Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tate J. Hedtke
Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subject they are teaching.
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
disciplines she or he teachers and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
Knowledge. The teacher understands how students conceptual frameworks and their
Dispositions. The teacher realizes that subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of
facts but is complex and ever- evolving. He seeks to keep abreast of new ideas and
understandings in the field. The teacher has enthusiasm for the discipline he teachers and sees
Performances. The teacher can evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for
their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness in representing particular ideas and concepts.
The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and provides
knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind- and knows how to use instructional
strategies that promote student learning for a wide range of student abilities.
Dispositions. The teacher is disposed to use students strengths as a basis for growth, and
design instruction that meets learners current needs in each domain (cognitive, social, emotional,
moral, and physical) and that leads to the next level of development.
Danielson Domains
Domain 3: Instruction
Pre-assessments
For Wisconsin Teaching Standards (WTS) 1 and 2, I have chosen to focus on improving
assessments. I teach freshmen level physical science in the pull-out setting at Medford Area
Senior High. This class is taught an alternative curriculum which is aligned with regular
education curriculum and standards at our school, but is taught at a slower pace and less in-
depth. My classroom is made up of twelve freshmen and one sophomore with varying
disabilities. Eight of my students have a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) which greatly
affects their ability to participate in the general education curriculum. One student with an SLD
is also an English Language Learner (ELL). Two students are in a pull-out science class due to
their extreme Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) which allows them special
education services under the term Other Health Impairment (OHI). One student has an
Emotional Behavioral Disability (ED) and the last has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). All
students have reading and math levels that are far below age and grade level expectations.
Recently in my high school and community, there has been discussion about how educators can
bridge the achievement gap between regular and special education students, mainly in the area of
state mandated standardized assessments. It is because of this initiative and community wide
discussion that I have decided to focus my student learning objectives on the area of improving
the scores of my special education students on assessment questions that require them to interpret
data.
There are two knowledge descriptors I have chosen to direct my research and
implementation of best teaching practices to help improve assessment scores. The first is that
WTS 1 and 2 page 5 of 27
The teacher understands how students conceptual frameworks and their misconceptions for an
area of knowledge can influence their learning. Special education students often times have
missed instruction throughout their middle school years due to low math and reading abilities
which requires them to have intense intervention courses. These reading and math interventions
often take the place of science and social studies classes. When students reach ninth grade, some
have missed so much instruction their skills are inferior to their peers in rudimentary scientific
abilities such as reading a simple chart or graph. A successful teacher at the high school level
needs to know how to teach basic skills, while still achieving proper grade level curriculum and
standards.
The disposition factor for this standard is also important to note, as all too often in special
education classes we are affronted with the age old question by students: When are we ever
going to need to know this? The disposition factor for my knowledge descriptor for WTS 1
states as follows: The teacher realizes that subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of facts
but is complex and ever- evolving. He seeks to keep abreast of new ideas and understandings in
the field. The teacher has enthusiasm for the discipline he teachers and sees connections to
everyday life. One of my goals is to impress upon students the importance of being able to
understand, interpret, and analyze graphically depicted data not only to succeed in high school,
but in order to succeed in higher education, future jobs, and healthy living.
The knowledge descriptor chosen to address WTS 2 is the following: The teacher
understands how learning occurs- how students construct knowledge, acquire skills, and develop
habits of mind- and knows how to use instructional strategies that promote student learning for a
wide range of student abilities. I feel that this knowledge descriptor is the basis for the need of
special education staff and exclusionary instruction. It is imperative that I am able to incorporate
WTS 1 and 2 page 6 of 27
differentiated instruction in order to meet the needs of my students with varying learning
abilities. Since the beginning of the school year I feel that I have been teaching the average
students in my course very well, but have been leaving the students with lesser ability behind,
while not challenging the more gifted students in my classroom appropriately. I hope to
incorporate a variety of strategies that can stimulate academic skill growth in students of all
abilities.
The performance descriptor I have chosen to focus on from WTS 1 is will help guide my
curriculum choices, and also remind me what I need to change when instructional goals are not
met as planed: The teacher can evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for their
an educator, one must be able to reflect on their practices daily and have to humility to admit
when certain outcomes are not met, but also to realize why his students were not able to achieve
Vertical standards are addressed in the performance descriptor from WTS 2 I have chosen
which forces an instructor to address the individual learners current needs in each and that
leads to the next level of development. No two students in my group have identical disabilities
and struggles, or interests, and therefore, I will have to incorporate some individualized learning
strategies in order to pique the interests of some reluctant learners and those with academic
challenges.
WTS 1 and 2 page 7 of 27
Learning Objective(s)
I teach one section of physical science filled with twelve freshmen and one sophomore in
the pull-out setting for special education students. One of the students is on the Dynamic
Learning Maps assessment which allows him to learn from an augmented curriculum based upon
the extended grade band standards, while the remaining eleven students will all take the ACT as
juniors in high school. This course meets four times a week; three meetings are 43 minutes long
Our district has used the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) the past four years,
and although my class is taught in the pull out setting, it is expected that my curriculum is
properly aligned with these standards. The NGSS has aligned many of their standards and
student outcomes with the ACT college readiness test in order to help assist individuals gain the
skills they need in order to be successful in college stating that: sixty percent of U.S. jobs are
predicted to require some form of postsecondary education (NGSS, 2013). The NGSS release
also goes on to compares education statistics between the United States and other countries
showing that we are continually lagging, as well as discusses the implications of education and
future earnings of an individual. Taking this into consideration, I have decided to use the ACT
College and Career Readiness Standards (CRS) for science to assess my students (ACT, 2014) in
order to assess the abilities of my students and the improvement of their interpretation of data
skills.
The students entering my freshmen pull out physical science class have an array of skills,
so I decided to test them at the lowest Interpretation Of Data (IOD) levels, 200, which states the
Students who are able to perform these tasks are predicted to have an ACT score of 13-15, which
falls on the low end of the spectrum for college and career readiness skills as the benchmark
score is 23 (ACT, 2015). Students at the freshmen level should be able to perform at least an 18
to be considered on pace with their classmates and in order to score proficient when they are
interpretation of data skills as shown in Appendix A showed that my students were able to
answer 61.8 percent of questions correctly on an eleven question assignment looking at some
basic charts and graphs. Two students were determined to be proficient while answering 9 out of
skills with the lowest performers answering 3 out of 11 questions correctly (27.3%). No students
were completely unable to perform the tasks, nor were any students able to complete a perfect
learning my students learning environment show that their skills are not commensurate with their
peers and need to be intensively focused upon. My research will focus on implementing
techniques to enhance students IOD skills in order to help ensure they are more properly
prepared for college, in order to allow for the best opportunities after high school. The essential
question I will focus on is: How does intensive instruction of IOD skills affect the performance
Research Summary
Now more than ever, the importance of a students ability to understand and accurately
interpret graphical data is one of the foundations of any science education. This is obvious to
any science educator as: graph interpretation and construction, and the recognition of variables
displayed by these graphs are the basic skills that form the prerequisite to any meaningful
understanding of concepts in science (Tairab & Khalaf Al-Naqbi 2004). Visual data surrounds
children. Information about traditional things such as weather patterns and the stock market are
displayed visually, but so too are the benefits and drawbacks of health-related activities, suicide,
and depression, and the costs of social media usage. Thus, the importance of skills and
interpretation of data (IOD) skills taught in the science classroom actually transcend the
discipline altogether. That information presented to graduates, college students, and workers is
being graphically, but have students been taught the skills needed to interpret the data? (Tairab
& Khalaf Al-Naqbi 2004). The ACT test is a graduation requirement in the state of Wisconsin
covering five different subjects: English, math, science, reading and writing. The science portion
of this test contains five different sections, four of which according to the ACT sample test
provided by their website contains questions requiring one to interpret and read graphically
represented information (ACT, 2017). With the emphasis placed upon standardized tests in the
current climate of education in the United States today, and the increasing occurrence of
graphical information being presented to youth it has grown more important for educators to
research and implement effective interpretation of data and graphical information skills.
Tairab and Khalaf Al-Naqbi performed a study in 2004 seeking to better understand how
students in 10th grade science classes learned from scientific graphs. They were primarily
concerned with students abilities to interpret graphical information, their ability to represent
WTS 1 and 2 page 10 of 27
information graphically, and factors that could impede the process of interpretation and ability
related strategies that could be used to assist students (p.127). Many factors were taken into
consideration while formulating their study, initially the question was asked if students viewed
graphics as symbolic representations of data at all or if they are were simply considered pictures,
meaning students need to be taught the difference between data and pictures. The study focused
on two general tasks, interpretation data as well as creating a general construction of what the
data means. Students performed over all much better with the interpretation of data tasks where
a student was required to read a single piece of information from graphically displayed
information, but students lacked the ability to construct an understanding of the relationships
shown between the information displayed, or the variables (p.130). Lacking an understanding of
an independent and dependent variable prohibited the students from understanding how one
variable was responsible for changing the other, the essence of typical graphics such as line
graphs. As Tairab and Khalaf Al-Naqbi (2004) concluded in their research they realized that
students are able to easily take single pieces of information from charts and graphs and they are
without intense instruction by their educators due to lack of necessary cognitive level.
Another area of difficulty in the United States is ensuring students with disabilities
receive the same level of instruction as those without disabilities. Jimenez, Lo, and Saunders
(2014) focused their research on scripted lessons and their effects on student growth in students
understanding of science offers students the ability to question their own lives and formulate
thinking to make informed decisions (Jimenez et al., 2014). While this research did not focus
solely on interpretation of data skills it did focus on the actual structure of lessons and the
WTS 1 and 2 page 11 of 27
benefits of scripted lessons for those who with an intellectual disability (ID) and autism. The
lessons consisted of intense one-on-one instruction in the pull out special education setting and
included guided notes for students, such as fill in the blank type note taking, and frequent use of
hands-on and explorative approach to science. Their research was quite conclusive showing
marked gains on science quizzes even among the most disabled students in a population. The
study shows quite conclusively that scripted lessons, which are available at all levels of science,
including high-school level where IOD skills are stressed the most, produce gains in students and
therefore can be an effective way to teach the higher level thought type skills require for student
interesting light onto the fact that even at the college level, few students enter majors with the
skills needed to be successful in the reading and creation of visual data (Maltese, Harsh &
Svetina 2015). Maltese et al. (2015) noted that three problems arise while interpreting data:
Understanding this should excite science educators due to the fact that the first two of the three
issues plaguing students in the area of IOD can be relatively easily taught to students. The
researchers in this setting decided to look at college aged students and split them into two
categories: students majoring in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), and
non-STEM students. Students were also split into their corresponding classes as to compare the
abilities of freshmen through PHD level individuals. The thought of the division between the
two types of students based on major would hopefully yield results showing that STEM students
would have higher scores than their counterparts on the assessments of IOD skills. Much to the
WTS 1 and 2 page 12 of 27
surprise of the researchers, there was a moderate correlation between the amount of STEM
coursework completed by participants and their performance, but overall we were surprised that
this relationship was not more strongly positive (Maltese et al., 2015). The results showed that
students who had more education, and in some cases completed six times as many STEM classes
scored relatively similar scores regarding their IOD skills. The conclusion from Maltese et al.,
pointed that:
Because of this, we believe that if any instructors have the educational goals to help
students advance their data visualization skills or if they will use a specific type of graph
repeatedly in class, then it is likely worth it to devote time in class to teaching students
The implications of this support the earlier findings of Jimenez et al., and Tairab and Khalaf Al-
Naqbi in that all instructors need to make it a point to intensively instruct students how to read,
create, and interpret graphical representations of data on a frequent basis if students are to gain,
All research noted until this point has focused on the importance and implications of
students abilities to interpret data and graphically represented information. In order to best
address these needs however, Josefina Arce, George M. Bodner and Kelly Hutchinson in
association with Purdue University (2014) sought to explore some of the best practices,
particularly the attitudes of teachers towards implementing strategies in the classroom to address
these skills.
Arce et al. (2014) focused on the importance of the attitude of a teacher in a science
classroom. The two types of teachers in the study were organized into two categories, those
possessing the constructivist, and the traditional mindset. The traditional teacher focuses on
WTS 1 and 2 page 13 of 27
concrete facts, directly delivered by a teacher and received by the student. There is little
opportunity for personalized learning in this setting, and little ability for these teachers to reach a
student that has a constructivist learning style, meaning hands on, exploratory and inquisitive.
The traditional teachers in this study were also shockingly stubborn, and often times incorrect
when teaching information that was unfamiliar to them. Traditional teachers were less likely to
be aware of errors in their approach to unfamiliar problems. The tended to give what they felt
was the correct answer and seldom pondered out-loud whether they were right (p.92). These
teachers are not going to have the abilities or the desire to teach students with learning
disabilities the skills necessary to interpret and use graphically represented information.
Opposite the traditional teacher, Arce et al. (2014) described the constructivist individual
as well. This educators approach to instruction requires a shift from someone who teaches, to
someone who facilitates learning (p.86). These individuals create student centered classrooms
and are less concerned with possessing and being able to directly relay the correct answer to a
question rather than being able to facilitate students desires to find them.
Much of this study resulted strictly subjective information obtained through observation
and interviews and did not include data based on student learning. Instead, data was gathered on
instructor knowledge of the subjects they were teaching, and the content teachers were expected
to deliver to students. The results show overwhelmingly that although neither group of
individuals were entirely proficient on the units and skills they were expected to teach, the
constructivist teacher was much more open-minded, and less arrogant about their knowledge and
Another difficulty with students regarding data and graphs is how an instructor assess
student learning. Unless an educator completes assessments regularly, combining formal as well
WTS 1 and 2 page 14 of 27
as informal assessments how can one know if students are meeting learning objectives? In 2006,
Maria Arcelia Ruiz-Primo and Erin Marie Furtak couple the importance of inquiry based science
education with frequent informal formative assessment (P.206). If students are taught science in
the context of inquiry, they will know what they know, how they know it, and why they believe
it (p.206). This stand point on instruction agrees with the findings by Jimenez et al., as well as
Arce et al., that hands on inquiry is the most effective way to not only teach science content, but
Ruiz-Primo and Furtak explore primarily the impacts of informal formative assessments
on student learning, which yielded obvious results, and ones that have important implications for
students with disabilities. Their study compared four teachers and their use of informal
assessments, typically held in the context of casual conversation with students regarding the
learning objectives of different science based units. Four teachers held pre-tests of their
students knowledge on a topic, taught a unit, and then held a post test. What was observed by
the researchers however was how many informal conversations were had between teacher and
their students. The teacher whose students had the highest performance on our tests was the
teacher who held the most discussions, asked the most concept-eliciting questions and employed
the greatest diversity of strategies that used information she had gained about student
understanding (p.231). Although informal assessments cannot replace formal assessments and
teach all the skills needed by a 21st century student, this study has shown that they can be not
only a wonderful way of gauging student learning, but also facilitating the inquisitiveness needed
by students in the science classroom. Also, informal assessments can expose students with
disabilities to assessment questions more often that may have memory retention issues, and help
These vastly different pieces of research create a web of how to best tackle the issue of
how to best teach interpretation of data and graphics in the science classroom. It truly is a
holistic approach that begins with an educators mentality, the design of instruction and finally
how the assessments are completed. Graphing and data analysis skills are not standalone
abilities that can be taught at one grade level and be expected to be retained for the remainder of
a students education. These skills need to be properly taught, effectively integrated into an
intensive inquiry based science curriculum, and assessed often and informally to check for
Research Implications
question: how do I effectively teach interpretation of data and graphical information skills? Prior
to this research, I operated under the assumption that students entered high school with a basic
understanding of how to read data and interpret graphs, which was proven false with the Maltese
et al., research showing that even college level and post graduate students need reminders when
looking at graphs.
Although I did not discover any new strategies on how to directly instruct the skills such
as graphing and reading data, the fact that all educational research in the science content area
focuses on hands on instruction and inquiry based learning shows that I need to have students
frequently make graphs and read them as part of our daily curriculum. These skills need to be
in classes in an inquisitive way. This is different for many special education students that have
focused on scripted lessons in the past and that have not been allowed or willing to be creative in
WTS 1 and 2 page 16 of 27
the classroom. Coupled with this, students need to have hands on learning, and be expected to
collect data, create physical representations of data, and then be engaged in discussions of the
data informally.
1. Design personalized learning activities that meet expectations of the Next Generation Science
taught.
3. Have students gather data, and create graphic representations of that data.
4. Conduct formal summative assessments of student learning.
1. Standardized goal: Next Generation Science Standard Practice Physical Science 3-3
Energy: Design, build, and refine a device that works within given constraints to convert
2. Targeted learning objective: The following are the specific ACT skills goals I hope to
have my students master by the end of their freshmen year. (note: IOD stands for
Interpretation of Data)
IOD 201. Select one piece of data from a simple data presentation (e.g., a simple food
web diagram)
IOD 202. Identify basic features of a table, graph, or diagram (e.g., units of measurement)
IOD 203. Find basic information in text that describes a simple data presentation
1. Task Students are proficient in the 200 level interpretation of data skills.
WTS 1 and 2 page 17 of 27
graph or chart.
the unit test based on the data they have gathered and collected.
Post-assessments
The targeted student learning objective was for students with varying disabilities to
achieve proficiency in interpretation of data skills while looking at scientific data. The
instruction I provided produced consistent gains throughout the process, but through several
design errors resulted in final summative assessment data that did not yield the desire results
(Artifact A).
My students over the course of the first semester of their freshmen level physical science
class made significant gains relating to their abilities to read charts and graphs, as well as
effectively gather data and then produce graphic representations. Students were expected to
view, make, and interpret graphs throughout every unit this semester, always using data that
pertained to the curriculum being taught. At other times, I introduced charts and graphs that did
WTS 1 and 2 page 18 of 27
not pertain to the topics at hand or that were presented in a unique way to stretch student learning
and expose them to additional representations of data that time may not have allowed us to
otherwise view.
I began my instruction with an introductory quiz looking at three different types of visual
representations of data, a simple line graph, bar graph, and pie chart. No student achieved
perfection and only two students performing at the proficient level (Artifacts B, C & D). Much
like it was described in the research articles I read, several students had difficulties understanding
what the questions were asking them and had little to no understanding what the visual
representations portrayed.
I followed this pre-assessment with a formal lesson on creating graphs. This was an
intensive lesson for the students which was riddled with difficulties stemming from the students
various areas of disabilities. Several students had difficulties understanding the steps to make a
scale on the graph, or even the need for an accurate scale. Students also had issues
understanding where to put the dependent, and independent variables and to keep that consistent
I conducted several informal as well as formal assessments throughout the course of the
semester on all the various topics covered in the course. Things culminated with an
individualized hand on project where students were required to build their own mousetrap cars,
and gather race data. This was a very difficult process for many of the students due to lack of
technical skills, fine motor abilities, and patients in general. Seeing as how all students worked
at different levels it was quite difficult to ensure all students were accurately following the
directions and properly building their race car. Come race day, one students mouse trap car was
incomplete due to absences, others had incorrectly assembled their cars and had glued axles stiff
WTS 1 and 2 page 19 of 27
or broken other essential pieces. Despite all the difficulties, ten of the thirteen students could
collect data on a collaborative spreadsheet, and then produce a graph of their data using Google
There are several reasons I feel students did not achieve as I had hoped on the final
assessment of this research process. First, students had only completed assessments up until this
point using paper and pencil tests. The final assessment students completed online using the
Google Forms assessment tool which was new for the individuals. Students were expected to
switch between tabs on their web browser between the quiz, and their graphs rather than having a
tangible test in front of them. Also, the data students used in the final assessment was more
difficult then what they had seen up until this point, where they were required to look at both
The targeted objective for my students was for all individuals to achieve proficiency in
the ACT skills of interpretation of data. Students were considered to be proficient if they were
able to score an 80% on assessments which our district uses as a baseline to introduce the more
advanced level of ACT IOD skills. The goal is for all students to score a 23 on the ACT test,
which requires them to master 400 level IOD skills. Our district focuses on 200 level skills at
with freshmen, increasing as students advance in grade levels or meet minimum proficiency
requirements. Referring to artifact A, only 2/13 students were proficient on the baseline
assessment, and only 2/13 students were proficient on the final summative assessment.
However, if one looks to the three mid review assessments performed, it can be noted that
on these three assessments, 6/12, 5/12, and finally 9/12 students achieved proficiency. This
deviation in achievement could be related to the difficulty of the topic, or the format of
WTS 1 and 2 page 20 of 27
assessment. There was no standard set of assessments used for this research, which of course
was a mistake in hindsight. Assessment questions and the graphs used on tests were all created
to a level I felt was consistent, but there could of course been variations in the difficulties of data.
Also, the methods in which students completed the assessments changed over time as well.
Towards the beginning of the school year, I read the assessments to my students in order to
accommodate some of their disabilities. Over time, I gradually released that responsibility onto
the students and instead would only answer questions when they arose for a student.
class helped build confidence in my students with disabilities. Students have become more
comfortable with charts and data, and their general dislike of these activities has decreased over
time. It has never been a secret that these types of skills are difficult for those with disabilities to
grasp, and although the final assessment data does not necessarily support my view of success,
there were many objective gains made by my students. I feel my ability to integrate the IOD
skills in lessons has improved, which is something that will follow us for the rest of the school
year and translate into the other science classes I teach as well.
How does intensive instruction of IOD skills affect the performance of disabled freshmen
and their college readiness skills? I feel my research has shown that intensive instruction of IOD
skills coupled with a hand on approach to science curriculum, as well as data collection and
graphic creation is extremely beneficial for students with disabilities. Although my students may
not have made the desired gains, any progress for students with disabilities can be viewed as
good progress. I feel that if I continue my approach with students I will give my students a much
WTS 1 and 2 page 21 of 27
more likely chance at being successful on the science portion of the ACT and other standardized
1. Several students made significant gains. All research conducted throughout this
process has supported that the only way to increase these abilities in students is to practice it
from all facets, and students have become more comfortable with the gathering, creating, and
2. Students seemed to be much more comfortable with non-science examples and scored
better on these types of assessments. I could use these to reinforce skills they already have, and
1. The students with the most severe disabilities made either little growth, or inconsistent
growth throughout the process. Students with intellectual disabilities or on the autism spectrum
typically have some sort of gap in their knowledge and cognitive abilities which was apparent
2. Throughout the process, students consistently lacked the ability to make coherent
graphs by hand. Students could collaborate as a group at the end and use the Google Forms
service to make graphs of their final project mouse trap race data, but struggled with nearly every
other opportunity. I need to integrate more simple tasks collecting and displaying data to build
My Next Steps
WTS 1 and 2 page 22 of 27
1. All research has proposed that the key to fluency with IOD skills revolves around
practice. I need to continue to find interesting, and fun ways to integrate data collection and
graphing skills.
2. I need to make sure I find a way to integrate IOD skills with every unit taught
3. For students who have reached proficiency at the 200 level of IOD skills, I need to
References
ACT (http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation/science-
practice-test-questions.html?page=0&chapter=0)
Arce, J., Bodner, G.M., Hutchinson, K., (2014). A study of the impact of inquiry-based
Jimenez, B. A., Lo, Y., & Saunders, A.C. (2014). The additive effects of scripted lessons plus
guided notes on science quiz scores of students with intellectual disabilities and autism.
Maltese, A. V., Harsh, J. A., & Sventina, D. (2015). Data visualization literacy: investigating
Teaching, 45(1).
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Furtak E.M., (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry:
Tairab, H. H., & Khalaf Al-Naqbi, A.K. (2004). How do secondary science students interpret and
The following artifact shows student performance on all data gathered throughout the
experiment. Assessment data is averaged at the bottom of the chart above the number of
proficient and non-proficient students for each assessment. As you can see, throughout the first
four assessments scores generally increased. The final assessment data does not show an overall
increase of the students; however, the researcher would argue that this is not an accurate
reflection of student abilities and growth but rather mistakes of the research facilitator.
WTS 1 and 2 page 25 of 27
The high-level example shows a student who answered all questions, and only two of
those were incorrect. The test was completed quickly and confidently with no assistance or
questions read to the student.
The mid-level example was completed with four incomplete answers. All incomplete
answers were missed on the same graph and could perhaps show a single gap in knowledge
rather than an overall lack of understanding or abilities on interpreting graphs.
WTS 1 and 2 page 26 of 27
This low level example from the baseline data was completed by a student who had an
almost complete lack of understanding of charts and graphs. They only scored three correct
answers out of eleven even after spending more time on the assessment than any other student.
Artifact E
A collaborative document showing student collected data, and a line graph comparing the
speeds of students mouse trap cars.
WTS 1 and 2 page 27 of 27
Artifact F
A collaborative document showing student collected data, and a line graph comparing the
speeds of students mouse trap cars.