Report of student learning

The KWL chart was given as the pre-assessment for groups one
and two. The strengths of a KWL chart is it allows students to show the
understanding and general previous knowledge they bring to a unit.
The open nature of the assessment allows for students questions and
connections to individualize the learning to that specific class making
the unit meaningful and relevant to the students lives. The
weaknesses of the KWL chart is the subjectivity required when grading
and the lack of hard data that can be collected and analyzed based on
specific content objectives.
I graded the KWL charts on three criteria: first on completion and
effort, I analyzed how hard the student applied themselves. Secondly I
looked for general knowledge of animal characteristics or behaviors
that the students related back to survival. Lastly I read the questions
and looked for the underlying knowledge that the question inferred.
The students could receive a M for meets, this shows that the student
met all the criteria, P shows progression towards the objectives or N
not progression, this was given if more than two boxes were left blank
or the studentGroup
gave 1
incomplete or unrelated statements
or questions.
Group
2

Group three did not take the

KWL pre-assessment chart due to the shortened overall unit and
feedback from my supervisor. Instead Group three wrote down
examples of characteristics that help humans survive on Post-it-notes
and placed them on the board. These served as a formative
assessment to see where the students were at and as a start to a
whole group discussion.

All three groups took the Nearpod summative assessment. The

strengths of the Nearpod assessment included the instant feedback,
meaningful interaction after every question and the motivation the
students had knowing their answer could be shown. The weakness of
Nearpod was no student could move to the next question until every
student had submitted an answer for that question. This resulted in
lots of wait time. As we only ha sixty minutes to take the whole
assessment. I ended up giving students a time limit on each question;
I believe this skews the data and overall understanding shown.
Group one had thirteen students meet showing mastery of the
concepts, five students showed progressing understanding and five
showed misconceptions and or submitted incomplete answers. Group
two had thirteen students meet, and four students show progression in
their understanding. Group three had eleven students meet and six
students show progressing knowledge.
The first focus student is an ELL student on an IEP, this student
tries hard in class but rarely volunteers or participates in whole group
discussions. They receive multiple pullouts throughout the day limiting
the daily general education instruction they receive. This student
transitions well in and out of the classroom without causing any
disruptions to the class, and they are able to independently find where
the class is quickly when they return. This student was apart of most of
my science lessons although they missed the last ten minutes several

times. This student showed limited general knowledge about animal

survival on the pre-assessment; all their examples were specific and
centered on snake behavior. The summative assessment showed the
student knew arguments start with a question but they were not able
to connect finding question lead to finding a claim. The student gave
the three examples of evidence, but again did not give the correct
vocabulary. They showed overall understanding of internal and external
structures as they designed their new animal. To further strengthen
this students understanding I would focus on vocabulary and directly
reteach the steps of constructing and argument.
Focus student two represented the majority of students, this
student is thorough in their answers, engaged and motivated, this
student scores in the middle of the class on star reading and math
assessments. This student receives a mix of meets and progressing on
homework. Focus student two showed a firm grasp of the concepts and
over all understandings through their notes and arguments. The
formatting and hand writing is at times hard to read. Student two
answered the summative assessment questions accurately, concisely
with supporting details. To further support and provide extension for
this student I would focus on organization and layout of arguments and
providing clear supporting details.
Focus student three is one of our three students in the talented
and gifted program (TAG) in our classroom. This student provided

understanding and examples on the pre-assessment all centered on

rattlesnakes. This student took careful and organized notes and
showed increasing understanding throughout the lessons. On the
summative assessment this student answered all the questions
correctly providing extra details. This student also showed
understanding and creativity in the animal they designed. For
additional extensions for this student I would have them provide
evidence to explain the animal they designed and create a model to
present to the class.