Throughout the unit plan there were numerous types of assessments administered. I used whole-class, sub-groups, and individual assessments. There was a noticeable amount of success and improvement throughout the entire unit. Pre-assessments were used to assess prior knowledge, while post-assessments were used to judge the improvement of the students. 

            The pre-assessment aligned with learning goal # 1 used a KW(L) chart in which the students listed what they know and what they want to learn about the Earth, Moon, and Sun. In order to assess correctly a KWL rubric was used to score the charts. The highest possible score for the pre-assessment was a 75% and the modified post-assessment KWL had a possible score of 100%. The reason for this difference had to do with the fact that now students can explain what they learned on the second KWL. The students were then put in groups to hypothesize the measurements of the Earth to the Sun, and the Earth to the Moon. This group work was used as a formative assessment.

            In the process of reaching learning goal #2, the students were given an acronym for the planets while being asked to name the eight planets. This pre-assessment was analyzed by looking at the percentage of the class that was able to name the planets. The formative assessment was established through teamwork. The students again used groups to research facts about the planets. This information was very beneficial for the students when it came to the post-assessment in which a “Milky Way Newscast” was created and presented. The project was also assessed by the percentage of the class who understood the information. All of this information can be seen in the pie charts for learning goal #2.

            The pre-assessment for learning goal # 3 the students were to journal their thoughts about how technology has helped the space exploration through the years. Check marks were used to show that the students established complete thoughts and correct knowledge about the journal question. The post-assessment was a timeline grade where checks were also used to show that the students most include an important event relating to the space exploration to show that the student gained knowledge of the information provided throughout the lesson.

            A class percentage was used again for assessing learning goal # 4. The class was asked a question pertaining to what a year measures and a percentage of correct answers had been taken. For the post-assessment I took a percentage from the number of students who knew the answer to #5 (same question) on the final unit test. The improvement was visibly successful.

ANALYSIS AS A WHOLE-CLASS

            Analysis of the progress in learning goal #1 is the most significant. The evidence is provided through the first line chart. This learning goal used a KWL chart to view progression. Every student improved on their post-assessment KWL score by at least 15%. The KWL showed evidence of knowledge learned because the students all answered the things they wanted to know from the pre-assessment. The area where most students lost points was handwriting, which was on my KWL rubric. Only one student did not reach the learning goal of answering all of their questions from the “What I want to know” section. Most of the students’ improvement was reached through formative assessment. As a whole-class the students reached their goal with only one student missing the goal.

SUB-GROUPS

            As I analyzed the line chart it showed me there was an obvious difference between students with IEPs and students without IEPs. Although the students with IEPs did not do as well as the mainstream students they all did achieve higher on the post-assessment. Student 13 was the obvious student that did not fully reach the learning goal. Although that student did better on the post-assessment he did not reach the learning goal. The data in the bar graph shows the improvement made by the students with IEPs. There are obvious reasons the mainstream students do better than the classified students, and those are all reasons that the students have support for. There are many times where lessons or tests are differentiated for those students, but they do not always do as well as the other students. Science is usually where they classified students struggle in my class because it is a combination of all subjects. They have started to grasp the concept of putting all subjects together and their improvement has been tremendous.

INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS

            For the individual analysis I chose to examine the progress of the lowest student and the highest student. I took this information from both students’ final grades. The student who was the highest scored a 96% as a final grade while the lowest student finished with a 70%. I reviewed work from both students throughout the unit and it was evident that the highest scoring student would be on top of the charts. He is very intense about his work. If he even gets once answer wrong on a test or homework he does not let it go. He will study that question until he remembers it and can recall it for the next test or homework assignment. The low scoring student has obvious reasons for lacking throughout the unit. He is classified and lacks ability to maintain as much information as the other students. Along with his IEP, the student lacks the desire or effort that needs to be put into his work. He is easily distracted whereas the other student is focused all day long. When something interests the classified student he does very well, but that is a rare occasion. His sloppiness is another reason he lacks the ability to retain the information. The analysis of these two students was a great idea because he shows what it takes to be the top student of a class as well as the lowest student in a class. I believe the long list of classifications for the lower student will be something preventing him for a while, but as long as his effort is there he will be okay.

            In an overall analysis of the unit I believe everyone was happy with what they earned as their grades. No one failed the unit, or even came close to failing. Learning goals were met by 94% of the class. Every student showed improvement throughout the lesson although everyone did not reach all learning goals. 


learninggoal1chart1.xlsx
File Size: 18 kb
File Type: xlsx
Download File

learninggoal1iep1.xlsx
File Size: 12 kb
File Type: xlsx
Download File

learninggoal2.xlsx
File Size: 11 kb
File Type: xlsx
Download File

learninggoal4pre.xlsx
File Size: 11 kb
File Type: xlsx
Download File

SELF EVALUATION

          Although the students did well throughout the unit, the students  seemed to progress best through learning goal #3. Learning goal #3 was based upon a check and check minus grading system. A check would count as a hundred while a check minus would be a seventy percent. I decided upon checks because I used a journal as the pre-assessment and a timeline project as a post-assessment. In order to receive a check for the pre-assessment the students had to list at least five facts about how the change in technology has helped space exploration. In the post-assessment the students were to design their timeline of important events having to do with space exploration, and if they listed three important facts in the timeline they would receive a check. The three important facts were aligned exactly with the information covered throughout the lessons. 

           I believe the students were so successful with this learning goal because of the alignment of the formative assessment and post-assessment. For instance the timeline was used as formative as well as post, because of what I looked for the students to understand throughout designing the timelines. I also think the students were successful because they were able to discuss a great deal of information with partners throughout lessons under this learning goal. The students I have among the classroom also love to do projects. This was rewarding to the students and they were very interested. This helped them throughout because when they are interested they put more effort in as well as becoming more competitive with their projects. 

            The least successful learning goal was learning goal #1. After examining the information it was evident that the work was based for more individual work. The students do well when they work together and can discus answers and questions. This learning goal was not bad at all but grades were somewhat lower than most of the other learning goals. The learning goal was still met by 94% of the class but the grades were still lower. I believe a lot had to do with it the KWL charts as well. The reason for lower scores on the KWL had to do with handwriting being accounted for. The classified students also had a hard time while filling in the KWL chart. With the six classified students having lower grades it brought the class average down. The students still did very well on every learning goal task, but were a slight bit lower on this learning goal. 

             As far as learning goals for myself on a professional stand point, I believe there are many goals I should have in mind. The number one goal is keeping technology integrated in the classroom as much as possible. This was determined throughout many of my lessons, because it was obvious the students progressed better through lessons with technology being involved. Even if there is only a smart board, using technology is a huge support. Bringing in videos and clips on the information being taught is also very useful. I have been around the school and watched numerous teachers and all of the successful ones are great with the technology they have in the classroom. 
              

             Individual goal number two has to do with keeping lessons interactive. Along with technology, student interaction and participation are great to have in a classroom. No student can keep their attention on a lecturing teacher. I believe in keeping hands on projects and lessons. Usually these lessons are easily reached in science, but it can also be attained in other subjects. The hands-on approach is a must because it also keeps the students interested and boosts their effort. 


              I believe this professional internship has been a success. I have learned many things from my cooperating teacher as well as my supervisor. I have realized that there is no "one-way" for a teacher to teach a class. Each teacher must have their own individual way of doing things with the students success being the main goal. There is always something to be learned by the students as well as the teacher. There is always something to improve on as a teacher and it will always be that way. 
 

    Author

    Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

    Archives

    December 2012

    Categories

    All