You are on page 1of 3

Kristen Jackson Field Seminar 3/22/13 Artifact 5: Exit Ticket Round 1 This artifact will discuss the recent

implementation of exit tickets in my world history class. The use of exit ticket self-assessment is mirroring a technique I witnessed while cross-visiting at Olney Charter High School. This tactic encourages students to examine their days as well as assess if they were paying attention by asking if anything was interesting to them. For anything to be interesting, they have to go back and examine what they learned. Below is the listed data for the first round of exit tickets. The results compiled were not necessarily the best, but they were still helpful in affecting the direction I took the exit ticket slip (which I changed after collecting the first round of data) as well as giving me a glimpse into how students believe they perform each day. S1 (Aliyah) S2 (Natasha) 2 S3 (Aikeem) 2 2 0 S4 (Kemonnie) 2 2 0 S5 (Ronita) 2 2 0 S6 (Radgive) 0 0 0

Ranked 2 Behavior Ranked 2 2 Effort Explained 1 1 Behavior Ranking Explained 2 1 Effort Ranking Wrote 2 1 (mostly something none or they found nothing) interesting Key None: 0, Some: 1, All: 2

As seen above, the majority of students did not explain their answers. I did not even realize this was something I would have wanted until I collected the first round of exit tickets, examined them, and realized only a few students explained their answers. The students who explained their answers are also the students most likely to complete their work. For example, student 1 states that her effort on January 29 was a 6 because [she] was talking a little. This shows that the student is giving herself a lower score given her amount of talking during class. Thus, she is directly using self-assessment to take ownership over her effort in class, which she ranks lower because she was talking in class. She further states that she found nothing interesting that day, which could be a reflection several unknown factors.

However, the majority of students did not rank their behavior or effort, which does not nullify the data, but instead gave me direction for my new questions. Many students gave themselves consistent tens, as can be seen to the right. I cannot recall each specific student, however I take

off participation points every time I have to address a student, and on the two days in question, I did not take off any points from her. Although she did not explain her ranks, she seems to generally assess herself correctly in that her behavior and effort did not warrant losing any points during class, and thus she ranked herself a 10. In the example below, student 2 gives herself a 7 for behavior because she talked to much and gives herself an 8 because she finished her map. On this specific day, however, I took off 5 points during the entire class period for her behavior. Although I do not code what I take points off for, its clear that shes attempting to reflect her loss of points in her self-designated score.

Fundamentally, the exit tickets were good for one thing: encouraging students to assess themselves daily. Reflection is not a piece of my inquiry, but asking them to justify their scores would at least get them to explain why they gave a score and thus examine what happened to either raise or lower their score. In examining the relevance of the surveys, I have realized that students are assessing themselves, but I have to be specific in asking my questions. During the survey, I ask them to rank and explain why. This gives me a chance to evaluate why they think they deserved that score, and if it aligns with how I perceive their actions.

You might also like