Josh Rankin

Dr. Varano

Mr. Ryan Anderson

Spring 2016

4th grade

Authentic Assessment
Target (Mostly 5s)
Number of
Students
% of students

Unacceptable
(Mostly 1s)
0/28

Total

15/28

Acceptable
(Mostly 3s)
13/28

54%

46%

0%

100%

28

Description of Assessment
The students were to record results of the inquiry as they completed the inquiry, explain
what they thought was happening, and reflect on their learning after the inquiry. The students
would record all of this information into their science notebooks for each inquiry. After each
inquiry the teacher would collect the notebooks and give small feedback for the students to
correct and add into the notebook. The assessment would check for the students correct use of
recording strategies, thinking further about what they had seen during the inquiry, and trying to
think further into how they will see circuits and electricity around them.
The rubric (see separate page) was on a scale to five with three separate levels. The
highest level, worth five points, was the exceptional level where students did all of the work
given to them for every single inquiry, with thoughtful answers. The next level was worth three
points which students would receive for minor inconsistencies in their answers or in their
response to every inquiry. The final level was worth one point and students would have to be
very inconsistent or lacking data, explanation ideas, and reflections to earn the score. Each
category would be multiplied by three to make the rubric worth a total of 45 points. Of the
twenty-eight students fifteen earned target and thirteen earned acceptable with zero earning
unacceptable. The fifteen students made up fifty-four percent of the class and the thirteen made
up forty-six percent.
All of the students were able to record and keep track of their data throughout the
inquiries. Each inquiry required some sort of data recording which ranged from tables, to
diagrams, or predictions and corrections. Most of the class also showed the ability to think of
reasons that might have caused the inquiries to go the way they do or explain their thinking when
trying a different idea when doing the inquiry. Each student was given the chance to think of how
to do something their own way and explain what they did and why it did or did not work. Finally,
some of the students were able to reflect on what learning about the circuits for that day meant to
them. Those who did thought about how they see circuits at home or even just how they will
look at them the for the next inquiry.

The biggest weakness for the students was their ability to reflect on what the inquiry
meant to their learning whether it be simply for the next lesson or what it meant in a bigger
picture such as how they view electricity when they look at things around them. They did not
think about how the circuits work in their lives or how the inquiry they did is building off of the
last inquiry or will build onto the next. Some students also did not always provide sufficient
explanations of what they did when they were testing out the kits. A group of students would
only write the data and a brief explanation without actually writing how they worked or did not
write an explanation at all. Data collection and recording was not a weakness and every student
had received a five for data collection.
Some of the struggle is a result of a limited time space for the subject which required
doing some work from a previous day but the students were given ample time to catch up and
work with a table mate to help fill in the missing pieces. Students also struggled with reflecting
on the inquiry due to some of the transitional times where students were given time to write but
would run out of time or were not on task, which needs to be corrected by the teacher.
Weaknesses also resulted from an incomplete understanding of the process due to some of the
different approaches students took without being able to fully explain what they did. Some of the
explanation weaknesses also resulted from students repeating the results in writing rather than
trying to think of what was happening based on what they learned earlier in the lesson or unit.
Remediation Plan
Since none of the students were in the unacceptable category there is not a need for direct
remediation. In later units the teacher will provide more time that includes direct instruction for
the more complicated concepts that will help students be able to explain what they did. The
teacher will also provide a better model of what an explanation and reflection should look like
before each lesson so that students will be able to see what a target entry should look like and
then complete it with their own data, ideas, and reflections. Improved transitions and more strict
time management will facilitate the students focus and direction while also allowing the teacher
to allow students time to write the full target entry without having to carry over into the next day.
Finally, the teacher will structure the inquiry to be more guided so that students are not exploring
concepts that are too advanced or will draw focus away from what the inquiry is truly about.