Ansley Lindstrom

Student Work Analysis Protocol

Subject Area: AP Calculus BC Grade Level: 9-12

Teacher Evaluator: Elissa Pitts

A. Reaching Consensus about Proficiency

Read the assessment task, performance, and/or rubric, and:
1. Describe what the students were expected to do?
Students were given two limits to evaluate at infinity at the beginning of class before the
lecture. They were asked to attempt the problems and write down any questions or
points of confusion that they may have. After we went over similar problems and
explanations of behaviors of limits at infinity students were asked to complete the
problems.

2. Which standards (CCSS or content standards) or curriculum expectations are being

assessed? These should already be listed on your CEP Lesson Plan Template.
EK 1.1A2: The concept of a limit can be extended to include one-sided limits, limits at
infinity, and infinite limits.
EK 1.1C3: Limits of the indeterminate forms and may be evaluated using L’Hospital’s
Rule.

3. Describe what you would consider to be a proficient response on this assessment?

Exactly what would students need to say, write, or perform for you to consider their work
proficient?
Both limits completed with some work/ annotations. I am looking for visual
representations of their thinking process.

B. Diagnosing Student Strengths and Needs

Next, read student work and without scoring, do a “quick sort” of students’ work by the general
degree of the objectives met, partially met, not met. You may need a “not sure” pile. After
sorting, any papers in the “not sure” pile should be matched with the typical papers in one of the
other existing piles. Student names should be recorded in the columns in order to monitor
progress over time
 HIGH EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)

Mackenzie- Correct limits, Emil- Limits correct, work Hunter- Correct limits, no
annotation and explanation shown but no annotations. work.
of limits. Erik- Only one limit fully Chance- Correct limits, no
Lucy- Correct limits, clear solved, work shown on both. work.
annotation on point of Jackson- Limits correct, little Zack- Correct limits, no
confusion. to no work shown. work.
Soren- Clear thinking on Destiny- Incorrect limits, work No name- Correct limits, no
limits and point of confusion. and confusion shown. work.
Graphs drawn with Andrew- Limits correct, little No name- Correct limits, no
annotation. to no work shown. work.
Jessie- Correct limits, Graham- Limits correct, little No name- Annotation of
thoughts and work shown. to no work shown. first problem only, didn't go
Mike- Correct limits, No Name- Limits correct, back and solve.
annotation on work. some work, no annotations
Hayden- Correct limits,
annotation on work.
Magnus- Correct limits,
annotation and clear point of
confusion.
Garrett- Correct limits, work
and thought process shown
Aiden- Correct limits, lots of
notes and annotations.
No name- Correct limits,
explanation and work
shown.
No name- Correct limits,
great questions on point of
confusions and clearly
stated what they do know.
29% OF CLASS 25% OF CLASS
46 % OF CLASS

C. Identifying Instructional Next Steps

Discuss the learning needs for the students in each level considering the following questions:
1. What patterns or trends are noted?
 HIGH
(Objectives met)
Correct limits, work shown
with annotations. Students
demonstrate understanding
of the concept by recording
their thinking.
1. Based on the diagnosis of student responses at the high, expected, and low levels, what
instructional strategies will students at each level benefit from? List those instructional
strategies in the table below:
HIGH
(Objectives met)
Individual work- Students
would benefit from more
practice on limits at infinity as
well as extending the concept
to more difficult problems that
require the same concepts
but more manipulation. This
would be more thought
provoking.
Group work- Students could
benefit from group work as
helping someone else with a
problem will solidify their
understanding.
EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)
Limits are correct/ mostly Work is incomplete or
correct with some work to shows no work at all. No
show their thinking. thought process recorded.
Generally missing
annotations or questions on
points of confusion.
EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)
Individual work- Students Students would also benefit
would benefit from practicing from the individual, guided
additional problems, sense work, and group practice as
most still got the correct the students in the expected
answers they should be able group. Most of these
to continue on and practice students got the correct
their skills. Any problem that answers but did not show
a student doesn't their work or demonstrate
understand should have a their understanding.
statement on their point of
confusion. Students who did not grasp
the concept would benefit
Guided practice- The point from working with other
of confusion is very students who are able to
important in math and being explain the topic. It is often
able to work through helpful to get another
problems on their own. I explanation or way to
think students would be able approach the topic.
to benefit from practicing
these skills. Review- Students would
benefit from reviewing the
Group work- Students would material and how to
benefit from group work, this approach these problems in
would allow them to better other forms.
understand any
misconceptions and possibly
help other students with their
points of confusions.