algorithms
would simply set these
students up to forget them
again, since they have no
meaning or relevance.
LOW
(Objectives not met)
While these students will
also benefit from multiple
representations, they will
also need to be retaught
solving strategies that they
missed the first time
through. As a result, the
multiple representations
lessons should also include
abstract practice problems to
help these students
internalize processes.
Bibliography
Center for Collaborative Education (2012), Quality Performance Assessment: A Guide for
Schools and Districts, Boston, MA.
Page|8
Langer, G., Colton, A., and Goff, L. (2003), Collaborative Analysis of Student Work, ASCD,
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/102006/chapters/The-Benefits-of-CollaborativeAnalysisof-Student-Learning.aspx
Looking at Student Work Collaborative (2013). Why Protocols. Retrieved from
http://www.lasw.org/who.html
McClure, C. (2008), The Benefits of Teacher Collaboration: Essentials on Education Data and
Research Analysis, District Administration: Solutions for School District Management,
http://www.districtadministration.com/article/benefits-teacher-collaboration
Maryland State Department of Education (n.d.), Examining Student Work to Inform Instruction.
Retrieved from http://mdk12.org/data/examining/index.html