Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Assessment Commentary
a. Formal Assessment:
Summative- Students will have to use monohybrid and dihybrid crosses to predict the
they came up with were supposed to be backed by the evidence of the data they
collected and the proper utilization of the Punnett squares (scientific practice of
constructing an explanation).
Informal Assessment:
Formative- Students will turn in a ticket out the door to evaluate their understanding
The ticket out the door was used to measure student understanding of genetic
to ensure that they would be able to move to a deeper level of thinking within the
subject of genetics.
b. The design of this lesson leaves some areas of the assignment open-ended. This was
done intentionally, so that students would have to work to piece the prediction tools
together as well as make their own observations. The inquiry focus of the lesson was
also chosen because it allows me to see how deep each student can think about the
Benitez, L
problem. For students with special needs (there are no students in this class officially
labelled as having special needs), I am able to assist them when they get stuck, as
well as scaffold the lesson so that they can understand the steps easier. For some
students, I walked them through how to determine the genotypes of the baby’s parents
based on the picture shown at the beginning of the lesson. This was a form of
scaffolding. Other students worked the genotype of the mother out on their own.
The ticket out the door assignment was not designed with differentiation in mind, as it
was used a formative tool to dictate where future emphasis should be in the following
lessons. Instead of differentiating for the assignment, it was used as a tool for future
differentiation.
a. The learning objectives measured by the ticket out the door assessment were to
determine the differences between genotype and phenotype and understand concepts
behind mendelian genetics. The learning objectives measured by the baby prediction
assignment were to understand the concepts behind mendelian genetics, to know how
to use Punnett squares to perform monohybrid and dihybrid crosses, to determine the
phenotypes.
Benitez, L
b.
Based on the chart data, 86% of the class did not perform adequately on the
prediction assignment. From looking at the student work, it seems as though the
students were not sure how to go from step to step. However, student performance on
the ticket out the door demonstrates that 58% of the class is familiar with the
vocabulary at a proficient level, and 42% of the class still need more practice.
proficient student. She scored close to the median on both assignment. Student 3—
The class data demonstrates that, although most students did well using the
vocabulary in the ticket out the door assessment, they were not able to work their way
through the prediction assignment. Even Student 1, who scored the highest, only
received a 73%. There were gaps in her understanding of using the family
square cross. None of the three example students demonstrated an ability to use the
assignments and oral, whole class, feedback to the students in response to the ticket
b. The feedback given to the three focus students addressed their individual strengths
and needs. For Student 1, I commented on her strength of working the square out
correctly and drawing proper conclusions based on her results, but pointed out her
weakness in arriving at the wrong parent alleles written on the sides of the Punnett
square. For student 2, I pointed out that she was the only student to accurately deduce
the allele combinations each parent would give and work out the cross correctly. I
also commented on her strength of creating a key beforehand, as this was something I
emphasized quite a bit, but was not used by many students. Her weakness was that
she did not follow the assignment through to completion by listing out the genotypes
and phenotypes of the Punnett square products. For student 3, I pointed out his
strength in working through the entire problem, as many of the other students gave up
or skipped parts. He was also one of the few students to follow the problem through
halfway through that process. For his weaknesses, his nomenclature was off. I made a
comment that will help direct him to keeping the proper genes together and working
The learning objective of knowing how to use a Punnett square to perform a dihybrid
cross was not met by most of the students. Student 2 was the only one from the
samples to work out an accurate version of it. The use of monohybrid crosses was no
tested directly. I hoped that the students would show their work, and demonstrate
whether they had used the monohybrid cross to determine the alleles each parent
would give, but most of them did not, even though we covered a large portion of that
process together as a class. Students 1 and 2 were both able to distinguish between
genotype, but he did not list phenotypes and it is unclear if he is able to determine the
difference between the two vocabulary terms. None of the students made accurate
predictions of the offspring phenotype, which was the major learning objective of the
lesson.
c. I gave detailed notes on the actual student work that was handed back to them. I made
myself available to the students so that they could ask questions about their
assignments. Because most of the students did not grasp how to work out the
predictions, I will create a sheet that gives more guided steps and allow them to
complete it for a make up grade. For the ticket out the door, I used the information
gathered to direct which parts of the lesson to emphasize throughout the example
questions. I stopped at every step in the problem, asking students to write out the
different types, and to determine if the dominant or recessive trait would show in the
phenotype.
a. The students performed well on identifying appropriate use of genetic vocabulary and
made good observations as they explored inheritance patterns. The language function
that they struggled with was predicting the hair and eye color traits of the baby.
Students showed that they understood how to use letters to represent genes (syntax),
although they often reversed the order and demonstrated that there is a gap in their
Student 1 had a good command of the vocabulary, as demonstrated on the ticket out
the door, as well as in her ability to distinguish between the genotypes and
phenotypes on the prediction assignment. Even as the student who scored the highest
in the class on both assignments, she did not master prediction of the baby’s traits.
Student 2 showed moderate command of the vocabulary on her ticket out the door
and trait prediction assignment. She also showed proficiency in working out the
dihybrid cross, although she did not make any formal predictions once it was
complete.
Student 3 demonstrated a lack of understanding on both the ticket out the door and
the trait prediction sheet. The only function he completed was to explore inheritance
patterns, which was inherent to attempting the assignment. He also showed poor
a. Based on my analysis of the assessments, I have deduced that most of the class still
does not understand that heterozygous genes display a dominant phenotype. I will
continue to be emphasize this throughout future practice problems and give them a
also noted that almost none of the students were able to make accurate predictions on
the baby’s eye and hair color possibilities. I will re-structure the assignment, giving
them more detailed instructions, and allow them to complete it again in order to
replace their previous grade. In order to help the three focus students, I will give them
a day in class to work on the highly-scaffolded baby prediction assignment, and I will
be sure to support the students in understanding how to flow from one part of the
problem to the next. For student 1, I will make sure to sit with her as she determines
the mother’s genotype as well as what alleles each parent will give. For student 2, I
will sit with her as she wraps up her assignment to make sure she understands how to
tally up the genotypes correctly. For student number 3, I will make sure to sit down
with him and work through the determination of alleles and the Punnett square
b. Creating a re-do assignment of the baby prediction sheet was decided upon based on
the fact that students perform better when there is a clear outline of what is expected
of them and a show of the final product (Strong et al., 2003). Scaffolding has also
been shown to help students work in their proper zone of proximal development
References:
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and
Miranda, R. J., & Hermann, R. S. (2012). An Integrated Instructional Approach to Facilitate Inquiry in
the Classroom. Science Scop, 35, 66-72. Retrieved November 16, 2017.
Benitez, L
Ormrod, J. (2015). Human Learning + Pearson Etext Access Card (7th ed.). Pearson College Div.
Settlage, J., Southerland, S. A., Smetana, L. K., & Lottero-Perdue, P. S. (2017). Teaching science to
every child: using culture as a starting point (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Strong, R., Silver, H., Perini, M., & Tuculescu, G. (2003). Boredom and Its Opposite. Educational
Leadership, 24-29.