Data+Collection

= __Data Collection__ =

During the completion of the Action Research in Teaching course, we collected various types of data samples to evaluate learning as a result of the different types of assessments. Videos of lessons, student-created artifacts, and graded assessments were all forms of evidence that contributed to the data collection for the course.

Intervention 1 ([|intervention1.wmv]) was my first attempt at inquiry-based learning for the students. In the video clip, you will see the introduction to the lesson on light and sound. The students discuss the flame test at the front of the classroom, which begins a discussion about why the light looks different color. This was an introduction to a well developed inquiry lab ([|inquiryplanwaves.doc]). The lab was used to address misconceptions brought up by the diagnostic assessment (in this case, responsive journaling) that began the lesson. After hearing student responses to the diagnostic assessment prompt, I realized that the students had a very primitive understanding of the nature of light and sound waves. I think the lab addressed many of these misconceptions, and the students seemed far better educated at the end of the lesson. Additionally, on future types of assessments, students performed better on the nature of light and sound waves than they had in previous semesters.

Intervention 2 ([|intervention2.wmv]) came a few weeks later during the atmosphere unit. The video file includes another diagnostic assessment, in which the students tell me what they think they will learn about during meteorology, and the beginning of the lab for the unit. The students were required before the lab to research, using their books, the different types of heat transfer, then explain them to me in "plain English." The students began their lesson with a foldable explaining the layers of the atmosphere, then an inquiry lab on heat transfer ([|HEAT TRANSFER LAB.doc]). The goal of Intervention 2 was to develop a well thought out summative assessment ([|summativeassessment.doc]) //before// formal instruction using two test grids ([|testgrids.doc]). While many of the students complained about having a new type of test at first, it was interesting to me to find that many students performed better on the performance and constructed response items, especially those identified with an IEP or as ESL/ELL. The artifact collected is from Katrina*, an ELL student in my Earth Science class who continually performs poorly on standards-based, multiple choice tests. This was one of her best assessments all year. Developing the assessment, at first, seemed like a daunting task. However, once I realized how to use the test grids, I found that creating my test was far easier than I had originally anticipated. Additionally, I was very excited to see that so many students responded positively to the summative assessments. Summative assessment for Katrina (pgs 1 - 3) [|i2a.jpg], [|i2b.jpg], [|i2c.jpg]

Intervention 3 ([|intervention3.wmv]) employed formative assessment strategies to engage students in a new way of learning. The video shows the students beginning to work on their concept maps, which were very structured and had specific directions that included categorizing, coloring, and looking up definitions in the book. The lesson came during the oceanography unit, and the formative assessment used was a concept map ([|mapkey.doc]). The concept map (with //Concepts (//[|concepts.doc]//), Map// ([|map.doc]) and //Directions// ([|directions.doc]), linked here) helped students like Stephen*, an IEP identified student with a reading comprehension problem, excel in learning and remembering the ocean floor features (here is a copy of Stephen's concept map [|conceptmapi3.JPG]). The subsequent discussion about the features found on the ocean floor was more in depth, with students asking questions that were pertinent and probing, than most discussions we had had all year. The lecture notes were shorter, as they were preceded by the concept map and were followed by a drawing of the ocean floor features ([|drawingi3.JPG]) to further solidify understanding.

Intervention 4 ([|intervention4.wmv]) was preceded by a learning progressions framework ([|Rocks and Minerals.cmap.pdf]) that described where the lesson fit in to greater concepts in Earth Science. The video shows the students engaging in both a responsive journaling and subsequent discussion, and beginning to work on their concept maps. The lesson was at the very beginning of Geology, specifically Minerals and Geochemistry. The students were given journaling prompts as a diagnostic assessment, a concept map ([|Mineral Groups.cmap.pdf]) as a formative assessment on the different mineral groups (which they worked on in groups and as a whole class), a mineral identification lab ([|Mineral Identification.doc]), and a summative assessment ([|summative.doc]) which was used as a quiz. The summative assessment was also developed using test grids ([|testgrids4.doc]). The artifact from this section includes the results of the summative assessment by a student named Krystal* in my Earth Science class who performed extraordinarily well. Summative assessment for Krystal (pgs 1 - 4) [|MH1.jpg], [|MH2.jpg], [|MH3.jpg], [|MH4.jpg]


 * Note: Aliases have been used for all students in this case study.

Home