Task 2

docx

School

Western Governors University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

172

Subject

Electrical Engineering

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by LieutenantScienceElk36

Task 2 Pre-Assessment A1. One area of strength shown in the pre-assessment is the Key/Signal Words. For the first question in this category, 17 of the 20 students answered correctly, showing an 85% proficiency rate. For the second question, 18 of the 20 students answered correctly, showing a 90% proficiency level. A2. One problem area identified in the pre-assessment is the Fill-in-the-Blank question type. There were only two fill-in-the-blank questions, and for both questions, only 25% of students answered correctly. This indicates that most of the class, 75% in fact, is not proficient at answering these types of questions. B. Because most of the students struggled with fill-in-the-blank questions, I would adjust the “Anticipatory Set” to include a fill-in-the-blank worksheet to accompany the video on problem solutions. As the students watch the video, they can practice answering fill-in-the-blank questions. I would also introduce a Think-Pair-Share activity after students watch the video so that they can discuss their answers and have an opportunity to learn from a peer. Informal Formative Assessment C1. An area of strength identified in the Informal Assessment is again the Key/Signal Words. For this area, 17 of the 20 students demonstrated proficiency, showing an 85% proficiency rate. Of the three Informal Assessment areas, students scored the highest level of proficiency on the Key/Signal Words.

C2. The informal assessment pinpointed an area of challenge in the solution skills category. Only 11 of the 20 students (55%) scored proficient on the solution section. This indicates that nearly half of the class, 9 of the 20 students, were not proficient in solution skills. D. There was an enhancement in the overall proficiency of the class from the pre-assessment to the informal assessment. On the informal assessment, proficiency was attained by only 4 out of the 20 students, constituting 20% of the class. The class also showed significant improvement in overall skill proficiency. From the pre-assessment to the informal assessment, the percentage of students who scored proficient in key/signal words, problem skills, and solution skills increased from 75% to 85%, 30% to 75%, and 20% to 55%, respectively. Student 18 demonstrated growth from the pre-assessment to the informal assessment. On the pre-assessment, student 18 had an overall score of 50% and showed proficiency in only the key/signal words skill area. However, student 18 showed significant improvement on the informal assessment and demonstrated proficiency in all three skill areas. A student who did not demonstrate growth from the pre-assessment to the informal assessment is student 20. On both assessments, student 20 scored proficient on the key/signal words skills, but was not proficient on the problem and solution skills. Their performance did not indicate any growth or improvement of skills from the pre-assessment to the informal assessment. D1. My feedback to the whole class would include acknowledgment and positive reinforcement of the overall improvement in proficiency from the pre-assessment to the informal assessment. I would explain that the doubling of proficient students from 20% to 40% demonstrates dedication

and progress. I would then discuss the progress in the specific skill areas of key/signal words (75% to 85%), problems (30% to 75%), and solutions (20% to 55%). Though the class did show improvement in all three skill areas, our class goal would be to practice and improve our solution skills. My feedback to student 18 would include congratulating them on their significant growth from the pre-assessment to the informal assessment. I would acknowledge that along with maintaining proficiency in the key/signal words area, they also improved their problem-solving and solution skills and scored proficient in all three skill areas on the informal assessment. My feedback to student 20 would start by acknowledging their proficiency in key/signal words and congratulating them on maintaining proficiency in this area from the pre-assessment to the informal assessment. I would discuss how there was an opportunity for growth in the problem-solving and solution skills, as shown in the results of both assessments. I would encourage them to dedicate attention to these areas and offer additional resources and strategies that may help bridge the gap. Summative Assessment E1. Once more, the summative assessment highlighted a proficiency in the Key/Signal Words. In this area, 18 of the 20 students, or 90% of the class, demonstrated proficiency. This area consisted of four multiple-choice questions which received scores of 95%, 85%, 85%, and 90%, indicating that most students have mastered this learning area. E2. A problem area shown in the Summative Assessment is the question type of Constructed Response. There are a total of six constructed response questions, with three questions in the problem area and three in

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

the solution area. 60% of students answered the CR questions correctly in the problem area, while only 35% of students answered the CR questions correctly in the solution area. E3. One possible cause of nonproficiency in the problem-solving and solution areas could be the variety of questions and lack of exposure to these types of questions outside of assessments. For example, students seemed to struggle with constructed response questions possibly because they did not have enough practice with CR questions during the lesson. Another possible cause of nonproficiency could be that the Closing Procedure did not effectively review the problem-solving and solution learning areas. After the Independent Student Practice and informal assessment observations, the teacher should have reviewed the problem-solving and solution skills more in-depth to alleviate misunderstandings. F. The class as a whole showed substantial overall growth, improving the initial 20% proficiency on the pre-assessment to an 80% proficiency on the summative assessment. The summative assessment shows that an overwhelming majority of the class is now proficient in the learning material. A student who demonstrated growth from the pre-assessment to the summative assessment is student 2. This student is an English Learner and initially earned an overall score of 50% on the pre-assessment, struggling mostly with the problem-solving and solution areas. Student 2 went on to score 80% on the summative assessment, demonstrating a significant improvement and reaching proficiency. Student 10 did not demonstrate growth from the pre-assessment to the summative assessment. This student scored 50% on the pre-assessment and then scored 30% on the summative assessment. Their assessment

performance decreased, and their summative data showed a lack of understanding in all three skill areas. F1. I would provide the class with a huge congratulations on their improved overall proficiency from 20% on the pre-assessment to 80% on the summative assessment. This achievement reflects their hard work and collective dedication to understanding the learning material. The class improved in all three learning areas, increasing the proficiency rate from 75% to 90% in key/signal words, 30% to 65% in problem-solving, and 20% to 40% in solution skills. I would again reiterate that our focus moving forward would be to improve our skills in the solution area because there is still room for growth. I would shower student 2 with praise and highlight their exceptional growth from 50% on the pre-assessment to 80% on the summative assessment. This student improved their skills in all three skill areas, overcoming their initial struggles. To encourage continued growth, I would encourage them to review materials that reference solution skills and give them guidance on answering constructed response questions. I would acknowledge the effort that student 2 put forth and recognize that the learning material was a challenge for them. After discussing the decrease in performance from 50% on the pre-assessment to 30% on the summative assessment, I would ask the student for their input on what challenged them most with the learning material. After receiving their input, we would work together to design a plan to overcome these challenges and increase content understanding. G. I would adjust the Culminating or Closing Procedure/Activity to improve the success of collaborative learning. I would do this by using my informal

assessment observations to make sure there is at least one student with strong problem and solution skills in each group. I would also adjust the differentiated instruction to better support the English Learners, specifically with the constructed response questions. During the summative assessment, I would provide English learners with sentence starters or language frames to guide them in constructing their responses. G1. By ensuring there is one student in each group with strong problem- solving and solution skills, the learning experience becomes more collaborative and supportive. This adjustment allows for more effective peer learning, where students can share and reinforce their strengths and skills. The adjustment in differentiated instruction addresses language barriers and provides linguistic scaffolding during the summative assessment. By offering sentence starters or language frames, English Learners can more accurately and effectively express their thoughts.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version