Student Work Analysis Protocol

Subject Area: AP Physics Grade Level: 10-12

Teacher Evaluator: Kaleo Chung

Reaching Consensus about Proficiency

Students were assessed with both formative and summative assessments during this
class. Formatively, student work was assessed when completing a worksheet with momentum
sample problems. Students were expected to attempt all the problems assigned (5 questions)
and of the assigned problems completed, answered with 60% final answer accuracy (3/5
questions correct).
Summatively, students were assessed based on the generation of a momentum problem
given prompts and then solving another student groups problem correctly. Students were
expected to create a physically reasonable problem with a correctly solved answer. This looks
like the students being able to verbally express the rationale behind their answer and how/why
a certain velocity/mass/momentum that was solved for seems reasonable. (ie, the because
object 1 was moving at a high velocity and it has a large mass, we expected object 2 to move at
an even higher velocity than object 1 after the collision because it has a smaller mass) Students
should use at least 2 scientific terms in their explanation (ie use mass instead of
heavy/light/weight or velocity instead of fast, slow, speed). Students then attempt another
student generated problem. To be proficient, the answer did not have to be correct, but the
identification of relevant variables (mass, velocity, momentum) should be 100% correct and
complete.

The content standard being addressed in CDE high school science 1.1: Newtons laws of
motion and gravitation describe the relationships among forces acting on and between
objects, their masses, and changes in their motion but have limitations.

Due to time, students were not able to complete their summative assessment, so this data
analysis is focused on the formative practice problem assessment. However, this formative
assessment was used to inform the distribution of challenge prompts for the summative
assessment, so the critical understanding of the formative assessment is also valuable to
analyze.

Overall, based on the high number of students achieving the high level of achievement of
the objectives, I may need to adjust how objectives are written for this class. More rigorous
objectives may suit the class. Goals such as completing the problems in a shorter time,
rewritten problems that are increased difficulty (perhaps having to do unit conversion into SI
units) or increased correctness rate (80%or 100% compared to 60%).
B. Diagnosing Student Strengths and Needs

HIGH EXPECTED LOW

(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)
Maxs Table 5 students Chloes Table 2 students Maddies table 2 students
Abbys Table 5 students Marleys Table 3 students
Jacobs table 3 students
Aidiais Table 3 students
Annies Table 4 students

___80___% OF CLASS ___14___% OF CLASS ____6___% OF CLASS

HIGH Students in this category went above the set objective. 3 of the 5 tables in this category
(~60%) completed all 7 problems on the worksheet and answered with 100% accuracy. 100% of
students in the high category were 100% correct in the 5 assigned problems.
EXPECTED: Students attempted all 5 problems assigned and of the 5 attempted, at least 3 of the 5 were
correct. Marleys table had 100% correct, Chloes table had 80% correct.
LOW: Not all 5 problems were attempted. Students were off task and not completing the practice
problem worksheet in time given.

C. Identifying Instructional Next Steps

1. What patterns or trends are noted?

HIGH (Objectives met)
Students in these groups used
the group work setting to their
advantage. Consistently,
students were self-assessing
and asking questions both to
teacher and to other groups.
Students in these groups
worked quickly, sometimes at
the cost of some incorrect
answers, but someone in the
group usually got it right and
was able to provide their
rationale.
EXPECTED (Objectives partly met)
Students in these groups were
finding the right answers but at a
slower pace than those in the high
category. They were not able to
complete all problems, but those
that they did were all correct.
They were careful in identification
of masses and velocities for the
two interacting objects. Questions
such as does this answer seem
reasonable were being asked to
rationalize answers.
LOW (Objectives not met)
Students in this group were
off task during work time.
Only 1 or 2 problems were
attempted and struggled
with the identification of the
appropriate masses and
velocities for the two
interacting objects. Students
asked more surface level
questions such as, Is this
the right equation to use?
 2. Based on the diagnosis of student responses at the high, expected, and low levels, what
instructional strategies will students at each level benefit from
HIGH (Objectives met)
These students will be given a
high rigor challenge prompt.
These prompts will encourage
the students to create
problems that concern where
angular momentum, multiple
transfers of momentum or
inelastic collisions are
considered. These students
will likely have questions
about how to create/solve a
problem with these types of
prompts, so teacher will go to
groups individually and
provide example cases for
them to work from.
EXPECTED (Objectives partially met)
There students have a pretty good
understanding of momentum but
simply need more practice. Their
challenge prompts will not be as
difficult but will still make them think
critically about momentum,
conservation of momentum and the
variables in its equations. Students
will be given challenge prompts such
as, collision between bike and car
(large mass/small mass), collision
between two moving objects or a
collision that causes one object to
slow to a stop.
LOW (Objectives not met)
These students may be off task
because they havent built an
understanding of momentum
that allows them to generate
their own problem. Students
will need a little extra
monitoring and support to
complete this assessment.
Their challenge prompt will be
the most straightforward, such
as collision between a
stationary and moving object
or collision between two
objects of similar masses.