Jennifer Owen

(In conjunction with teaching partner, Kendall Umetsu)

EDUC 450 Dr. Frederiksen
11/21/2014 Revision
DATA ANALYSIS
Pre-Analysis and Predictions:
Upon the beginning of the year, our 11th grade students took part of a district pre-assessment, in which
students received a 1-4 standards based grade in multiple areas, such as focus, organization,
development, reading and research, and content understanding. Based on those scores, teachers were
able to determine where students were struggling coming into 11th grade English and where some areas
for improvement could be found. The scores were almost entirely composed of 1s and 2s, with the
most significant problem area being FOCUS. Students struggled to maintain focus throughout the paper
in relation to the given prompt, easily getting off topic or never fully answering the question. We took a
selection of learners and examined their progress (only in FOCUS) over two additional assignments. The
students were chosen randomly, but included a selection of varying skill levels and learning styles based
on scores available to us. We wanted to determine through analyzing scores how students were
improving in regards to FOCUS. During the process of gathering data, we were able to make predictions
regarding our selected student subgroups prior to observing scores. The back of the classroom contains
several 504/IEP students as well as a group who is often distracted in conversation. When completing inclass activities, they tend to not get their work completed or it is rushed. Taking into consideration our
knowledge of these particular students, we predicted that they would struggle with FOCUS when it
came time to turn in their final essays. Two girls on the side of the room ask a great deal of questions of
the instructors and are often seeking feedback on their assignments, including how well their paper
topics are sufficient. It was because of their attention to detail and inquiry that we predicted they would
have slightly higher if not improved scores in regards to FOCUS.
The majority of our data to make predictions came from observations. Knowing our students and
observing them during a multitude of writing tasks allowed us to determine that FOCUS was a difficult
area for most students as well as to witness places where we see improvements. The data for analysis
was gathered from a comparison between the FOCUS scores of the district pre-assessment and the
students FOCUS score on their compare/contrast essays from the end of unit one as well as their scores
from the end of unit test. During our examination, we looked specifically at the learning target for
FOCUS: Students can address all aspects of prompt appropriately and maintain a strongly developed
focus while addressing additional demands with thoroughness and make a connection to the controlling
idea.
For the subgroups, indicated below, data was gathered by a questionnaire filled out by students as well
as a collection of unit exam scores.
Data Analysis and Discussion:
The data we collected came from several sources, including students most recent essay scores, their
unit tests scores, which included both a multiple-choice section as well as short answer, and the district
pre-assessment scores from the beginning of the school year. We selected 5 students from different
areas of the classroom who had scores from all desired data areas. These students have a variety of
learning needs and styles, and are placed in the front, sides, and back of the classroom. They were
selected based on those criteria as well as availability of necessary scores. The scores for these students
for each task in regards to FOCUS are as follows:

Four students scored a two on

FOCUS while one scored a one on
the District Pre-Assessment Essay.

On their compare/contrast essays in

our 4th period English 11 class, four
students scored a two and one student
scored a one. This essay came
approximately one month after the
district pre-assessments. This indicates
that there has not been any
improvement in that time in regards to
FOCUS, as the scores remained the
same.

The overall test grade for these five students

showed three students receiving a 90% or higher,
one student receiving a 70%-79% and one student
receiving a 60-69%. During multiple-choice testing,
two students struggled with determining the
correct answer. We used this score only as a
comparison to the short answer question that
accompanied the test in an attempt to determine
their FOCUS in response to the prompt and their
performance with class materials overall.

The short answer grades on the test show

that the three students who received and
A (15/15) and the two students who
received a B (12/15 and 13/15) were able
to create short, adequate responses to
questions with sufficient detail.

This tells us that the primary struggle is

with maintaining FOCUS over a longer
piece of writing.

From these scores, we are able to see how students attempt at FOCUS on the smaller scale has
improved through their tests scores. Their essay scores, however, indicate that their FOCUS has not
improved since the beginning of the year. Because the compare/contrast essays were graded using the
same assessment rubric for FOCUS as the Thompson School District Assessment Guidelines used at the
beginning of the year, the consistency of expectation allows us an unbiased view of FOCUS outcomes.
Students test scores, for the most part, show good work and understanding with the text, Arthur
Millers The Crucible. Three out of the five students scored a perfect 15/15 on the short answer
question, while the other two both respectively receiving solid scores of 12/15 and 13/15. The short
answer questions were not completely graded on FOCUS, but rather students ability to answer the
question accurately by showing an understanding of the text. These scores show us, though, that
students are not struggling with understanding and interpreting the text, but rather on longer essays
they struggle with staying on topic and fully answering the question. Students scores were as we
predicted; students sitting in the back corner of the room as a scored lower on all parts of the data we
collected (1s on FOCUS, C and D on the test and B on short answer), while students sitting in other parts
of the room (front and sides) scored higher (2s on FOCUS, As on the test and short answer).
This data shows us that students sitting in the back corner of the room may not just have trouble with
the FOCUS aspect in their essay, but also the class as whole. As noted earlier, however, several of these
students have IEPs or 504s, and all of them sit next to or in close proximity to each other. Often, it is
difficult to have these students stay focused on the lesson, not be disrespectful or distracting to other
students, and stay on task when given in-class work time. Through this analysis we can infer that
although the class as a whole struggles with the FOCUS component of their essays, students who have
chosen to sit in the back corner of the room struggle the most not only with their essays but other
graded assignments as well.
By moving students around and reorganizing the seating arrangements within the class, we could
determine if overall scores and overall grades improve in addition to FOCUS. After switching seats, we
could gauge test scores and interactions with textual materials to determine if the seating change has
aided struggling students in grasping concepts with lack of distractions.

Teaching Strategies:
Students continue to struggle with FOCUS, even two months after the district pre-assessment, as
indicated by the lack of improvement in component scores. While tools have been implemented, such
as nicely structured outline graphic organizers, the tools are ineffective when not introduced and
modeled properly. With this specific group of students, modeling is essential to their understanding of
new techniques. By giving their work purpose, students are able to determine how to use the tools
properly. One of the issues that we observed was that students filled out the graphic organizer with a
thesis, main body points, and pre-selected citation examples, but were unable to follow through on the
actual composition. This tells us that students need more attention paid to the writing process itself.
This includes self-assessment of drafts at various stages. In regards to modeling, we would go through
the process as a class and create an entire piece of writing together. This would illustrate the process as
well as the outcome. With the number of visual learners we have in class, it would be instrumental in
their success for them to see the process in full. Students could complete a compass points activity to
determine which part of the writing process they are struggling with the most. The compass points
groups could then complete activities that allow them to practice and engage with that stage of writing
and present their overall findings to the class. Students will be assessed on the FOCUS objective to
determine their progress with this area.
Another strategy that we would use would include introducing transitions. If students are able to make
smooth transitions to new paragraphs, they are more likely to stay focused on the topic. Learning the
tools of format writing such as thesis, are crucial to guiding a papers FOCUS. Because these students
struggle with composing from their outlines into body paragraphs, I would include transitions and topic
sentences. Each item that students are able to identify and examine for relevant content FOCUS, the
more likely students are to compose something that answers the prompt and compliments the
controlling idea as stated in the learning target. We would scaffold learning to track progress. Initially,
we would work as a class with sample paragraphs and build transitions to meet FOCUS objectives.
Students would then re-work their previous essays, focusing on revisions to their transitions. Students
will self-assess their FOCUS to see if it has improved with new transitions. Students would be given the
opportunity to revise their essays after adding smooth transitions to see if their FOCUS improves with
better transitions and organization of thoughts.
It would also be beneficial to incorporate individual conferences into the writing process. The score of
FOCUS is given as a whole, but each student is struggling in different areas. Some students have really
strong introductions and lose their focus in their body paragraphs or textual citations. Other students
have a clear FOCUS in the argument but are lacking in introduction and conclusion. Brief conferences
would allow feedback to be given to students before the final paper is due so students are able to work
on their weaker points while receiving individualized instruction. A majority of the students are able to
better articulate their thoughts and ideas when they are prompted with additional questions.
Sometimes that deeper inquiry is what allows them to determine how to properly state what they mean
as opposed to losing FOCUS or being redundant. These would take place during the writing and revision
processes. Their final draft of written work would be assessed to determine if FOCUS has improved.
Another strategy that would be helpful to students would be a stronger peer review and revision
process. Although the feedback from the last time we attempted to do a peer review was mostly
indifferent, there can still be great benefit to this process. By having other peers review your work, not
only does it hold the writer responsible for creating something that their peers can look at, but it also
forces the reviewer to read their peers essay in a critical way. This gives the writer a chance for
someone else to look over their work, but it also allows for the reviewer to reflect back on their own

work based off things they notice within their peers. As noted above, many students in our class are
visual learners and need structure to complete tasks, so doing a peer review as a class, allowing us to
model for them, would be beneficial in giving more structure to students thinking in the peer review
process.